FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Lynx "humanely destroyed"
Lynx "humanely destroyed"
Jump to: Newest in thread
Ceredigion Council have shot dead a lynx that escaped from Borth Wild Animal Kingdom after failing to recapture it since it jumped an electric fence.
In their statement the council insisted the lynx had been "humanely destroyed". I really hate the way councils have a euphemism for everything. Why don't they have the balls to just admit they killed it and stand by that decision rather try and pretend it was something it wasn't? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ceredigion Council have shot dead a lynx that escaped from Borth Wild Animal Kingdom after failing to recapture it since it jumped an electric fence.
In their statement the council insisted the lynx had been "humanely destroyed". I really hate the way councils have a euphemism for everything. Why don't they have the balls to just admit they killed it and stand by that decision rather try and pretend it was something it wasn't? "
this has really upset me. It was hardly a mountain lion or tiger and surely if they could get near enough to shoot it. Then they could have darted it.
It's not the lynxs fault they kept it in an inadequately safe enclosure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ceredigion Council have shot dead a lynx that escaped from Borth Wild Animal Kingdom after failing to recapture it since it jumped an electric fence.
In their statement the council insisted the lynx had been "humanely destroyed". I really hate the way councils have a euphemism for everything. Why don't they have the balls to just admit they killed it and stand by that decision rather try and pretend it was something it wasn't? this has really upset me. It was hardly a mountain lion or tiger and surely if they could get near enough to shoot it. Then they could have darted it.
It's not the lynxs fault they kept it in an inadequately safe enclosure."
It's also highly debatable that it caused much risk to the public. Sounds much more likely that it was a completely risk adverse council. They said "well if you corner it then it could become aggressive" - like every fucking animal in the world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *UNKIEMan
over a year ago
south east |
"Ceredigion Council have shot dead a lynx that escaped from Borth Wild Animal Kingdom after failing to recapture it since it jumped an electric fence.
In their statement the council insisted the lynx had been "humanely destroyed". I really hate the way councils have a euphemism for everything. Why don't they have the balls to just admit they killed it and stand by that decision rather try and pretend it was something it wasn't? this has really upset me. It was hardly a mountain lion or tiger and surely if they could get near enough to shoot it. Then they could have darted it.
It's not the lynxs fault they kept it in an inadequately safe enclosure."
 so many ways the council could have captured this animal..smacks of council not wanting to use up resources and go for the cheap option ..i think they should be answerable for their actions  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it."
As if wild animals are only interested in harming people's children.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If the Lynx could be shot with a bullet,could it not have been shot with a tranquilizer dart? Was anyone ever in any danger from an animal that was probably more frightened and hungry than aggressive?
I hope that the poor creature did die as quickly and painlessly as possible but I'm sure this could have been avoided. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's a disgusting approach unless there was someone about to be harmed, when they could have used a tranquiliser instead.
Knowing its location would make it easy to recapture and allow the poor animal as decent a life as it could have in captivity. The effort involved in finding and killing it could have been used so much more appropriately. I hope locals force some changes there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Ceredigion Council have shot dead a lynx that escaped from Borth Wild Animal Kingdom after failing to recapture it since it jumped an electric fence.
In their statement the council insisted the lynx had been "humanely destroyed". I really hate the way councils have a euphemism for everything. Why don't they have the balls to just admit they killed it and stand by that decision rather try and pretend it was something it wasn't? this has really upset me. It was hardly a mountain lion or tiger and surely if they could get near enough to shoot it. Then they could have darted it.
It's not the lynxs fault they kept it in an inadequately safe enclosure.
so many ways the council could have captured this animal..smacks of council not wanting to use up resources and go for the cheap option ..i think they should be answerable for their actions "
Would you want them to use their resources wisely or not?Do you believe spending thousand of pounds chasing this animal round is a good uses of resources? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ceredigion Council have shot dead a lynx that escaped from Borth Wild Animal Kingdom after failing to recapture it since it jumped an electric fence.
In their statement the council insisted the lynx had been "humanely destroyed". I really hate the way councils have a euphemism for everything. Why don't they have the balls to just admit they killed it and stand by that decision rather try and pretend it was something it wasn't? this has really upset me. It was hardly a mountain lion or tiger and surely if they could get near enough to shoot it. Then they could have darted it.
It's not the lynxs fault they kept it in an inadequately safe enclosure.
so many ways the council could have captured this animal..smacks of council not wanting to use up resources and go for the cheap option ..i think they should be answerable for their actions Would you want them to use their resources wisely or not?Do you believe spending thousand of pounds chasing this animal round is a good uses of resources? "
Would the park itself not have had some sort of responsibility for it if I loose a dog or a horse I wouldn't sit back and expect the council to find it. Odd |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Shot in a closed caravan park as it cowered under a caravan. It was twice the size as a domestic cat. Not exactly a tiger.
I fail to see why it couldn’t have been tranquillised. It was contained the public could have been advised to stay indoors for a bit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Probably better than just saying they 'killed it'. That could mean they clubbed it to death with a savoy cabbage.
Maybe the vet on site thought it was injured or too stressed to survive a rescue attempt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
As if wild animals are only interested in harming people's children. "
Ok, bad example. A wild animal is a wild animal. The reason I mention children is an adult would know it's not just a cat. They would also be more likely to take evasive action should the animal decide to attack, perhaps if cornered or felt threatened. Most wild animals will find an escape route and run off if they possibly can. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Shot in a closed caravan park as it cowered under a caravan. It was twice the size as a domestic cat. Not exactly a tiger.
I fail to see why it couldn’t have been tranquillised. It was contained the public could have been advised to stay indoors for a bit. "
Pretty sure I once read somewhere that they have to use the right type and amount of tranquiliser. Maybe they thought it might be an issue either way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it."
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
As if wild animals are only interested in harming people's children.
Ok, bad example. A wild animal is a wild animal. The reason I mention children is an adult would know it's not just a cat. They would also be more likely to take evasive action should the animal decide to attack, perhaps if cornered or felt threatened. Most wild animals will find an escape route and run off if they possibly can."
The kind of child it could realistically harm (3/4 years old) is not going to be walking around unaccompanied |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Shot in a closed caravan park as it cowered under a caravan. It was twice the size as a domestic cat. Not exactly a tiger.
I fail to see why it couldn’t have been tranquillised. It was contained the public could have been advised to stay indoors for a bit. "
this. It's just lazy and cruel way to end a beautiful cats life. I'm sure recently there was talk of reintroducing them to the wild anyway.... so can't be counted as that dangerous.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As a farmer I personally oppose the introduction of lynx to the UK.
I don't understand why they didn't tranquillise it though. Seems they always shoot escapees.
