"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.

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"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.

I must admit it has become an obsession, that of trying to preserve the food
I'm ying to grow for my consumption.

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.

Then, as I have asked before, please give me a precise method of despatching
the vermin without risk to myself and at to extra cost.

I suspect that taking each one to the vet for dispatching would not be
cheap,
and how would the vet carry out this proceedure.

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"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.

I must admit it has become an obsession, that of trying to preserve the
food
I'm ying to grow for my consumption.

And, although you have carried out this control for fifteen to twenty years,
you are still over-run by grey squirrels?


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.

Then, as I have asked before, please give me a precise method of
despatching
the vermin without risk to myself and at to extra cost.

There is no way of killing the creatures without risk to yourself - at the
moment, for instance, you may be risking prosecution every time you do it.
DEFRA's advice on disposing of live trapped rats is that drowning is an
unacceptable inhumane method which brings the risk of prosecution, so I
don't see why it should be any different with squirrels. RSPCA would
certainly investigate if a complaint were to be made via their cruelty
hotline, although I have no idea whether they would actually prosecute..

If you were to master the art of getting the animal into a sack and bashing
it over the head whilst it is in the sack, as described by the Forestry
Commission, it would only cost you the price of a sack and a cudgel and a
pair of suitable gauntlets. Buying a gun and learning how to use it would
cost more, of course. Arranging to visit and perhaps observe experts in
action would cost you some time, I suppose.


I suspect that taking each one to the vet for dispatching would not be
cheap,
and how would the vet carry out this proceedure.


No, it would not be cheap, but it would be humane. I suspect the vet's
practice would euthanise the creature, probably using a lethal injection
administered by a veterinary nurse.

On Tue, 17 May 2005 10:34:35 +0100, "BAC"
wrote:

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...
I suspect that taking each one to the vet for dispatching would not be
cheap,
and how would the vet carry out this proceedure.

No, it would not be cheap, but it would be humane. I suspect the vet's
practice would euthanise the creature, probably using a lethal injection
administered by a veterinary nurse.

Of course one could argue that there's more cruelty inflicted by
keeping a pest in a cage for an extended time and then taking it into
an alien environment in order to administer a lethal injection than by
just bashing it over the head, shooting it or drowning it.

JB

On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:58 +0100, JB
wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2005 10:34:35 +0100, "BAC"
wrote:

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...
I suspect that taking each one to the vet for dispatching would not be
cheap,
and how would the vet carry out this proceedure.

No, it would not be cheap, but it would be humane. I suspect the vet's
practice would euthanise the creature, probably using a lethal injection
administered by a veterinary nurse.

Of course one could argue that there's more cruelty inflicted by
keeping a pest in a cage for an extended time and then taking it into
an alien environment in order to administer a lethal injection than by
just bashing it over the head, shooting it or drowning it.

JB

Apologies for following up my own posting but before anyone reads that
and berates me for advocating drowning / shooting etc I'm not
condoning or condemning any method just trying to be complete in the
list of methods that have been suggested and pose the question about
the relative cruely of lethal injections.

JB

"JB" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 May 2005 10:34:35 +0100, "BAC"
wrote:

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...
I suspect that taking each one to the vet for dispatching would not be
cheap,
and how would the vet carry out this proceedure.

No, it would not be cheap, but it would be humane. I suspect the vet's
practice would euthanise the creature, probably using a lethal injection
administered by a veterinary nurse.

Of course one could argue that there's more cruelty inflicted by
keeping a pest in a cage for an extended time and then taking it into
an alien environment in order to administer a lethal injection than by
just bashing it over the head, shooting it or drowning it.


One could argue that, although I wouldn't accept the implied equality
between bashing, shooting, or drowning as a means of dispatch.

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"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.

I must admit it has become an obsession, that of trying to preserve the
food
I'm ying to grow for my consumption.

And, although you have carried out this control for fifteen to twenty
years,
you are still over-run by grey squirrels?

No, at first I was catching about 45 a year, it dropped after that, and the
present catch is about 5 a year.


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.

