"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
(In Apr, 1997)
The Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996 came into force, as previously
stated.
I was speculating it might be possible, that, as a consequence of
deliberate
drowning being listed as an abuse

It is not "listed as an abuse" - although it can be an abuse.

"BE IT ENACTED by the Queens' most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this
present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-


Offences. 1. If, save as permitted by this Act, 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."

It is, prima facie, an abuse, as listed under S1 unless covered by one of
the exceptions.

One of those exceptions (s2b)
is the killing in a reasonably swift and humane way of a mammal taken in the
course of lawful pest control activity.

So, the question seems to remain, is killing a captured squirrel by drowning
'reasonably swift and humane', something which presumably could only be
answered definitively by the courts. Penalty on conviction is a level 5 fine
or up to 6 months in prison, per animal, so it's not something to be taken
lightly.

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
(In Apr, 1997)
The Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996 came into force, as previously
stated.
I was speculating it might be possible, that, as a consequence of
deliberate
drowning being listed as an abuse

It is not "listed as an abuse" - although it can be an abuse.

"BE IT ENACTED by the Queens' most Excellent Majesty, by and with the
advice
and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this
present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as
follows:-


Offences. 1. If, save as permitted by this Act, 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."

It is, prima facie, an abuse, as listed under S1 unless covered by one of
the exceptions.

One of those exceptions (s2b)
is the killing in a reasonably swift and humane way of a mammal taken in
the
course of lawful pest control activity.

So, the question seems to remain, is killing a captured squirrel by
drowning
'reasonably swift and humane',

Ten seconds!

Is that swift enough?

If I were fataly injured and I would expire in ten seconds I wouldn't worry
to
much, it would be to quick for me to notice, but if my death throws were to
be
a lot longer then, yes, I would be unhappy about that.

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
(In Apr, 1997)
The Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996 came into force, as previously
stated.
I was speculating it might be possible, that, as a consequence of
deliberate
drowning being listed as an abuse

It is not "listed as an abuse" - although it can be an abuse.

"BE IT ENACTED by the Queens' most Excellent Majesty, by and with the
advice
and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this
present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as
follows:-


Offences. 1. If, save as permitted by this Act, 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."

It is, prima facie, an abuse, as listed under S1 unless covered by one
of
the exceptions.

One of those exceptions (s2b)
is the killing in a reasonably swift and humane way of a mammal taken in
the
course of lawful pest control activity.

So, the question seems to remain, is killing a captured squirrel by
drowning
'reasonably swift and humane',

Ten seconds!

Is that swift enough?

Drowning is not humane, in my opinion, FWIW, but maybe the courts would take
a different view. RSPCA told me they would arrange for the matter to be
investigated, if a complaint were made on their cruelty hotline, and I
suppose that would be the first step.

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
(In Apr, 1997)
The Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996 came into force, as previously
stated.
I was speculating it might be possible, that, as a consequence of
deliberate
drowning being listed as an abuse

It is not "listed as an abuse" - although it can be an abuse.

"BE IT ENACTED by the Queens' most Excellent Majesty, by and with the
advice
and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this
present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as
follows:-


Offences. 1. If, save as permitted by this Act, 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."

It is, prima facie, an abuse, as listed under S1 unless covered by one
of
the exceptions.

One of those exceptions (s2b)
is the killing in a reasonably swift and humane way of a mammal taken
in
the
course of lawful pest control activity.

So, the question seems to remain, is killing a captured squirrel by
drowning
'reasonably swift and humane',

Ten seconds!

Is that swift enough?

Drowning is not humane, in my opinion, FWIW, but maybe the courts would
take
a different view. RSPCA told me they would arrange for the matter to be
investigated, if a complaint were made on their cruelty hotline, and I
suppose that would be the first step.

But it is quick.

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
snip

So, the question seems to remain, is killing a captured squirrel by
drowning
'reasonably swift and humane',

Ten seconds!

Is that swift enough?

Drowning is not humane, in my opinion, FWIW, but maybe the courts would
take
a different view. RSPCA told me they would arrange for the matter to be
investigated, if a complaint were made on their cruelty hotline, and I
suppose that would be the first step.

But it is quick.


But the law doesn't say a method should be 'quick and easy', it says it
should be 'swift and humane'.

I first participated in this thread, IIRC, when someone asked whether
drowning trapped squirrels was 'legal' in this country. For the reasons I
have explained several times, I personally doubt whether it would be
regarded as a lawful means of dispatch. However, that decision would be up
to the prosecutors and ultimately the courts, not me, what's needed is a
test case.