BAC wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
[...]

The prosecution was not for killing the squirrel, but for the means
employed. If someone were to be caught drowning captured rats, they
might well face prosecution, following the Rural Development
Service's 2006 advisory note on rat control, which states 'Drowning
is not a humane method of dispatch and could result in
prosecution.'.

Is it reasonable to expect ordinary citizens to know that?


Probably not! How many of us know the ins and outs of every law on the
statute-books? None, I'd guess.

/All/ ordinary citizens should know by now that drowning isn't humane.
They've been telling us for over fifty years, after all.

--
Mike.

Mike Lyle wrote:
BAC wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
[...]

The prosecution was not for killing the squirrel, but for the means
employed. If someone were to be caught drowning captured rats, they
might well face prosecution, following the Rural Development
Service's 2006 advisory note on rat control, which states 'Drowning is
not a humane method of dispatch and could result in
prosecution.'.

Is it reasonable to expect ordinary citizens to know that?


Probably not! How many of us know the ins and outs of every law on
the statute-books? None, I'd guess.

/All/ ordinary citizens should know by now that drowning isn't humane.
They've been telling us for over fifty years, after all.

And there's the problem, you see. There isn't actually a law that states "ye
may not drown a squirrel". There is a law that says ye may not be
"inhumane", and then the definition of what is inhumane is arbitrarily made
by others beyond the realm of democratic debate or control. And, it's
certainly not reasonable to expect every person to know even a significant
fraction of the vast amount of these official opinions.

We are all these days lawbreakers; under such an immense burden of this kind
of law it is impossible not to be. So you end up with a lottery where some
few unlucky souls get trapped, either by fishing expeditions (undercover
RSPCA types) or because they have arseholes for neighbours.

Take a completely different example; how many people are aware that a few
years ago it became illegal to change a broken light switch in their
kitchen? Not many people know that. Every now and again, somebody will get
caught for doing an electrical repair in their own home, but most people
won't. Same thing.

It never would have occurred to me to consider the law when bashing a rat's
brains out with a shoe. Apparently, I must ask the state's permission, or
the RSPCA's permission, before doing so, while keeping up to date on the
endless stream of documentation spewing from quangos I'd never even heard
of- (the Rural Development Agency is now "Natural England" apparently).
Nobody can be expected to know all this stuff. It is absurd.


Ian

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:02:39 +0200, Ian B
wrote:

Mike Lyle wrote:
BAC wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
[...]

The prosecution was not for killing the squirrel, but for the means
employed. If someone were to be caught drowning captured rats, they
might well face prosecution, following the Rural Development
Service's 2006 advisory note on rat control, which states 'Drowning
is
not a humane method of dispatch and could result in
prosecution.'.

Is it reasonable to expect ordinary citizens to know that?


Probably not! How many of us know the ins and outs of every law on
the statute-books? None, I'd guess.

/All/ ordinary citizens should know by now that drowning isn't humane.
They've been telling us for over fifty years, after all.

And there's the problem, you see. There isn't actually a law that states
"ye
may not drown a squirrel". There is a law that says ye may not be
"inhumane", and then the definition of what is inhumane is arbitrarily
made
by others beyond the realm of democratic debate or control. And, it's
certainly not reasonable to expect every person to know even a
significant
fraction of the vast amount of these official opinions.

We are all these days lawbreakers; under such an immense burden of this
kind
of law it is impossible not to be. So you end up with a lottery where
some
few unlucky souls get trapped, either by fishing expeditions (undercover
RSPCA types) or because they have arseholes for neighbours.

Take a completely different example; how many people are aware that a few
years ago it became illegal to change a broken light switch in their
kitchen? Not many people know that. Every now and again, somebody will
get
caught for doing an electrical repair in their own home, but most people
won't. Same thing.

It never would have occurred to me to consider the law when bashing a
rat's
brains out with a shoe. Apparently, I must ask the state's permission, or
the RSPCA's permission, before doing so, while keeping up to date on the
endless stream of documentation spewing from quangos I'd never even heard
of- (the Rural Development Agency is now "Natural England" apparently).
Nobody can be expected to know all this stuff. It is absurd.