Then, as I have asked before, please give me a precise method of
despatching
the vermin without risk to myself and at to extra cost.

There is no way of killing the creatures without risk to yourself - at the
moment, for instance, you may be risking prosecution every time you do it.
DEFRA's advice on disposing of live trapped rats is that drowning is an
unacceptable inhumane method which brings the risk of prosecution, so I
don't see why it should be any different with squirrels. RSPCA would
certainly investigate if a complaint were to be made via their cruelty
hotline, although I have no idea whether they would actually prosecute..

So, I have to ask again, what is the required method of despatch of vermin
which does not require a monitary burden on my income.

If you were to master the art of getting the animal into a sack and
bashing
it over the head whilst it is in the sack, as described by the Forestry
Commission, it would only cost you the price of a sack and a cudgel and a
pair of suitable gauntlets. Buying a gun and learning how to use it would
cost more, of course. Arranging to visit and perhaps observe experts in
action would cost you some time, I suppose.

I suspect that taking each one to the vet for dispatching would not be
cheap,
and how would the vet carry out this proceedure.

No, it would not be cheap, but it would be humane. I suspect the vet's
practice would euthanise the creature, probably using a lethal injection
administered by a veterinary nurse.

I intend to ask my local vet whether they would carry out the dispatch of
vermin.

I still don't understand how killing a piece of vermin in 10 seconds could
be considered to be inhumane, it would not surprise me if it took a lot
longer than that to kill the things by bashing them over the head, if you
could identify the head whilst it was in a sack.

The first blows would most certainly hit any other parts of the body, it
would
require several blows, which would undoubtably take far longer that the 10
seconds required to kill the thing by drowning, the traumer caused to the
vermin would be greater than drowning.

Alan Holmes wrote:
[...]
I still don't understand how killing a piece of vermin in 10
seconds
could be considered to be inhumane, it would not surprise me if it
took a lot longer than that to kill the things by bashing them over
the head, if you could identify the head whilst it was in a sack.

The first blows would most certainly hit any other parts of the
body,
it would
require several blows, which would undoubtably take far longer that
the 10 seconds required to kill the thing by drowning, the traumer
caused to the vermin would be greater than drowning.

I must be mad to get into this mildly obscene thread. Leave aside for
the moment all the stuff about what actually constitutes suffering
for non-human species, and 10 seconds is still quite a long time. As
a kid, wing-forward not three-quarter, I'm sure I did 100 yards in
under 12. Even if you don't hit the head at the first swing,
something's amiss if you can't whack some unfortunate squirrel in a
bag awfully frequently in that length of time. I've no idea if it
holds any general validity, but when David Livingstone was attacked
by a lion, he said it didn't hurt at the time; and, much more
trivially, I know that any aches and pains caused by rugby didn't
start till after the game. So I reckon any reasonably quick death by
shovel or boot in air is going to be quicker and kinder than drowning
in cold water for a squirrel or a rat. The most distressing part, it
seems to me, is likely to be being in the sack at all.

But I'm for shooting if you really must; otherwise, and that's 9999
times out of ten thousand, leave 'em alone and take sensible
gardening precautions if it begins to look like a problem.

--
Mike.

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...
snip

I still don't understand how killing a piece of vermin in 10 seconds could
be considered to be inhumane, it would not surprise me if it took a lot
longer than that to kill the things by bashing them over the head, if you
could identify the head whilst it was in a sack.

The first blows would most certainly hit any other parts of the body, it
would
require several blows, which would undoubtably take far longer that the 10
seconds required to kill the thing by drowning, the traumer caused to the
vermin would be greater than drowning.


If drowning of mammals is considered a humane form of destruction by the
powers that be, isn't it a little surprising that it doesn't seem to be a
recommended method, and that DEFRA, for example, warns in its rat technical
advice note that drowning is inhumane and a person doing it is risking
prosecution for cruelty?

However, you may be right, and drowning of squirrels may not be contrary to
current law. Next time you deliberately drown a squirrel, why not report
yourself to the RSPCA or the local police and find out?