Also would she not be desensitised to people to some degree? Therefore could be a danger |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They did try to trap it, and in fact it almost did walk into a baited cage at one point, but then walked away.
Lets flip this on its head... what if it had ripped someones pet cat apart, a small dog, or scared someone with small children by appearing in their back garden? The locals would then be saying the local authorities weren't doing enough.
Me... I was hoping the Lynx would go off and do its own thing, and live to a ripe old age without upsetting anyone, thus proving we could, maybe, release more into the wild.
There is talk of plans to re-introduce wolves, and perhaps even bears, to remote parts of the Scottish wilds... but I doubt that will happen, people seem fixated by the thought that all these types of animals are "man eaters", not thinking of the countries around the world where these animals are found right now, and where the locals take sensible steps (well, most of the time) to negate the risks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever. "
Not in the wild. But cornered or under threat? Rather you than me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Shot in a closed caravan park as it cowered under a caravan. It was twice the size as a domestic cat. Not exactly a tiger.
I fail to see why it couldn’t have been tranquillised. It was contained the public could have been advised to stay indoors for a bit. "
I'm sure if they had a tranquilizing pistol or rifle to hand they would of used it. I'm afraid these items are not what a vet or police officer would carried around with them everyday of week. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They did try to trap it, and in fact it almost did walk into a baited cage at one point, but then walked away.
Lets flip this on its head... what if it had ripped someones pet cat apart, a small dog, or scared someone with small children by appearing in their back garden? The locals would then be saying the local authorities weren't doing enough.
Me... I was hoping the Lynx would go off and do its own thing, and live to a ripe old age without upsetting anyone, thus proving we could, maybe, release more into the wild.
There is talk of plans to re-introduce wolves, and perhaps even bears, to remote parts of the Scottish wilds... but I doubt that will happen, people seem fixated by the thought that all these types of animals are "man eaters", not thinking of the countries around the world where these animals are found right now, and where the locals take sensible steps (well, most of the time) to negate the risks."
That's where we have to change peoples attitudes to wildlife. Nature isn't scary, if I saw it in my garden I would be over the moon . But yes I agree blame culture is rife and people are terrified of their own shadow nowadays, someone always has to be too blame if they get a fright!
Wolves would be amazing to bring back.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Shot in a closed caravan park as it cowered under a caravan. It was twice the size as a domestic cat. Not exactly a tiger.
I fail to see why it couldn’t have been tranquillised. It was contained the public could have been advised to stay indoors for a bit. I'm sure if they had a tranquilizing pistol or rifle to hand they would of used it. I'm afraid these items are not what a vet or police officer would carried around with them everyday of week. "
then they should have had them. Or waited .. they have to have permission to discharge a weapon... so don't see why they can't have waited. I don't see what harm it was doing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever.
Not in the wild. But cornered or under threat? Rather you than me."
Well I'd not threaten or corner it. Cows are more dangerous but we don't shoot them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
To dart an animal you have to be a specialist. You have to actually have a vet with you too to immediately care for the animal.
The reason is, you put in too much sedative because you aim for the rear, but not enough to kill it, tricky. But what if it moves and you shoot it in the chest, now the dose is too big. So the vet needs to be there to stablise it.
Death in this way is seen as cruel compared to an instant bullet shot.
You can call forward more gun shooters on short notice.
It's likely the person who shot it, has never darted an animal, only knows how to shoot a gun, and there was no vet on hand.
That's as far as I know, as I have never darted an Animal. I have been trained to shoot and know I am not qualified to dart an animal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Shot in a closed caravan park as it cowered under a caravan. It was twice the size as a domestic cat. Not exactly a tiger.
I fail to see why it couldn’t have been tranquillised. It was contained the public could have been advised to stay indoors for a bit. I'm sure if they had a tranquilizing pistol or rifle to hand they would of used it. I'm afraid these items are not what a vet or police officer would carried around with them everyday of week. "
I'm not sure that vets and police officers carry rifles around with them every day either.If they had time to go fetch a gun then they had time to fetch the correct type of tranquiliser.
If there was such a danger to small children in the area,were those same small children not in any danger from a stray bullet or ricochet? No doubt whoever pulled the trigger was an expert but nothing is perfect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To dart an animal you have to be a specialist. You have to actually have a vet with you too to immediately care for the animal.
The reason is, you put in too much sedative because you aim for the rear, but not enough to kill it, tricky. But what if it moves and you shoot it in the chest, now the dose is too big. So the vet needs to be there to stablise it.
Death in this way is seen as cruel compared to an instant bullet shot.
You can call forward more gun shooters on short notice.
It's likely the person who shot it, has never darted an animal, only knows how to shoot a gun, and there was no vet on hand.
That's as far as I know, as I have never darted an Animal. I have been trained to shoot and know I am not qualified to dart an animal."
They tracked it for two weeks. Not having a vet on hand doesn't seem likely does it.
There may be other reasons but that one isn't valid |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever.
Not in the wild. But cornered or under threat? Rather you than me.
Well I'd not threaten or corner it. Cows are more dangerous but we don't shoot them."
Cows are more dangerous? Than a lynx? Yes ok! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Shot in a closed caravan park as it cowered under a caravan. It was twice the size as a domestic cat. Not exactly a tiger.
I fail to see why it couldn’t have been tranquillised. It was contained the public could have been advised to stay indoors for a bit. I'm sure if they had a tranquilizing pistol or rifle to hand they would of used it. I'm afraid these items are not what a vet or police officer would carried around with them everyday of week. then they should have had them. Or waited .. they have to have permission to discharge a weapon... so don't see why they can't have waited. I don't see what harm it was doing. "
How long should they have waited? hour? fours hours? a day? I'm afraid that animal would not have sat there quietly waiting while they run off to find a nice way to shoot it.That sort of thing only happens in films, real life does not work like that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"On average 50 people a day get shot dead in S Africa, around 30 in Mexico.
UK seems a good place to be to me  "
And we'd rather it stayed that way,wouldn't we. Those other countries could become more like us with regard to guns,rather than us becoming more like them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever.
Not in the wild. But cornered or under threat? Rather you than me.
Well I'd not threaten or corner it. Cows are more dangerous but we don't shoot them.
Cows are more dangerous? Than a lynx? Yes ok!"
Nobody ever attacked by a lynx.
Between 2006 and 2011 8 people are known to have been killed by cattle, 56 injured.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
inagine the opposite, they left it be and the lynx happened to attack some one. I think a lot more people would've been a lot more angry.
And by killed it humanely I think they mean, it probably died pretty quick and didn't really suffer |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They tracked it for two weeks. Not having a vet on hand doesn't seem likely does it.
There may be other reasons but that one isn't valid "
Actually that makes it more likely they didn't have one on hand.
