Thread: Warning Distressing and Disturbing Photographs- 1080 Poison

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?