Animal Protection

[Guest allibee]

I fail to see what this draft has to do with angling as they can quite easily be construed as 'farmed' animals, which is not what the bill is about. It's about domesticated animals, and aimed at people who take them into their homes/property to keep and those who would harm the same such 'pets'.

Also in section 3 part whatever, it refers to - to paraphrase - do stuff without an appropriate licence.

Well the EA kindly sell us licences to do our stuff if one can try to make it about fishing.

 

Even so, without a degree or several in zoology and appropriate studies, what is the 'evidence' you believe we can write to make a difference?

 

p.s We aren't arguing.

 

[ 16. July 2004, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: allibee ]

[Tog]

The thing to be wary of with this 'dodgy' act is that it cover's 'Vertebrates' in a 'domestic' enviroment FOR NOW.

Sometime in the future the well funded pressure groups will ask for this and that to be 'tacked on' & low & behold you have an 'anti live bait' & then an anti 'for fun' fishing law etc etc.

I don't like animal abuse at all but I find the 'Specisism' involved in this sort of legislation very hard to understand.

Why should the fish or slug have more 'right to life' than the Oak tree? 'cause that's what these people are saying! (ie they would kill & eat the Oak (or lettuce) but not the 'animal').

When are they going to bring in humane slaughter for vegatables - that's what I want to know!

[awaaar]

I've posted this before....

 

[waterman1013]

Allibee

 

Could I suggest you read Clause 53, subsection (1) and Clause 54, subsection 2, paragraph ( (i) and (iii) and subsection (3).

 

Clause 53

 

Subsection (1)

Subject to the provisions of this section, in this Act, “animal” means a vertebrate other than man.

 

That includes fish.

 

Clause 54

 

Subsection (2)

An animal is a “protected animal” for the purposes of this Act if –

( (i) is being kept by man

or

(iii) is temporarily in the custody or control of man.

 

( (i) covers fish kept in lakes and ponds and therefore in law owned, rather than the wild fish in rivers, which belong to no one.

 

(iii) covers fish retained in keepnets

 

Subsection (3)

An animal is “kept by man” for the purposes of this Act if there is a person who owns or is responsible for, or in charge of it.

 

This subsection covers fish kept in lakes and ponds and therefore in law owned and therefore “kept by man”.

 

This draft Act is significantly different from that which was published for the consultation period. Although DEFRA are claiming it does not affect fish, poor drafting ensures that the AR brigade could use it against clubs and individuals.

 

Mike

[waterman1013]

Sorry.

 

Working on the evidence and suggested amends at the moment.

 

It might take a while.

 

Mike

[Guest allibee]

But it also says without licence. The EA give licences to fisheries and ppls.

 

It also says in 16:1 that a vet has to prove suffering or likely suffering. No one has achieved that beyond doubt yet.

Now if *that* ever happens, then one has to worry

 

Good on you though for doing what you feel is necessary

 

[ 16. July 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: allibee ]

[trent.barbeler]

Ali said;

 

"Even so, without a degree or several in zoology and appropriate studies, what is the 'evidence' you believe we can write to make a difference?"

 

Ah! A nail hit firmly on its head.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Jim Roper]

http://www.songbird-survival.org.uk/langholm.htm

[Guest allibee]

 

Mike, had a chat with Ian Welch in his role as RMC angling boss and as an angler who a) feels it's not a matter of concern and who suggests that the right person to write to who can get firmly and squarely on the case, if there is one, is Charles Jardine at the Countryside Alliance.

 

[ 17. July 2004, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: allibee ]

[Newt]

Jim Roper:

http://www.songbird-survival.org.uk/langholm.htm

Interesting piece.

 

Do you think that possibly his being a songbird fan and posting to a 'save the songbird' site has anything to do with him blaming raptors for most of the problems.