The cant pay vets to leave their jobs and travel around looking for an escaped animal in an ever increasing area.
Basically the people looking for it, have a gun, and maybe a dart gun. When they find it they call the vet. If the vet says "I'm 5 mins away", fine. If the vet says "I'm an hour away" and youre in an enclosed area with people, you shoot it dead. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever.
Not in the wild. But cornered or under threat? Rather you than me.
Well I'd not threaten or corner it. Cows are more dangerous but we don't shoot them.
Cows are more dangerous? Than a lynx? Yes ok!
Nobody ever attacked by a lynx.
Between 2006 and 2011 8 people are known to have been killed by cattle, 56 injured.
"
Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever.
Not in the wild. But cornered or under threat? Rather you than me."
People that threaten and corner a lynx are people our gene pool can do without |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They tracked it for two weeks. Not having a vet on hand doesn't seem likely does it.
There may be other reasons but that one isn't valid
Actually that makes it more likely they didn't have one on hand.
The cant pay vets to leave their jobs and travel around looking for an escaped animal in an ever increasing area.
Basically the people looking for it, have a gun, and maybe a dart gun. When they find it they call the vet. If the vet says "I'm 5 mins away", fine. If the vet says "I'm an hour away" and youre in an enclosed area with people, you shoot it dead."
In two weeks,they couldn't find a net? or put down some drugged meat? They just had to shoot it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"They tracked it for two weeks. Not having a vet on hand doesn't seem likely does it.
There may be other reasons but that one isn't valid
Actually that makes it more likely they didn't have one on hand.
The cant pay vets to leave their jobs and travel around looking for an escaped animal in an ever increasing area.
Basically the people looking for it, have a gun, and maybe a dart gun. When they find it they call the vet. If the vet says "I'm 5 mins away", fine. If the vet says "I'm an hour away" and youre in an enclosed area with people, you shoot it dead.
In two weeks,they couldn't find a net? or put down some drugged meat? They just had to shoot it?"
If you bait with drugged meat how do you stop non-target species taking it ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever.
Not in the wild. But cornered or under threat? Rather you than me.
Well I'd not threaten or corner it. Cows are more dangerous but we don't shoot them.
Cows are more dangerous? Than a lynx? Yes ok!
Nobody ever attacked by a lynx.
Between 2006 and 2011 8 people are known to have been killed by cattle, 56 injured.
Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance."
Have i ever worked with cows? Yes.
And brought up to respect and be sensible around all animals.
Why were people killed by cowd? Mostly ignorance.
Why was the lynx killed? I suspect the same reason. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Shot in a closed caravan park as it cowered under a caravan. It was twice the size as a domestic cat. Not exactly a tiger.
I fail to see why it couldn’t have been tranquillised. It was contained the public could have been advised to stay indoors for a bit. I'm sure if they had a tranquilizing pistol or rifle to hand they would of used it. I'm afraid these items are not what a vet or police officer would carried around with them everyday of week. then they should have had them. Or waited .. they have to have permission to discharge a weapon... so don't see why they can't have waited. I don't see what harm it was doing. How long should they have waited? hour? fours hours? a day? I'm afraid that animal would not have sat there quietly waiting while they run off to find a nice way to shoot it.That sort of thing only happens in films, real life does not work like that. "
as long as it took in my opinion. It was hardly doing any harm . I disagree when they shoot animals that have hurt someone because of a humans own stupidity too. Who makes us more important.
They just took the easy lazy option. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmmMaybeCouple
over a year ago
West Wales |
"
I don't understand why they didn't tranquillise it though. Seems they always shoot escapees.
"
I agree, A cynic might say that its the standard response, not for the safety aspect but more a "Get your house in order" to the zoo, wildlife park concerned.
If the other posters comment of it being shot cowering under a caravan in a closed park is correct then that's just plain disgusting..
S |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance."
If a bull escaped from a farm it would be shot dead too.
It stops being about the animal and becomes an insurance issue.
If your animal escapes and its possibly dangerous to humans, and you have a chance to shoot it dead, and you don't take it and it goes on to hurt someone, then you could probably lose everything as your insurance will probably blame you.
It wont matter if you say in front of a judge "well they don't normally attack people, and usually its the persons fault" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I just read up on this story on Wales Online.
The specialists from the wildlife park did put down drugged meat for the Lynx,they did have marksmen redy to tranquilize her,they found her at night,in a deserted caravan park, under a caravan,hemmed in on three sides by decking.They were preparing to capture her with a net but were prevented from doing so by a council official (a Lynx expert??) who insisted that she had to be shot.
The police were not involved in the shooting,the vets and the wildlife park owners were not in favour of shooting her.
Anybody still say that shooting her was the only or the best option? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Shot in a closed caravan park as it cowered under a caravan. It was twice the size as a domestic cat. Not exactly a tiger.
I fail to see why it couldn’t have been tranquillised. It was contained the public could have been advised to stay indoors for a bit. I'm sure if they had a tranquilizing pistol or rifle to hand they would of used it. I'm afraid these items are not what a vet or police officer would carried around with them everyday of week. then they should have had them. Or waited .. they have to have permission to discharge a weapon... so don't see why they can't have waited. I don't see what harm it was doing. How long should they have waited? hour? fours hours? a day? I'm afraid that animal would not have sat there quietly waiting while they run off to find a nice way to shoot it.That sort of thing only happens in films, real life does not work like that. as long as it took in my opinion. It was hardly doing any harm . I disagree when they shoot animals that have hurt someone because of a humans own stupidity too. Who makes us more important.
They just took the easy lazy option. "
Had they took the lazy option surely they would would of just shot it on day one? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I just read up on this story on Wales Online.
The specialists from the wildlife park did put down drugged meat for the Lynx,they did have marksmen redy to tranquilize her,they found her at night,in a deserted caravan park, under a caravan,hemmed in on three sides by decking.They were preparing to capture her with a net but were prevented from doing so by a council official (a Lynx expert??) who insisted that she had to be shot.
The police were not involved in the shooting,the vets and the wildlife park owners were not in favour of shooting her.
Anybody still say that shooting her was the only or the best option? "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever.
Not in the wild. But cornered or under threat? Rather you than me.
Well I'd not threaten or corner it. Cows are more dangerous but we don't shoot them.
Cows are more dangerous? Than a lynx? Yes ok!
Nobody ever attacked by a lynx.
Between 2006 and 2011 8 people are known to have been killed by cattle, 56 injured.
Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
Have i ever worked with cows? Yes.
And brought up to respect and be sensible around all animals.
Why were people killed by cowd? Mostly ignorance.
Why was the lynx killed? I suspect the same reason."