I don't think that much has changed since the Wildlife & Countryside Act
1981 and I don't remember anything in the list of proscribed methods of
disposal mentioning drowning. It used to be enforced by the Rural
Development Service until 2006 when Natural England was formed and
swallowed the RDS and English Nature.

PS You will be pleased to learn that it is not illegal to change a broken
light switch in a kitchen - the Part P constraints apply to new wiring and
fittings but not to simple replacement which is classed as non-notifiable
work, even in a kitchen.

--
rbel

Ian B wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote:
BAC wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
[...]

The prosecution was not for killing the squirrel, but for the
means employed. If someone were to be caught drowning captured
rats, they might well face prosecution, following the Rural
Development Service's 2006 advisory note on rat control, which
states 'Drowning is not a humane method of dispatch and could
result in prosecution.'.

Is it reasonable to expect ordinary citizens to know that?


Probably not! How many of us know the ins and outs of every law on
the statute-books? None, I'd guess.

/All/ ordinary citizens should know by now that drowning isn't
humane. They've been telling us for over fifty years, after all.

And there's the problem, you see. There isn't actually a law that
states "ye may not drown a squirrel". There is a law that says ye may
not be "inhumane", and then the definition of what is inhumane is
arbitrarily made by others beyond the realm of democratic debate or
control. And, it's certainly not reasonable to expect every person to
know even a significant fraction of the vast amount of these official
opinions.

You're stretching your case beyond its breaking-point. I said people
should now know that drowning animals is cruel, and I insist on it. I
said nothing about "these" (unspecified) official opinions.

We are all these days lawbreakers; under such an immense burden of
this kind of law it is impossible not to be. So you end up with a
lottery where some few unlucky souls get trapped, either by fishing
expeditions (undercover RSPCA types) or because they have arseholes
for neighbours.

That's quite absurd.

Take a completely different example; how many people are aware that a
few years ago it became illegal to change a broken light switch in
their kitchen? Not many people know that. Every now and again,
somebody will get caught for doing an electrical repair in their own
home, but most people won't. Same thing.

That's interesting. Can you point me to where it's said to be unlawful
to change a light-switch? Is it in the same statute as the one
forbidding me to spray rhubarb liquor on my plants, or the one making it
illegal to sell a bent banana?

It never would have occurred to me to consider the law when bashing a
rat's brains out with a shoe.

You should always consider the law when killing an animal: there's
nothing new, strange, or oppressive about this. Personally, I've used
pieces of wood to administer a quick death: using a shoe seems rather
unusual.

Apparently, I must ask the state's
permission, or the RSPCA's permission, before doing so, while keeping

Why is it apparent?

up to date on the endless stream of documentation spewing from
quangos I'd never even heard of- (the Rural Development Agency is now
"Natural England" apparently). Nobody can be expected to know all
this stuff. It is absurd.

Why would anybody be expected to know all that stuff?

--
Mike.

Whether it's reasonable or not, ignorance of the law does not constitute a defence. And if you're planning to kill an animal, it is reasonable to expect you a) to find out what you're allowed to do and b) to find out how to do it in the least cruel way.

Matters of expertise (eg the amount of suffering experienced by various methods of despatch) are properly decided by experts and not 'democratic debate' by people many of whom have no understanding of whether or not their proposed method causes suffering.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:47:56 +0000, kay
wrote:


'Ian B[_2_ Wrote:
;894877']BAC wrote:-

The prosecution was not for killing the squirrel, but for the means
employed. If someone were to be caught drowning captured rats, they
might well face prosecution, following the Rural Development
Service's 2006 advisory note on rat control, which states 'Drowning
is not a humane method of dispatch and could result in prosecution.'.-

Is it reasonable to expect ordinary citizens to know that?



Whether it's reasonable or not, ignorance of the law does not constitute
a defence. And if you're planning to kill an animal, it is reasonable to
expect you a) to find out what you're allowed to do and b) to find out
how to do it in the least cruel way.

So what research should I do to find out the least cruel way of
killing enormous spiders like the one mooching round the lounge last
night?
(I say mooching as the cats had given up trying to fight it ... oo
hang on is that spider baiting if I don't stop the cats hunting it?)
--
http://www.bra-and-pants.com
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

"kay" wrote in message
...

