How do women think?

[Nightjar]

No. It should only be done by a qualified vet.

[Nightjar]

Prosecution would be under Section 4 of The Animal Welfare Act 2006 - protection from unnecessary suffering. The section includes an exemption for the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner, but that is unlikely to apply to any DIY methods.

[stuart noble]

Cost us £20 at the vets but it was more to do with the suffering of the owners. Maybe us townies should have the courage to kill things we love. I drowned a neighbour's hamster once. For something on its last legs it didn't half struggle

[F Murtz]

What rot, there are many humane methods, slitting throat, squashing head quickly with huge donger chopping head off with an axe,various gassing methods none of which would be criminal in a court of law much as you would like to think. In fact throat slitting is done extensively in slaughtering.

[tony sayer]

Both sets of grandparents and the ones before them kept animals for food and knew how to kill them. I once saw granddad kill a rabbit it was there one second and not the next very quick and clean and that was what they believed in and took some, dare I say it, pride in doing so.

Even when shooting them it was drummed into me to not to shoot at any animal bird etc unless you can kill it quickly and without it suffering...

I'm sure there are plenty of vid's on Youtube showing animals being slaughtered in a less efficient "religious" manner..

[Nightjar]

To be legal, the method must be both appropriate and humane. UK case law so far is that any DIY methods are likely to fail on one of those criteria. All of the methods you describe, with the possible exception of gassing by a qualified person, are likely to be classed as causing unnecessary suffering in a UK Court if used to despatch a domestic pet.

[Bill]

A neighbour, from many years ago, of mine was successfully prosecuted for doing just this. Which given the circumstances I think was totally unfair and unjustified.

He had a very old and ill collie that he had owned since she was a pup. When the end was close he sat with her at home, in the back garden, out in the country, not in town, and shot her in the back of the head with a

410. She knew nothing and was relaxed at home. There is no way that she suffered. His big mistake was telling someone, who told someone else, what he had done and the local towny incomer busy body reported him for it. >

[Tim Streater]

Was it the RSPCA that did the prosecution? I'm referring to the organisation that apparently used to be a force for good, but which now seems to be run by fascists.

[Bill]

In message , Tim Streater writes

I really do not remember, I was about 12 at the time, 40+ years ago.

[Tim Watts]

If you really have to, stick it in a bag or tank and fill with nitrogen, helium, argon or anything else that is not O2 or CO2[1]. But unless you happen to have a cylinder lying around, the vet is probably cheaper!

[1] In mammals, the feeling of suffocation is caused by excess CO2 in the blood, not lack of O2. The principle of inert gas asphyxiation is to allow the CO2 to come out but not replace the O2.

[Tim Watts]

Not without having stunned the animal first. Unless it's halal or kosher

- both of which out to be banned outright as an affront to our long established animal cruelty laws IMO.

[Tim Watts]

They're only fascists towards easy targets.

[John Williamson]

The Halal mob are actually beginning to stun the animals first, if stories in the media are to be believed. Though they still claim that their method is humane even without stunning.

[F Murtz]

I do not believe this happened with the circumstances described, your memory must be wrong, there would be cases when people get prosecuted but these would be when the person caused the animal unnecessary suffering read your own laws on the subject.

(1)A person commits an offence if?

(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,

(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,

(c)the animal is a protected animal, and

(d)the suffering is unnecessary.

(2)A person commits an offence if?

(a)he is responsible for an animal,

(b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer,

(c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and

(d)the suffering is unnecessary.

(3)The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include?

(a)whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced;

(b)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment;

(c)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as?

(i)the purpose of benefiting the animal, or

(ii)the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal;

(d)whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned;

(e)whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person.

(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.

[F Murtz]

Rot read your uk laws on the subject

[Tim Streater]

That's part of the definition of the word.

[charles]

Of course, the offence might be discharging a firearm too close to a public highway. There is a minimum distance, but I don't know it off hand.

[Nightjar]

...

You are quoting from the 2006 Act, which would not have been in force at the time (40+ years ago). However, he might well have been prosecuted for a firearms offence. The only time that it is permissible to shoot a dog is when it is the act of worrying livestock and then only if there is no other practical means of stopping it or if it is not under anybody's control and there is no practical way to determine who owns it.

[Nightjar]

Essentially, under UK laws, unless you are licensed or otherwise qualified to kill domestic animals, you risk prosecution if you do so.

[John Rumm]

The RSPCA have a reputation for behaving as if they are able to make their own laws anyway...