Well as someone who has worked in a dairy, with beef cattle and a suckler herd, I would say your comparison is borne from ignorance.
Now, if you'd compared it to pigs, something else I have worked with for a short time, I might agree.
As for the lynx it is classed as a dangerous animal. Reading above, it was cornered. Which comes back to my earlier point. I'm not disagreeing that it should have been tranquilized or even netted. I'm guessing they didn't want to give it an opportunity to escape again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"I just read up on this story on Wales Online.
The specialists from the wildlife park did put down drugged meat for the Lynx,they did have marksmen redy to tranquilize her,they found her at night,in a deserted caravan park, under a caravan,hemmed in on three sides by decking.They were preparing to capture her with a net but were prevented from doing so by a council official (a Lynx expert??) who insisted that she had to be shot.
The police were not involved in the shooting,the vets and the wildlife park owners were not in favour of shooting her.
Anybody still say that shooting her was the only or the best option? "
Maybe after the wildlife park had spent two weeks of trying to capture the animal and failed to do so the council officer took the decision enough was enough and she/he could not take the risks that the animal would escape and therefore the animal needed to be shot? Not a decision i would of thought was taken lightly given the time that was afforded to the wildlife park to capture the animal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever.
Not in the wild. But cornered or under threat? Rather you than me.
Well I'd not threaten or corner it. Cows are more dangerous but we don't shoot them.
Cows are more dangerous? Than a lynx? Yes ok!
Nobody ever attacked by a lynx.
Between 2006 and 2011 8 people are known to have been killed by cattle, 56 injured.
Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
Have i ever worked with cows? Yes.
And brought up to respect and be sensible around all animals.
Why were people killed by cowd? Mostly ignorance.
Why was the lynx killed? I suspect the same reason.
Well as someone who has worked in a dairy, with beef cattle and a suckler herd, I would say your comparison is borne from ignorance.
Now, if you'd compared it to pigs, something else I have worked with for a short time, I might agree.
As for the lynx it is classed as a dangerous animal. Reading above, it was cornered. Which comes back to my earlier point. I'm not disagreeing that it should have been tranquilized or even netted. I'm guessing they didn't want to give it an opportunity to escape again."
All the specialists on the scene (who did know what they were doing) were in favour of a live capture. A council official (who probably doesn't know much about tracking animals) insisted that she had to be shot.
The lynx is a nocturnal hunter that would usually hunt hares,rodents and birds so the risk to small children is a bit of a non issue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever.
Not in the wild. But cornered or under threat? Rather you than me.
Well I'd not threaten or corner it. Cows are more dangerous but we don't shoot them.
Cows are more dangerous? Than a lynx? Yes ok!
Nobody ever attacked by a lynx.
Between 2006 and 2011 8 people are known to have been killed by cattle, 56 injured.
Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
Have i ever worked with cows? Yes.
And brought up to respect and be sensible around all animals.
Why were people killed by cowd? Mostly ignorance.
Why was the lynx killed? I suspect the same reason.
Well as someone who has worked in a dairy, with beef cattle and a suckler herd, I would say your comparison is borne from ignorance.
Now, if you'd compared it to pigs, something else I have worked with for a short time, I might agree.
As for the lynx it is classed as a dangerous animal. Reading above, it was cornered. Which comes back to my earlier point. I'm not disagreeing that it should have been tranquilized or even netted. I'm guessing they didn't want to give it an opportunity to escape again."
Again. There has never been a Lynx attack on a human. Panic response.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever.
Not in the wild. But cornered or under threat? Rather you than me.
Well I'd not threaten or corner it. Cows are more dangerous but we don't shoot them.
Cows are more dangerous? Than a lynx? Yes ok!
Nobody ever attacked by a lynx.
Between 2006 and 2011 8 people are known to have been killed by cattle, 56 injured.
Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
Have i ever worked with cows? Yes.
And brought up to respect and be sensible around all animals.
Why were people killed by cowd? Mostly ignorance.
Why was the lynx killed? I suspect the same reason.
Well as someone who has worked in a dairy, with beef cattle and a suckler herd, I would say your comparison is borne from ignorance.
Now, if you'd compared it to pigs, something else I have worked with for a short time, I might agree.
As for the lynx it is classed as a dangerous animal. Reading above, it was cornered. Which comes back to my earlier point. I'm not disagreeing that it should have been tranquilized or even netted. I'm guessing they didn't want to give it an opportunity to escape again.
All the specialists on the scene (who did know what they were doing) were in favour of a live capture. A council official (who probably doesn't know much about tracking animals) insisted that she had to be shot.
The lynx is a nocturnal hunter that would usually hunt hares,rodents and birds so the risk to small children is a bit of a non issue."
So it was the council not the experts that decided to shoot it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
As if wild animals are only interested in harming people's children. "
Most wild creatures are rightly afraid of humans and keep out if there way... with good reason. Even wild animals know who is more dangerous... another wild creature or a man with a gun
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
If a bull escaped from a farm it would be shot dead too.
It stops being about the animal and becomes an insurance issue.
If your animal escapes and its possibly dangerous to humans, and you have a chance to shoot it dead, and you don't take it and it goes on to hurt someone, then you could probably lose everything as your insurance will probably blame you.
It wont matter if you say in front of a judge "well they don't normally attack people, and usually its the persons fault""
Actually it will, it's about proportionality. Was the force applied proportional to the threat? Just like police can legally kill someone who is about to detonate a bomb, but this is the equivalent of the police shooting someone for speeding. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever.
Not in the wild. But cornered or under threat? Rather you than me.
Well I'd not threaten or corner it. Cows are more dangerous but we don't shoot them.
Cows are more dangerous? Than a lynx? Yes ok!
Nobody ever attacked by a lynx.
Between 2006 and 2011 8 people are known to have been killed by cattle, 56 injured.
Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
Have i ever worked with cows? Yes.
And brought up to respect and be sensible around all animals.
Why were people killed by cowd? Mostly ignorance.
Why was the lynx killed? I suspect the same reason.
Well as someone who has worked in a dairy, with beef cattle and a suckler herd, I would say your comparison is borne from ignorance.
Now, if you'd compared it to pigs, something else I have worked with for a short time, I might agree.
As for the lynx it is classed as a dangerous animal. Reading above, it was cornered. Which comes back to my earlier point. I'm not disagreeing that it should have been tranquilized or even netted. I'm guessing they didn't want to give it an opportunity to escape again.
All the on the scene (who did know what they were doing) were in favour of a live capture. A council official (who probably doesn't know much about tracking animals) insisted that she had to be shot.
The lynx is a nocturnal hunter that would usually hunt hares,rodents and birds so the risk to small children is a bit of a non issue."
