"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in
message
k...
The message
from "BAC" contains these words:

You are advocating drowning, which does not appear to be advocated
by
the Forestry Commission in any of its currently applicable
documents
referring to grey squirrel control.

I think the most applicable may be
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcpn004.pdf/$FILE/fcpn004.pdf
specific to the control of grey squirrels in woodlands, which, in
respect of
live trapping, recommends that the squirrels be removed from the trap
and
killed with a blow to the head from a blunt instrument, or taken to a
vet
for humane destruction. It goes so far as to say no other form of
killing of
live trapped squirrels should be attempted (and that includes
shooting
them).

I'd recommend that the twerp who dreamt-up the blunt instrument
treatment should be given a squirrel and a blunt instrument, and
filmed.

And how much do they think a vet would charge per squirrel?

The advice is pure cloud-cuckooland, and worthy of the worst excesses
of
the so-called 'animal rights' lobby.

Well, that's the Forestry Commission for you (emphatically not an AR
organisation), the same organisation which Alan cited as authority for
drowning the animals, which is of course the main reason I've referred
to
them, since he's hoist on his own petard, so to speak.


I don't believe in allowing any animal to suffer just for the
convenience of mankind, but there are limits to altruism. If ever I
have
to dispatch a squirrel in a trap, it will be shot.

If I had a gun this may be the method I'd use, but I don't have a gun.

I bet you didn't have a trap before you went out and bought one, either.



Which would be OK by the RSPCA and also with Environmental Health at
some
Council websites I've seen. If you've read the Forestry Commission PDF
files
I've posted the links for, you'll have seen one reason they don't
recommend
shooting the squirrel in the trap is they're worried about a possible
ricochet causing human injury, so maybe it's 'Health and Safety' mania
at
the root of it. I also noticed they are worried about use of steel
pellets
in shooting in their woods because of the effect they can have on the
value
of timber.

Squirrels cause a great deal of damage other than to trees, they steal
things I grow for my own consumption, they kill birds by destroying the
eggs, they dig up plants, they break into peoples homes destroying
property, chewing through electricity cables putting human beings at
risk from electrocution and fire, both children and the elderly, as
well as all sorts of other problems.

But you wouldn't want to be bothered about things like that, would you?

Don't be silly. I have taken issue with the method of destruction of trapped
squirrels you have been advocating. I have not argued that nobody ever has
any need to remove squirrels from their property. Not knowing the
circumstances in which you live, I have done you the courtesy of assuming
you have a genuine need to control squirrels, and are not simply killing
them as a result of some malign obsession.


It requires a little common sense.

I don't understand how you can ignore this destruction,


I am not ignoring 'this destruction', although I do not personally believe
it to be sufficient justification for a universal 'kill on sight' policy -
IMO it should be up to individual landowners to decide whether or not they
are prepared to tolerate the squirrels which visit their properties. What I
have been saying is I believe that where someone decides there is a need to
control squirrels or other mammals on his land, he should ensure that they
are despatched in a humane manner, and I don't believe that drowning is the
most humane alternative.