Philip
I know nothing about the situation that this charge relates to so
my comments are based on other related situations.
There are often vets on hand in the field when protesters are
present. The vets will assess and euthanise or treat birds as
required. Animals that are treatable are given into the care of
people who are able to follow through the rehabilitation and
release - be they vets, zoos or licensed rehabilitators.
Picking up the bird may or may not have prolonged it's suffering.
If the injuries where such that it would drown then maybe the
case, if not then the animal may die of bleeding / infection /
starvation in due course (where this might take from hours to
days).
The hunter may have been long gone - protest organisers have
previously encouraged protesters to keep out of the way of hunters
because of the risk of getting shot - or the hunters may have not
picked up the bird for the reasons you suggest.
In short, on the information provided no conclusion can be drawn
about the actions of any parties. It's only possible to note that,
in a place where it is was likely there were many potential
breaches happening, it's interesting that DSE chose to take this
matter to court.
cheers
storm
On 15/03/2012 11:56 AM, Philip Veerman wrote:
I have thought about this. The story as described, does not seem to be a
nonsensical charge, even if it is weird to lay such a charge against the
person who could be considered by us as the good guy. I agree that surely
Wildlife Officers have far better things to do with their time. There is
little doubt that the attempt by this person to rescue the bird would
prolong its stress and suffering. This is not good. Should this then be
punished? Should an example be made to argue that both activities of
shooting and attempting rescue, when there is little prospect of success are
(equal?) affronts against animal welfare. The defence argument is about how
good is it on animal welfare principles to leave an injured animal to
suffer. Of course the shooting is the cause of the problem and thus quite
weird to blame a rescuer. However given that the shooting had already
happened, I don't know what the alternative is. I understand that a rescuer
would be motivated by a wish to pick up a wounded duck to take it to a vet
for treatment. But how practical and realistic is that? It depends on the
nature of the injury. What happens to the bird then?
I wonder at the "The hunter didn't attempt to retrieve it." Could that have
been due to wishing to avoid confrontation with a nearby person of the
opposite viewpoint? Of course the bad part of the story is the whole
phenomenon of shooting at wild things for fun or maybe even food. I feel
that should be the illegal part. Then again how self righteous should I be,
when I as a customer, support an industry that non randomly treats chickens
far worse.
The story finishes with: "The matter will return to court on August 13."
Hopefully, with the point having been made, it will be dismissed.
Philip Veerman
24 Castley Circuit
Kambah ACT 2902
02 - 62314041
|
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