Had the specialists known what they were doing they would have captured the animal within the two weeks.They did not so they were not that clever at their job. This animal was most likely to have been bred in captivity and would not have known how to hunt so would of been hungry, but I do not for a moment think children would have been at risk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
If a bull escaped from a farm it would be shot dead too.
It stops being about the animal and becomes an insurance issue.
If your animal escapes and its possibly dangerous to humans, and you have a chance to shoot it dead, and you don't take it and it goes on to hurt someone, then you could probably lose everything as your insurance will probably blame you.
It wont matter if you say in front of a judge "well they don't normally attack people, and usually its the persons fault"
Actually it will, it's about proportionality. Was the force applied proportional to the threat? Just like police can legally kill someone who is about to detonate a bomb, but this is the equivalent of the police shooting someone for speeding. "
Hardly! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"After two weeks evading capture I doubt it was a panic response. More opportunistic."
Yes,they had the opportunity,the means and the expertise on hand to capture her. Unfortunately,they also had a council jobsworth who wouldn't allow that.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
If a bull escaped from a farm it would be shot dead too.
It stops being about the animal and becomes an insurance issue.
If your animal escapes and its possibly dangerous to humans, and you have a chance to shoot it dead, and you don't take it and it goes on to hurt someone, then you could probably lose everything as your insurance will probably blame you.
It wont matter if you say in front of a judge "well they don't normally attack people, and usually its the persons fault"
Actually it will, it's about proportionality. Was the force applied proportional to the threat? Just like police can legally kill someone who is about to detonate a bomb, but this is the equivalent of the police shooting someone for speeding. Hardly! "
Remind me again how many attacks on humans there have been by lynx? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever.
Not in the wild. But cornered or under threat? Rather you than me.
Well I'd not threaten or corner it. Cows are more dangerous but we don't shoot them.
Cows are more dangerous? Than a lynx? Yes ok!
Nobody ever attacked by a lynx.
Between 2006 and 2011 8 people are known to have been killed by cattle, 56 injured.
Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
Have i ever worked with cows? Yes.
And brought up to respect and be sensible around all animals.
Why were people killed by cowd? Mostly ignorance.
Why was the lynx killed? I suspect the same reason.
Well as someone who has worked in a dairy, with beef cattle and a suckler herd, I would say your comparison is borne from ignorance.
Now, if you'd compared it to pigs, something else I have worked with for a short time, I might agree.
As for the lynx it is classed as a dangerous animal. Reading above, it was cornered. Which comes back to my earlier point. I'm not disagreeing that it should have been tranquilized or even netted. I'm guessing they didn't want to give it an opportunity to escape again.
All the on the scene (who did know what they were doing) were in favour of a live capture. A council official (who probably doesn't know much about tracking animals) insisted that she had to be shot.
The lynx is a nocturnal hunter that would usually hunt hares,rodents and birds so the risk to small children is a bit of a non issue.Had the specialists known what they were doing they would have captured the animal within the two weeks.They did not so they were not that clever at their job. This animal was most likely to have been bred in captivity and would not have known how to hunt so would of been hungry, but I do not for a moment think children would have been at risk. "
Tracking her for three weeks doesn't mean they had her in their sights for all that time.There's a lot of land to cover in rural Wales. When they found her they were ready to capture her but weren't allowed to. It was not a necessity to kill her. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
If a bull escaped from a farm it would be shot dead too.
It stops being about the animal and becomes an insurance issue.
If your animal escapes and its possibly dangerous to humans, and you have a chance to shoot it dead, and you don't take it and it goes on to hurt someone, then you could probably lose everything as your insurance will probably blame you.
It wont matter if you say in front of a judge "well they don't normally attack people, and usually its the persons fault"
Actually it will, it's about proportionality. Was the force applied proportional to the threat? Just like police can legally kill someone who is about to detonate a bomb, but this is the equivalent of the police shooting someone for speeding. Hardly!
Remind me again how many attacks on humans there have been by lynx? "
What does that have to do with the price of cheese? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
If a bull escaped from a farm it would be shot dead too.
It stops being about the animal and becomes an insurance issue.
If your animal escapes and its possibly dangerous to humans, and you have a chance to shoot it dead, and you don't take it and it goes on to hurt someone, then you could probably lose everything as your insurance will probably blame you.
It wont matter if you say in front of a judge "well they don't normally attack people, and usually its the persons fault"
Actually it will, it's about proportionality. Was the force applied proportional to the threat? Just like police can legally kill someone who is about to detonate a bomb, but this is the equivalent of the police shooting someone for speeding. Hardly!
Remind me again how many attacks on humans there have been by lynx? "
You could argue how many lynx are roaming the British countryside. If they're not why not?
I've never said in any of my posts that it should have been shot. I am a firm believer that it should have been captured if possible. I wasn't there, so I don't know the reason it was shot as opposed to capture. I'm also guessing that unlike all the experts on here, that there is a reason that they wanted it to be captured rather than being allowed to roam the countryside. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
If a bull escaped from a farm it would be shot dead too.
It stops being about the animal and becomes an insurance issue.
If your animal escapes and its possibly dangerous to humans, and you have a chance to shoot it dead, and you don't take it and it goes on to hurt someone, then you could probably lose everything as your insurance will probably blame you.
It wont matter if you say in front of a judge "well they don't normally attack people, and usually its the persons fault"
Actually it will, it's about proportionality. Was the force applied proportional to the threat? Just like police can legally kill someone who is about to detonate a bomb, but this is the equivalent of the police shooting someone for speeding. Hardly!
Remind me again how many attacks on humans there have been by lynx?
You could argue how many lynx are roaming the British countryside. If they're not why not?
I've never said in any of my posts that it should have been shot. I am a firm believer that it should have been captured if possible. I wasn't there, so I don't know the reason it was shot as opposed to capture. I'm also guessing that unlike all the experts on here, that there is a reason that they wanted it to be captured rather than being allowed to roam the countryside."
I don't restrict my question to the British countryside, just give me the figure of how many recorded attacks on humans by lynx there have been anywhere and over what time period? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
have you tried writing a strongly worded letter of complaint to ceridigion council informing them of how appalled you are at their shooting of the said escaped lynx and calling on them to refrain from shooting dead any further escaped lynx? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it.
There has never been a recorded attack by a Lynx on a human. Not one. Ever.
Not in the wild. But cornered or under threat? Rather you than me.
Well I'd not threaten or corner it. Cows are more dangerous but we don't shoot them.
Cows are more dangerous? Than a lynx? Yes ok!"
Yes, cows are way more dangerous than a Lynx.
Remember, a cow weighs in at over half a ton, and, despite what you see in your average news or docu clip, they are not always so placid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
If a bull escaped from a farm it would be shot dead too.
