Releasing caught pests?

[zig zag wanderer 0]

How can you release into a rabbit clearance zone without defying the Pests Act?

[Guest ferret feller]

can you release them in open land and let your dogs chase them a feller told me that it was baiting and he would call the arspca on me if i did it?

[Matt 160]

How can you release into a rabbit clearance zone without defying the Pests Act?

 

As Chris Jones has already pointed out, the fact that the whole of England and Wales is a rabbit clearance zone just means that occupiers have a legal duty to control rabbits to prevent them damaging neighbouring property - NOT that you cannot release healthy rabbits.

 

The act was brought in to force the railways (amongst others) to control rabbits living on their land, and thereby protect our precious food.

 

If anyone can show us a law which specifically prohibits the release of healthy rabbits I will be very surprised. Apart from anything else, until quite recently, wild rabbits have been 'cultivated' in enclosed warrens to provide meat and fur. To outlaw the release of rabbits would have made that impossible.

[zig zag wanderer 0]

Ok, is it legal to release a rat?

[Matt 160]

can you release them in open land and let your dogs chase them a feller told me that it was baiting and he would call the arspca on me if i did it?

He was right. You would commit an offence of causing 'unnecessary suffering' under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, and also the Protection of Mammals Act 1996.

[Matt 160]

Ok, is it legal to release a rat?

Legal, but immoral.

 

Also, not very relevant, as the original question related to rabbits.

[zig zag wanderer 0]

As I see it The Pests Act and the PDP act are almost identical, just different pests. So is it immoral to release a rabbit?

[Matt 160]

As I see it The Pests Act and the PDP act are almost identical, just different pests. So is it immoral to release a rabbit?

 

Not really identical. One places a responsibility onto local authorities, the other onto landowners and occupiers.

 

Immoral? It depends on the circumstances.

 

The big difference between rats and rabbits is the disease risk.

 

I would never do it, but I cannot see that it would be illegal.

[zig zag wanderer 0]

Not really identical. One places a responsibility onto local authorities, the other onto landowners and occupiers.

I think they both place the responsibility onto the landowners and occupiers.

[ianrob 2]

Chris Jones said,

You have to dispatch them and humanely. The Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996 states that any person mutilates, kicks, beats, nails or otherwise impales, stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or asphyxiates any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering he shall be guilty of an offence. (Highlighted Bold Bit is done for the purposes of a certain Lancashire local authority, who's 'technicians' still routinely drown captured animals.) So if you're a pest controller, use Kanias instead of cages.

 

You could argue, as did Donald Rumsfelts' legal team over turture, that the intent was not to cause unnecessary suffering, even though suffer they no doubt do.

 

 

I must add that in the case you mention, and the one I brought up too, I side with the "sufferee" and feel humane treatment should be a right for captives, whether human or otherwise.

Edited November 4, 2008 by ianrob

[ChrisJones 7,975]

You could argue, as did Donald Rumsfelts' legal team over turture, that the intent was not to cause unnecessary suffering, even though suffer they no doubt do.

The world is run by lawyers and lobbyists. They make lots of money arguing these points and finding/exploiting loopholes. I couldn't agree more with you.

 

I must add that in the case you mention, and the one I brought up too, I side with the "sufferee" and feel humane treatment should be a right for captives, whether human or otherwise.

I do too. We're in the business of making things dead. To make that happen as quickly and humanely as possible is what we are duty bound to accomplish. It's a moral stance and also a legal one. Proving that someone intentionally broke the act is extremely difficult. The witness is usually dead or cremated and can't speak to a solicitor anyway.

 

The sad fact is that prosecutions are rare and laughably ineffective. People who pick up poisons/traps and start lashing them around, with no training, can cause serious harm however their ignorance is usually their key to being let of with a warning. It's hard to prove intent for someone who doesn't have a clue, that the bucket they bought from the farm shop contains dangerous poisons that can contaminate food sources and water courses, not to mention endanger the life of most animals that come into contact with it.