'Ian B[_2_ Wrote:
;894877']BAC wrote:-

The prosecution was not for killing the squirrel, but for the means
employed. If someone were to be caught drowning captured rats, they
might well face prosecution, following the Rural Development
Service's 2006 advisory note on rat control, which states 'Drowning
is not a humane method of dispatch and could result in prosecution.'.-

Is it reasonable to expect ordinary citizens to know that?



Whether it's reasonable or not, ignorance of the law does not constitute
a defence. And if you're planning to kill an animal, it is reasonable to
expect you a) to find out what you're allowed to do and b) to find out
how to do it in the least cruel way.


Those are fair points. Perhaps it would be useful if those selling live
capture squirrel traps were required to include a brief guide with each
item.

kay wrote:
'Ian B[_2_ Wrote:
;894877']BAC wrote:-

The prosecution was not for killing the squirrel, but for the means
employed. If someone were to be caught drowning captured rats, they
might well face prosecution, following the Rural Development
Service's 2006 advisory note on rat control, which states 'Drowning
is not a humane method of dispatch and could result in
prosecution.'.-

Is it reasonable to expect ordinary citizens to know that?



Whether it's reasonable or not, ignorance of the law does not
constitute a defence.

It doesn't indeed, but that's a legal point. The question I asked is whether
we as a society can reasonably expect ordinary people to actually know all
these laws. It is in an ordinary sense quite reasonable for ordinary people
to not even know that a law applies, as with my example above of Part P of
the building regulations.

And if you're planning to kill an animal, it is
reasonable to expect you a) to find out what you're allowed to do and
b) to find out how to do it in the least cruel way.

Is it really? You state a priori that it is "reasonable", but that is a
matter of personal ethics. I do not think it "reasonable" to expect anybody
to care- at the point of the gun of law- to care for the welfare of
squirrels, or rats, etc. How are we to decide which of these distinct
ethical positions is "reasonable"?

Additionally, what counts as "cruel" is purely a matter of opinion. We do
not know what animals suffer, or even whether the term has any meaning
applied to an animal. They live in a cruel environment and experience all
manner of harm and death which is unacceptable for humans; torn apart by
predators, starving or freezing to death, killed or maimed in fights over
mates, and so on. You cannot apply human rules to creatures that do not, by
their nature, live according to human rules. I do not know what a fledgling
experiences when caught, torn apart and eaten by an owl, and I simply cannot
apply human ethical rules to such an act.

So we are in an impossible situation when demanding that humans apply such
rules to animals. It is entirely arbitrary. There is no consistent ethical
manner in whcih we can formulate a judgement; so we end up with the
absurdity of it being "okay" to bash a squrirel's brains in with a shovel,
but not drown it- or, apparently, we must take it to a vet for a dignified
(and expensive) death by drugs which is inherently beyond its natural life.

None of this is actually "reasonable". It is the fetish of a particular
moralist movement who have gained power by cunning politicking.


Ian

Or, in your Part P example, to know that the law *doesn't* apply ;-)

I think it's a decision we make as a society. The general concensus appears to be that it part of being a civilised society not to inflict unnecessary cruelty on other sentient beings.

It's clear that some actions will cause more more suffering than others - even if simply more prolonged suffering. So while all you say above is undoubtedly true, it doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to take some care about the method we choose in our killing. After all, we consider ourselves to be on a higher moral plane than animals, do we not? So doesn't that mean we should behave a bit better?

On 21/07/2010 19:45, Mike Lyle wrote:
/All/ ordinary citizens should know by now that drowning isn't humane.
They've been telling us for over fifty years, after all.

Really? Who has? When? How? "They" seem to me to have been very
quiet about it. I have always understood (and indeed was taught at
school, in the 80s), that drowning was considered humane. As such it
would have been my preferred method of despatching a squirrel.

--
Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"kay" wrote in message
...

'Ian B[_2_ Wrote:
;894877']BAC wrote:-

The prosecution was not for killing the squirrel, but for the means
employed. If someone were to be caught drowning captured rats, they
might well face prosecution, following the Rural Development
Service's 2006 advisory note on rat control, which states 'Drowning
is not a humane method of dispatch and could result in prosecution.'.-

Is it reasonable to expect ordinary citizens to know that?