It stops being about the animal and becomes an insurance issue.
If your animal escapes and its possibly dangerous to humans, and you have a chance to shoot it dead, and you don't take it and it goes on to hurt someone, then you could probably lose everything as your insurance will probably blame you.
It wont matter if you say in front of a judge "well they don't normally attack people, and usually its the persons fault"
Actually it will, it's about proportionality. Was the force applied proportional to the threat? Just like police can legally kill someone who is about to detonate a bomb, but this is the equivalent of the police shooting someone for speeding. Hardly!
Remind me again how many attacks on humans there have been by lynx?
You could argue how many lynx are roaming the British countryside. If they're not why not?
I've never said in any of my posts that it should have been shot. I am a firm believer that it should have been captured if possible. I wasn't there, so I don't know the reason it was shot as opposed to capture. I'm also guessing that unlike all the experts on here, that there is a reason that they wanted it to be captured rather than being allowed to roam the countryside.
I don't restrict my question to the British countryside, just give me the figure of how many recorded attacks on humans by lynx there have been anywhere and over what time period? "
Aaah, ok. You're now talking generally rather than a specific instance. I thought the whole point of the thread was the one that escaped from a wild animal park?
In its natural habitat I would have no idea. Most animals will avoid human contact unless it is threatened, it's offspring is threatened or it is cornered.
In a suburban area I guess nobody knows, which is probably why they didn't want to find out. Again, I'm not condoning shooting it, if there were other options. Why they took the decision they did, I'm not party too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes, they shot it as it was entering a built up area and a possible danger to the population. Better that than harming a young child for example.
My only caveat would be, if they could shoot it dead, why couldn't they shoot it to anethetise it."
The Zoo it came from says there is no record of a Lynx attacking a human. It posed no threat to the general public whatsoever. Unlike the domestic dog which has killed many babies, children and adults. It should not have been shot. If it were actually dangerous it would have been in a different enclosure. It's very sad for Zoo staff, it was the council who had it shot x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
If a bull escaped from a farm it would be shot dead too.
It stops being about the animal and becomes an insurance issue.
If your animal escapes and its possibly dangerous to humans, and you have a chance to shoot it dead, and you don't take it and it goes on to hurt someone, then you could probably lose everything as your insurance will probably blame you.
It wont matter if you say in front of a judge "well they don't normally attack people, and usually its the persons fault"
Actually it will, it's about proportionality. Was the force applied proportional to the threat? Just like police can legally kill someone who is about to detonate a bomb, but this is the equivalent of the police shooting someone for speeding. Hardly!
Remind me again how many attacks on humans there have been by lynx?
You could argue how many lynx are roaming the British countryside. If they're not why not?
I've never said in any of my posts that it should have been shot. I am a firm believer that it should have been captured if possible. I wasn't there, so I don't know the reason it was shot as opposed to capture. I'm also guessing that unlike all the experts on here, that there is a reason that they wanted it to be captured rather than being allowed to roam the countryside.
I don't restrict my question to the British countryside, just give me the figure of how many recorded attacks on humans by lynx there have been anywhere and over what time period? "
The Zoo it came from says there are NO recorded attacks in humans by a Lynx. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
If a bull escaped from a farm it would be shot dead too.
It stops being about the animal and becomes an insurance issue.
If your animal escapes and its possibly dangerous to humans, and you have a chance to shoot it dead, and you don't take it and it goes on to hurt someone, then you could probably lose everything as your insurance will probably blame you.
It wont matter if you say in front of a judge "well they don't normally attack people, and usually its the persons fault"
Actually it will, it's about proportionality. Was the force applied proportional to the threat? Just like police can legally kill someone who is about to detonate a bomb, but this is the equivalent of the police shooting someone for speeding. Hardly!
Remind me again how many attacks on humans there have been by lynx?
You could argue how many lynx are roaming the British countryside. If they're not why not?
I've never said in any of my posts that it should have been shot. I am a firm believer that it should have been captured if possible. I wasn't there, so I don't know the reason it was shot as opposed to capture. I'm also guessing that unlike all the experts on here, that there is a reason that they wanted it to be captured rather than being allowed to roam the countryside.
I don't restrict my question to the British countryside, just give me the figure of how many recorded attacks on humans by lynx there have been anywhere and over what time period?
Aaah, ok. You're now talking generally rather than a specific instance. I thought the whole point of the thread was the one that escaped from a wild animal park?
In its natural habitat I would have no idea. Most animals will avoid human contact unless it is threatened, it's offspring is threatened or it is cornered.
In a suburban area I guess nobody knows, which is probably why they didn't want to find out. Again, I'm not condoning shooting it, if there were other options. Why they took the decision they did, I'm not party too."
You keep saying "who knows", people have studied this problem, there is a reason why there are plans to try and get 400 in the country, they pose no increased threat to humans. If you want to object on the grounds of attacking sheep then that's reasonable but please stop trying to make the public safety case with zero facts to support it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Humanely means to do so whilst inflicting the minimum amount of pain possible. I see no reason why they can’t use the term.
I get called out to RTAs involving deer and often I have to humanely deal with the deer if it can’t be saved.
This is just my opinion may I add. I know the laws and legislation, best practices codes in my field (no pun intended) of work, and I assume the council dealt with the matter in professional way. It’s a shame it happened and hopefully it won’t happen again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have you ever worked with cows?
How many cows are in the British countryside to lynx?
Do you know why those people were killed and injured?
Mainly because of people's ignorance.
If a bull escaped from a farm it would be shot dead too.
It stops being about the animal and becomes an insurance issue.
If your animal escapes and its possibly dangerous to humans, and you have a chance to shoot it dead, and you don't take it and it goes on to hurt someone, then you could probably lose everything as your insurance will probably blame you.
It wont matter if you say in front of a judge "well they don't normally attack people, and usually its the persons fault"
Actually it will, it's about proportionality. Was the force applied proportional to the threat? Just like police can legally kill someone who is about to detonate a bomb, but this is the equivalent of the police shooting someone for speeding. Hardly!
Remind me again how many attacks on humans there have been by lynx?
You could argue how many lynx are roaming the British countryside. If they're not why not?
I've never said in any of my posts that it should have been shot. I am a firm believer that it should have been captured if possible. I wasn't there, so I don't know the reason it was shot as opposed to capture. I'm also guessing that unlike all the experts on here, that there is a reason that they wanted it to be captured rather than being allowed to roam the countryside.
I don't restrict my question to the British countryside, just give me the figure of how many recorded attacks on humans by lynx there have been anywhere and over what time period?
Aaah, ok. You're now talking generally rather than a specific instance. I thought the whole point of the thread was the one that escaped from a wild animal park?
