Hypocritical RSPCA Options

[GoCompare]

Whilst I am please to hear a Muntjac was rescued today, I cannot help but think that the RSPCA are hypocrites.

We had one of these creatures trapped in our garden a while back. When we phoned the RSPCA to ask for advice and possibly for them to come and get it, they said the would, but they would have to put it down. They said they were not permitted to release it back in the wild. They would take it to be put it down. This was because it is classified as vermin. Rather like American Crayfish.

Reading the article, it seems thankfully, they have changed their tune.


http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=12997

[dannyboy]

Whilst I am please to hear a Muntjac was rescued today, I cannot help but think that the RSPCA are hypocrites.

We had one of these creatures trapped in our garden a while back. When we phoned the RSPCA to ask for advice and possibly for them to come and get it, they said the would, but they would have to put it down. They said they were not permitted to release it back in the wild. They would take it to be put it down. This was because it is classified as vermin. Rather like American Crayfish.

Reading the article, it seems thankfully, they have changed their tune.


http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=12997

Why do you think the tune has been changed? Newspapers write stories to sell advertsing space. And the quote about the deer's fate came from the RBFRS, not the RSPCA.
The RSPCA are there to prevent cruelty & suffering to animals, not to keep animals alive.

[JeffG]

On the DEFRA site, I found the following quote from the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I don't know if it's been superseded, but if not, it seems the RSPCA may have been trying to avoid paperwork in the OP's case.

Box 7: Releases of established non-native animals

One area of the release of non-native species (either those listed on Schedule 9 or others) which requires some clarification is the question of animal welfare as regards the recovery of injured non-native animals. This applies particularly to established non-native species listed on Schedule 9 as these are more likely to be injured and handed in to wildlife hospitals by concerned members of the public.

At present, such animals cannot be released into the wild without a licence; licences can be currently granted for the release of injured Muntjac Deer Muntiacus reevesi, but other Schedule 9 species commonly handed in cannot be released. This implies that all such animals should be destroyed or that they should be kept in secure accommodation until they die of natural causes. Animal welfare is an issue which concerns many people, and although most people would deem it acceptable to put down an injured animal which has no chance of making a successful recovery, the destruction of animals which could recover, particularly charismatic species which people commonly perceive as wild (e.g. Grey Squirrel Sciurus caroliensis, Muntjac, Canada Goose Branta canadiensis ) is considered less acceptable.

[GoCompare]

On the DEFRA site, I found the following quote from the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I don't know if it's been superseded, but if not, it seems the RSPCA may have been trying to avoid paperwork in the OP's case.

Or there were cameras about for the rescue! Like I said, you are not meant to release healthy animals that are not native to this country. Saying all that, I'm pleased for the little creature, but disappointed that the RSPCA couldn't be more helpful for us.

the destruction of animals which could recover, particularly charismatic species which people commonly perceive as wild is considered less acceptable.

[JeffG]

My paperwork comment was about your experience (as I said), not the canal rescue with cameras about.

Re not releasing healthy Schedule 9 animals, are you saying it's ok to release injured animals (as per my quote from the Act), but not healthy ones? The Act is a bit ambiguous, isn't it? Also re-read the section in bold - that's the "paperwork" I was referring to.

[Jayjay]

RSPCA = Royal Society Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The deer in the garden was not being treated cruely, therefore it was not in their remit.

Unsure what organisation you should go to for treatment or info on a wild animal.

[GoCompare]

RSPCA = Royal Society Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The deer in the garden was not being treated cruely, therefore it was not in their remit.

If that was true, why did they offer to come and put it down? The deer was trapped in our garden and couldn't get out.

Unsure what organisation you should go to for treatment or info on a wild animal.

RSPCA has a wider remit than simply cruelty to animals.

Anyway, it is besides the OPs point.

[GoCompare]

My paperwork comment was about your experience (as I said), not the canal rescue with cameras about.

I know, but I am suggesting that they wouldn't have put the animal down in front of everyone.

Re not releasing healthy Schedule 9 animals, are you saying it's ok to release injured animals (as per my quote from the Act), but not healthy ones? The Act is a bit ambiguous, isn't it? Also re-read the section in bold - that's the "paperwork" I was referring to.

I don't think the act is ambiguous. I think if the RSPCA catch a muntjac, they are not to release it back in to the wild. If it is injured, they are obliged to treat or destroy, but the act makes it clear that isn't the most desirable course of action, if an injured animal could make a full recovery.

[Iommi]

I found this.

"Currently legislation forbids the release of muntjac, however, rehabilitated individuals may be released within 1 km of where they were found. This has to be within one of the 12 home counties and a license for this release must be obtained from English Nature/Natural England."

http://www.deerstalking4all.com/index.asp?...mp;menuexpand=2

Perhaps someone with knowledge could clarify, like an RSPCA rep?

[blackdog]

Venison pie anyone?

[Iommi]

Could have been.