Whether it's reasonable or not, ignorance of the law does not constitute
a defence. And if you're planning to kill an animal, it is reasonable to
expect you a) to find out what you're allowed to do and b) to find out
how to do it in the least cruel way.


Those are fair points. Perhaps it would be useful if those selling live
capture squirrel traps were required to include a brief guide with each
item.

It's fairly easy to get a live trap but what to do with your *prey* when
you've caught what you wanted is a whole different thing.
I have a sort of sympathy for the person who drowned his caught squirrel, it
is not the way to go, but many do not have access to guns and would not have
it in them to get one in a bag and bash its brains out with a spade.
I would struggle with that myself, tbh.
I solved this by getting a pest controller - not for squirrels - although I
would if I had to, but for foxes which had been a continual problem for me
as a poultry keeper.

Tinsa

In message , kay
writes

'Ian B[_2_ Wrote:
;894984']
It is in an ordinary sense quite reasonable for ordinary people
to not even know that a law applies, as with my example above of Part P
of
the building regulations.



Or, in your Part P example, to know that the law *doesn't* apply ;-)



Is it really? You state a priori that it is "reasonable", but that is a

matter of personal ethics. I do not think it "reasonable" to expect
anybody
to care- at the point of the gun of law- to care for the welfare of
squirrels, or rats, etc. How are we to decide which of these distinct
ethical positions is "reasonable"?



I think it's a decision we make as a society. The general concensus
appears to be that it part of being a civilised society not to inflict
unnecessary cruelty on other sentient beings.



Additionally, what counts as "cruel" is purely a matter of opinion. We
do
not know what animals suffer, or even whether the term has any meaning
applied to an animal. They live in a cruel environment and experience
all
manner of harm and death which is unacceptable for humans; torn apart by

predators, starving or freezing to death, killed or maimed in fights
over
mates, and so on. You cannot apply human rules to creatures that do not,
by
their nature, live according to human rules. I do not know what a
fledgling
experiences when caught, torn apart and eaten by an owl, and I simply
cannot
apply human ethical rules to such an act.

So we are in an impossible situation when demanding that humans apply
such
rules to animals. It is entirely arbitrary. There is no consistent
ethical
manner in whcih we can formulate a judgement; so we end up with the
absurdity of it being "okay" to bash a squrirel's brains in with a
shovel,
but not drown it- or, apparently, we must take it to a vet for a
dignified
(and expensive) death by drugs which is inherently beyond its natural
life.

None of this is actually "reasonable". It is the fetish of a particular

moralist movement who have gained power by cunning politicking.



It's clear that some actions will cause more more suffering than others
- even if simply more prolonged suffering. So while all you say above
is undoubtedly true, it doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to take
some care about the method we choose in our killing. After all, we
consider ourselves to be on a higher moral plane than animals, do we
not? So doesn't that mean we should behave a bit better?




We do. If we were another animal we would tear the squirrel apart limb
from limb. Drowning is far more considerate.

--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

"kay" wrote in message
...

'Ian B[_2_ Wrote:
;894984']
It is in an ordinary sense quite reasonable for ordinary people
to not even know that a law applies, as with my example above of Part P
of
the building regulations.



Or, in your Part P example, to know that the law *doesn't* apply ;-)

I made a slight error. It's still legal to replace a switch, but not to
install one. It just goes to show though, how these regulations are hardly
understood in general. Even I made a mistake, and I already knew about it.
The general point still applies; how are householders to be expected to even
know about Part P?



Is it really? You state a priori that it is "reasonable", but that is a

matter of personal ethics. I do not think it "reasonable" to expect
anybody
to care- at the point of the gun of law- to care for the welfare of
squirrels, or rats, etc. How are we to decide which of these distinct
ethical positions is "reasonable"?



I think it's a decision we make as a society. The general concensus
appears to be that it part of being a civilised society not to inflict
unnecessary cruelty on other sentient beings.