 

I've campaigned for a change in the law that forbids people, without recognised training, to buy pesticides. The current law only forbids the use of these pesticides by the untrained. No offence is committed until you open the container. This allows anyone to walk into a farm store. Buy professional use only gear and, through ignorance, start putting it down anywhere they want.

[RatSnatcher 0]

You could argue, as did Donald Rumsfelts' legal team over turture, that the intent was not to cause unnecessary suffering, even though suffer they no doubt do.

The world is run by lawyers and lobbyists. They make lots of money arguing these points and finding/exploiting loopholes. I couldn't agree more with you.

 

I must add that in the case you mention, and the one I brought up too, I side with the "sufferee" and feel humane treatment should be a right for captives, whether human or otherwise.

I do too. We're in the business of making things dead. To make that happen as quickly and humanely as possible is what we are duty bound to accomplish. It's a moral stance and also a legal one. Proving that someone intentionally broke the act is extremely difficult. The witness is usually dead or cremated and can't speak to a solicitor anyway.

 

The sad fact is that prosecutions are rare and laughably ineffective. People who pick up poisons/traps and start lashing them around, with no training, can cause serious harm however their ignorance is usually their key to being let of with a warning. It's hard to prove intent for someone who doesn't have a clue, that the bucket they bought from the farm shop contains dangerous poisons that can contaminate food sources and water courses, not to mention endanger the life of most animals that come into contact with it.

 

I've campaigned for a change in the law that forbids people, without recognised training, to buy pesticides. The current law only forbids the use of these pesticides by the untrained. No offence is committed until you open the container. This allows anyone to walk into a farm store. Buy professional use only gear and, through ignorance, start putting it down anywhere they want.

 

Well put Chris.....

 

We as pesties have to conform to so much legal bollox and safe practices whilst all the general public has to do is read the bloody label, the law is a sham and if the government really did give 2 shits about wildlife then they would ban all pestercides by untrained amatuers and take them of the shelves of places like B&Q and Harry's hardware

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Well put Chris.....

 

We as pesties have to conform to so much legal bollox and safe practices whilst all the general public has to do is read the bloody label, the law is a sham and if the government really did give 2 shits about wildlife then they would ban all pestercides by untrained amatuers and take them of the shelves of places like B&Q and Harry's hardware

This is a very valid point.

 

The government only care about votes and the money that comes from lobbyists. Like when the RSPCA donated millions to Labour's election funds in exchange for hunt bans and more legal powers.

 

If they really cared about wildlife they would close the loopholes but unless someone offers a massive cash incentive that's about as likely as a successful prosecution under the existing Acts.

 

Some of the posts I've removed from this forum, since 2004, have graphically detailed how dangerous it is to let playtime amateurs loose with chemicals. I've physically cringed at some of the advice, and pictures, posted. Luckily no one cares, at least not with any degree of legal clout. However I'm duty bound to keep the forum free of information that could be damaging to us, this means trying to remove some of this information before it's filed in the computer of a lobbyist group trying to restrict our activities.

[agrifabs 0]

hi, i have about 7 acres, 2 of which i am going to plant a woodland, i am also gong to dig some warrens and release some wild rabbits onto my land because rabbits are non existant around my place, is there anyone in the south wales area that can get me about 10 'live' wild rabbits that DO NOT HAVE MIXY, im port talbot area

[ChrisJones 7,975]

hi, i have about 7 acres, 2 of which i am going to plant a woodland, i am also gong to dig some warrens and release some wild rabbits onto my land because rabbits are non existant around my place, is there anyone in the south wales area that can get me about 10 'live' wild rabbits that DO NOT HAVE MIXY, im port talbot area

Very dubious legal ground.

 

Capturing, holding and transporting can be construed as 'causing unnecessary suffering' under the 1911 and 1996 Acts. If you were repopulating an area I'm sure the public would commend your conservation attempts. As you've announced it on a hunting forum your intentions will be held as suspect.

 

Especially as not everyone who reads these threads is on our side.