In its natural habitat I would have no idea. Most animals will avoid human contact unless it is threatened, it's offspring is threatened or it is cornered.
In a suburban area I guess nobody knows, which is probably why they didn't want to find out. Again, I'm not condoning shooting it, if there were other options. Why they took the decision they did, I'm not party too.
You keep saying "who knows", people have studied this problem, there is a reason why there are plans to try and get 400 in the country, they pose no increased threat to humans. If you want to object on the grounds of attacking sheep then that's reasonable but please stop trying to make the public safety case with zero facts to support it. "
Again! I thought we were talking about a specific animal that escaped from a wild animal park, that had evaded capture for a couple of weeks and had been cornered? Again not the animals fault!
You keep running the same argument about wild animals living in its natural habitat. Totally different. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
You keep saying "who knows", people have studied this problem, there is a reason why there are plans to try and get 400 in the country, they pose no increased threat to humans. If you want to object on the grounds of attacking sheep then that's reasonable but please stop trying to make the public safety case with zero facts to support it.
If we are getting pedantic on facts then you must now produce the studies that back up your claims. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Humanely means to do so whilst inflicting the minimum amount of pain possible. I see no reason why they can’t use the term.
I get called out to RTAs involving deer and often I have to humanely deal with the deer if it can’t be saved.
This is just my opinion may I add. I know the laws and legislation, best practices codes in my field (no pun intended) of work, and I assume the council dealt with the matter in professional way. It’s a shame it happened and hopefully it won’t happen again. "
There is a significant difference between a deer horse or other animal that us so severely injured it has no chance of recovery or return to the wild than simply shooting anothef creature because it is a convenient way of addressing a perceived problem where there is no evidence to support the objective assessment of such perception. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You keep saying "who knows", people have studied this problem, there is a reason why there are plans to try and get 400 in the country, they pose no increased threat to humans. If you want to object on the grounds of attacking sheep then that's reasonable but please stop trying to make the public safety case with zero facts to support it.
If we are getting pedantic on facts then you must now produce the studies that back up your claims. "
The lynx trust have studied it and found there are zero recorded attacks on humans. So on what basis would you say they are an increased risk to humans? It really couldn't be more black and white. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It escaped, signed up to fabswingers and regularly read the forums. After a few days reading all the dumb arguments and shitty posts it was glad when it saw the hunters |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ceredigion Council have shot dead a lynx that escaped from Borth Wild Animal Kingdom after failing to recapture it since it jumped an electric fence.
In their statement the council insisted the lynx had been "humanely destroyed". I really hate the way councils have a euphemism for everything. Why don't they have the balls to just admit they killed it and stand by that decision rather try and pretend it was something it wasn't? "
Despicable!!! They should have darted the lynx NOT kill it! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"You keep saying "who knows", people have studied this problem, there is a reason why there are plans to try and get 400 in the country, they pose no increased threat to humans. If you want to object on the grounds of attacking sheep then that's reasonable but please stop trying to make the public safety case with zero facts to support it.
If we are getting pedantic on facts then you must now produce the studies that back up your claims.
The lynx trust have studied it and found there are zero recorded attacks on humans. So on what basis would you say they are an increased risk to humans? It really couldn't be more black and white. "
Produced that study.What data did the lynx trust use?How reliable was that data.How far back in history did they go etc.Without facts and figure it is all conjecture by Lynx trusts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You keep saying "who knows", people have studied this problem, there is a reason why there are plans to try and get 400 in the country, they pose no increased threat to humans. If you want to object on the grounds of attacking sheep then that's reasonable but please stop trying to make the public safety case with zero facts to support it.
If we are getting pedantic on facts then you must now produce the studies that back up your claims.
The lynx trust have studied it and found there are zero recorded attacks on humans. So on what basis would you say they are an increased risk to humans? It really couldn't be more black and white. Produced that study.What data did the lynx trust use?How reliable was that data.How far back in history did they go etc.Without facts and figure it is all conjecture by Lynx trusts. "
By all means prove them wrong by finding a single documented attack by lynx on humans. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You keep saying "who knows", people have studied this problem, there is a reason why there are plans to try and get 400 in the country, they pose no increased threat to humans. If you want to object on the grounds of attacking sheep then that's reasonable but please stop trying to make the public safety case with zero facts to support it.
If we are getting pedantic on facts then you must now produce the studies that back up your claims.
The lynx trust have studied it and found there are zero recorded attacks on humans. So on what basis would you say they are an increased risk to humans? It really couldn't be more black and white. Produced that study.What data did the lynx trust use?How reliable was that data.How far back in history did they go etc.Without facts and figure it is all conjecture by Lynx trusts.
By all means prove them wrong by finding a single documented attack by lynx on humans."
This. Why are experts so discredited these days? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You keep saying "who knows", people have studied this problem, there is a reason why there are plans to try and get 400 in the country, they pose no increased threat to humans. If you want to object on the grounds of attacking sheep then that's reasonable but please stop trying to make the public safety case with zero facts to support it.
If we are getting pedantic on facts then you must now produce the studies that back up your claims.
The lynx trust have studied it and found there are zero recorded attacks on humans. So on what basis would you say they are an increased risk to humans? It really couldn't be more black and white. Produced that study.What data did the lynx trust use?How reliable was that data.How far back in history did they go etc.Without facts and figure it is all conjecture by Lynx trusts.
By all means prove them wrong by finding a single documented attack by lynx on humans.
This. Why are experts so discredited these days?"
A Lynx is a large cat at the end of the day, more interested in birds and rabbits than bringing down a human. I would need to have word with myself if I feared for my safety in front of one.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"You keep saying "who knows", people have studied this problem, there is a reason why there are plans to try and get 400 in the country, they pose no increased threat to humans. If you want to object on the grounds of attacking sheep then that's reasonable but please stop trying to make the public safety case with zero facts to support it.
If we are getting pedantic on facts then you must now produce the studies that back up your claims.
The lynx trust have studied it and found there are zero recorded attacks on humans. So on what basis would you say they are an increased risk to humans? It really couldn't be more black and white. Produced that study.What data did the lynx trust use?How reliable was that data.How far back in history did they go etc.Without facts and figure it is all conjecture by Lynx trusts.
By all means prove them wrong by finding a single documented attack by lynx on humans."
There are several attacks on humans one only has to google it and look on you-tube. However I would not claim those attacks where the fault of the animal but attack humans they have, but it must be put in proper context like everything in life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You keep saying "who knows", people have studied this problem, there is a reason why there are plans to try and get 400 in the country, they pose no increased threat to humans. If you want to object on the grounds of attacking sheep then that's reasonable but please stop trying to make the public safety case with zero facts to support it.