How does a "society" make such a decision, and how does one ascertain what
decision the "society" has made? Most laws are passed by a small number of
MPs, under pressure from a small number of campaigners. This law doesn't
even specify killing modes; how do we know what "society" considers to be
humane? Nobody asked me, and I doubt they asked you either, unless you're in
one of the small groups privvy to such things. I would argue that these
rules are made "on behalf* of "society", and society in general doesn't get
a look in.



Additionally, what counts as "cruel" is purely a matter of opinion. We
do
not know what animals suffer, or even whether the term has any meaning
applied to an animal. They live in a cruel environment and experience
all
manner of harm and death which is unacceptable for humans; torn apart by

predators, starving or freezing to death, killed or maimed in fights
over
mates, and so on. You cannot apply human rules to creatures that do not,
by
their nature, live according to human rules. I do not know what a
fledgling
experiences when caught, torn apart and eaten by an owl, and I simply
cannot
apply human ethical rules to such an act.

So we are in an impossible situation when demanding that humans apply
such
rules to animals. It is entirely arbitrary. There is no consistent
ethical
manner in whcih we can formulate a judgement; so we end up with the
absurdity of it being "okay" to bash a squrirel's brains in with a
shovel,
but not drown it- or, apparently, we must take it to a vet for a
dignified
(and expensive) death by drugs which is inherently beyond its natural
life.

None of this is actually "reasonable". It is the fetish of a particular

moralist movement who have gained power by cunning politicking.



It's clear that some actions will cause more more suffering than others
- even if simply more prolonged suffering.

As I said above, that isn't clear at all. Neither is it clear that humans
have a responsibilty to prevent animals experiencing what we might think
might be suffering.

So while all you say above
is undoubtedly true, it doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to take
some care about the method we choose in our killing. After all, we
consider ourselves to be on a higher moral plane than animals, do we
not? So doesn't that mean we should behave a bit better?

Maybe, but the question is whether such obscure ethical debates should be
the basis for law.

It deeply disturbs me how lightly many people seem to take the law. A
criminal record is a very serious matter, with ramifications throughout a
person's entire life. It is easy to say "there should be a law", but we
forget the severity for those who are victims of that law. A criminal
conviction will have serious effects on a person's ability to e.g. travel
abroad, to get jobs associated with children, or in various professions. It
is really not a light matter. That is not to say we should shy from
punishing those who deserve punishment; but we must ask serious questions
when persons are facing such ruin for killing a squirrel or sellling a
goldfish (another "case" celebre).

We have become profligate with the law. My sister works in a garden centre;
a young colleague of hers was convicted for selling a pruning knife to a 17
year old- who was an undercover "knife crime" entrapper (a big burly lad of
course who looked much older than his years, as they generally use). Now the
young shop assistant, for doing nothing which harmed anybody, for making a
mistake, has a criminal record. We are in an appalling state in this regard,
throwing laws at anyone who steps a smidge out of some official line.

I know, I know. SOmebody's going to say, "that's the law, it's his own fault
for not checking the boy's age". But that's not my point. It is that we have
lost the principle of law as punishment for serious misdeed, and replaced
that with law as a means of social control. Laws are made to "send a
message" (as is the popular phrase). The law isn't a bloody postal service!

People have all sorts of ethical views; there are divergent ones on
squirrelcide in this newsgroup. As I said above, "society" doesn't have a
consensus about whether it's better to drown a squirrel or beat its brains
out. A small number of activists have an opinion, and it is their view which
decided this case. I think we need to be far less casual with the blunt
instrument of law; we are in danger of drowning in it.


Ian

"kay" wrote in message
...



It's clear that some actions will cause more more suffering than others
- even if simply more prolonged suffering. So while all you say above
is undoubtedly true, it doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to take
some care about the method we choose in our killing. After all, we
consider ourselves to be on a higher moral plane than animals, do we
not? So doesn't that mean we should behave a bit better?

I think if it's totally necessary, which I do try to avoid if possible, that
there is a moral responsibility to destroy as humanely as you can.
I don't use poison for rats now, they die so slowly and painfully. I get
the terrier men in, so the rats either get away completely or are caught and
are gone to rat heaven in a nanosecond.
Rats are amazingly clever, not long ago when I had the terriers come, some
were able to spot a hole in their defence and were up and away climbing up
in my trees and off.
Gotta sort of admire them for that!

Tina