Thread: Warning Distressing and Disturbing Photographs- 1080 Poison

Originally Posted by BRADS

Are there really nutty pro 1080 people ?
So the anti 1080 Facebook pages talk about wanting to shoot down the choppers and kill the pilots what do the pro people get up to?

That's a genuine question as Ive meet people who think 1080 is the best option at present but dislike it and have never actually meet someone who likes 1080.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

From my perspective the ‘nutty’ pro people are ones who advocate 1080 to the exclusion of anything else. BTW I don’t advocate the “shooting down of choppers..” and vandalism. I get the frustration though....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

30A Wilful or reckless ill-treatment of wild animals or animals in wild state
(1)
A person commits an offence if the person wilfully ill-treats a wild animal or an animal in a wild state.
(2)
A person commits an offence if the person recklessly ill-treats a wild animal or an animal in a wild state.
(3)
A defendant has a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) or (2) if the defendant satisfies the court that the conduct alleged to constitute an offence is or is part of a generally accepted practice in New Zealand for the hunting or killing of wild animals of that type or animals in a wild state of that type.
(4)
In determining whether wilful or reckless ill-treatment of an animal has occurred, a court may treat an act or omission as lawful (and not subject to subsection (1) or (2)) if satisfied that—
(a)
the act or omission was done in the course of performing functions for the purposes of another Act; and
(b)
not to treat the act or omission as lawful would be contrary to the purpose and principles of that Act.
(5)
Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) applies to—
(a)
a wild animal in captivity (other than in captivity in a safari park); or
(b)
the accidental or inadvertent killing or harming of an animal; or
(c)
any act or omission necessary to protect a person’s life or safety.
(6)
Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) affects section 179 or 181.
(7)
A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction,—
(a)
in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine not exceeding $100,000, or to both:
(b)
in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $500,000.
(8)
A person who commits an offence against subsection (2) is liable on conviction,—
(a)
in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $75,000, or to both:
(b)
in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $350,000.
Section 30A: inserted, on 10 May 2015, by section 20 of the Animal Welfare Amendment Act (No 2) 2015 (2015 No 49).



Perverse that deliberate ill treatment of animals should ever be protected by legislation.

Not talking about extreme notions of animal rights here --- just basic animal welfare with condemnation of ANY deliberate animal cruelty.

Originally Posted by Cordite

Not talking about extreme notions of animal rights here --- just basic animal welfare with condemnation of ANY deliberate animal cruelty.

Does that make you anti trapping as well then?

Originally Posted by kiwijames

Does that make you anti trapping as well then?

@kiwijames

Hmm, don't see why it should. Certain traps perhaps, but not traps designed to kill, or designed to humanely capture for later relocation/disposal. Kill traps may occasionally maim, or just catch an animal by a limb, but the legal difference here rightly lies in the deliberate intent of the person setting the trap.

Individuals spreading a poison that they reasonably expect to cause a cruel death should have no legal protection just because they are "following orders" of a government department... we've heard that one somewhere before. They should at least be politely and respectfully taken to task for their deliberate animal cruelty. There is no legal protection against your own conscience waking up and smelling the coffee.

Originally Posted by Cordite

@kiwijames

Hmm, don't see why it should. Certain traps perhaps, but not traps designed to kill, or designed to humanely capture for later relocation/disposal. Kill traps may occasionally maim, or just catch an animal by a limb, but the legal difference here rightly lies in the deliberate intent of the person setting the trap.

Individuals spreading a poison that they reasonably expect to cause a cruel death should have no legal protection just because they are "following orders" of a government department... we've heard that one somewhere before. They should at least be politely and respectfully taken to task for their deliberate animal cruelty. There is no legal protection against your own conscience waking up and smelling the coffee.

It wasn't meant to be a facetious question but in this context a trap is always going to be a kill trap (direct or indirect), and by your reasoning, as it IS deliberate and it IS cruel is not in your code of conduct?
So, now that poison is out and traps are out (as they're too cruel) whats the next option? Genetic alteration? Well we all now know that scientists are all corrupt and greedy so thats out.
Anyone got the number for the Pied Piper?

Originally Posted by kiwijames

It wasn't meant to be a facetious question but in this context a trap is always going to be a kill trap (direct or indirect), and by your reasoning, as it IS deliberate and it IS cruel is not in your code of conduct?
So, now that poison is out and traps are out (as they're too cruel) whats the next option? Genetic alteration? Well we all now know that scientists are all corrupt and greedy so thats out.
Anyone got the number for the Pied Piper?

@kiwijames, do I come across as a hand wringer? I'd not consider any trap "cruel" simply because it kills. What matters is HOW well/quickly it kills. Should be a gold standard to have cull animals finish their journey unstressed, from "now what's in here?" to "blank".

A thought: it's accepted fact that intentional animal cruelty goes on in this business, or legal protection would never have been set up to cover it. It would therefore seem legally OK to shoot deer and goats with milsurp FMJs, and at dodgy ranges, because you can theoretically kill more of them that way. But is it right?

Originally Posted by tiroatedson

From my perspective the ‘nutty’ pro people are ones who advocate 1080 to the exclusion of anything else. BTW I don’t advocate the “shooting down of choppers..” and vandalism. I get the frustration though....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have never met anyone or heard of anyone who advocate 1080 to the exclusion of everything else. I have met and heard many people who advocate trapping to the exclusion of 1080. I think the latter are the nuttiest.