If we are getting pedantic on facts then you must now produce the studies that back up your claims.
The lynx trust have studied it and found there are zero recorded attacks on humans. So on what basis would you say they are an increased risk to humans? It really couldn't be more black and white. Produced that study.What data did the lynx trust use?How reliable was that data.How far back in history did they go etc.Without facts and figure it is all conjecture by Lynx trusts.
By all means prove them wrong by finding a single documented attack by lynx on humans.There are several attacks on humans one only has to google it and look on you-tube. However I would not claim those attacks where the fault of the animal but attack humans they have, but it must be put in proper context like everything in life. "
I don't want to argue semantics but I'm talking about a lynx looking at a human and thinking "yeah i fancy that for dinner" and trying to kill the human. Not some redneck retard shoving a camera in the face of a lynx and wondering why it swipes at them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ceredigion Council have shot dead a lynx that escaped from Borth Wild Animal Kingdom after failing to recapture it since it jumped an electric fence.
In their statement the council insisted the lynx had been "humanely destroyed". I really hate the way councils have a euphemism for everything. Why don't they have the balls to just admit they killed it and stand by that decision rather try and pretend it was something it wasn't? "
LOL, I actually agree
But then I feel the fact that wild animals are enclosed in what are virtually prisons for the amusement of the general public to be a bit inhumane in and of itself anyway. So why not add to the bullshit by using nonsensical PC terms to mask the exploitative nature of it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You keep saying "who knows", people have studied this problem, there is a reason why there are plans to try and get 400 in the country, they pose no increased threat to humans. If you want to object on the grounds of attacking sheep then that's reasonable but please stop trying to make the public safety case with zero facts to support it.
If we are getting pedantic on facts then you must now produce the studies that back up your claims.
The lynx trust have studied it and found there are zero recorded attacks on humans. So on what basis would you say they are an increased risk to humans? It really couldn't be more black and white. Produced that study.What data did the lynx trust use?How reliable was that data.How far back in history did they go etc.Without facts and figure it is all conjecture by Lynx trusts.
By all means prove them wrong by finding a single documented attack by lynx on humans.
This. Why are experts so discredited these days?
A Lynx is a large cat at the end of the day, more interested in birds and rabbits than bringing down a human. I would need to have word with myself if I feared for my safety in front of one.
"
The main food of the Eurasian lynx or most lynx is deer, usually roe deer. Fox, rabbits and birds are only eaten if food is scarce.
I agree to be scared of one in the wild would perhaps be silly, as I've said most wild animals will avoid contact with humans unless threatened or cornered. The one that the thread started over was both, therefore unpredictable.
To say that the lynx society says there have been no attacks on humans, they're hardly going to say anything else. To do so would be the equivalent of Hilary Clinton endorsing Donald Trump's campaign.
I think everyone agrees that the animal should not have been shot, but I guess after two weeks of trying and failing someone decided to do something while they could. Whether that was right or wrong is debatable. But don't compare a wild, trapped, scared, threatened animal to one that is running free in its natural habitat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ceredigion Council have shot dead a lynx that escaped from Borth Wild Animal Kingdom after failing to recapture it since it jumped an electric fence.
In their statement the council insisted the lynx had been "humanely destroyed". I really hate the way councils have a euphemism for everything. Why don't they have the balls to just admit they killed it and stand by that decision rather try and pretend it was something it wasn't?
LOL, I actually agree
But then I feel the fact that wild animals are enclosed in what are virtually prisons for the amusement of the general public to be a bit inhumane in and of itself anyway. So why not add to the bullshit by using nonsensical PC terms to mask the exploitative nature of it?"
I usually agree on euphemisms but is there a specific meaning here.
"Destroyed" seems to mean a controlled kill rather than an accident. If the lynx ran in front of a car they'd use "killed".
Possibly pedantic but that's my view. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Humanely means to do so whilst inflicting the minimum amount of pain possible. I see no reason why they can’t use the term.
I get called out to RTAs involving deer and often I have to humanely deal with the deer if it can’t be saved.
This is just my opinion may I add. I know the laws and legislation, best practices codes in my field (no pun intended) of work, and I assume the council dealt with the matter in professional way. It’s a shame it happened and hopefully it won’t happen again.
There is a significant difference between a deer horse or other animal that us so severely injured it has no chance of recovery or return to the wild than simply shooting anothef creature because it is a convenient way of addressing a perceived problem where there is no evidence to support the objective assessment of such perception."
My point was that I was jsutifying the use of the term humanely in this case.
I admire your efforts to sound clever but you make little sense. Again, just my opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
I don't want to argue semantics but I'm talking about a lynx looking at a human and thinking "yeah i fancy that for dinner" and trying to kill the human. Not some redneck retard shoving a camera in the face of a lynx and wondering why it swipes at them.
Ok let look at this in a different way. Say this lynx was laid up in a kids Wendy house where it was nice and warm and felt nice and safe. Along comes little Wendy to play in that wendy house. On seeing the lovely, but big pussy cat went to stroke it. But the lynx feeling trapped would of courses swipe maybe more depending on the size of little Wendy to get away.That little girl was not a redneck she was just going to her wendy house in her garden to play and did not know that you do not corner a hungry wild animal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Humanely means to do so whilst inflicting the minimum amount of pain possible. I see no reason why they can’t use the term.
I get called out to RTAs involving deer and often I have to humanely deal with the deer if it can’t be saved.
This is just my opinion may I add. I know the laws and legislation, best practices codes in my field (no pun intended) of work, and I assume the council dealt with the matter in professional way. It’s a shame it happened and hopefully it won’t happen again.
There is a significant difference between a deer horse or other animal that us so severely injured it has no chance of recovery or return to the wild than simply shooting anothef creature because it is a convenient way of addressing a perceived problem where there is no evidence to support the objective assessment of such perception.
My point was that I was jsutifying the use of the term humanely in this case.
I admire your efforts to sound clever but you make little sense. Again, just my opinion. "
Perhaps you should re-read my comment. I made it clear that the humane treatment of a creature severely injured beyond repair is acceptable practice.
I also I hope made it clear that in my opinion the destruction of a wild animal based on a far from objective assessment of risk and a decision by a council official is deplorable.
There are estimated to be over 200 large cats..puma panther etc roaming free in the UK. They avoid human contact. The lynx is a much smaller cat nocturnal in feeding habits and also shuns human contact.
The two matters humane destruction of the injured and wilful destruction of wildlife bear no relationship to each other.
I apologise if you consider that an attempt to be clever. I have never felt the need to do so.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't want to argue semantics but I'm talking about a lynx looking at a human and thinking "yeah i fancy that for dinner" and trying to kill the human. Not some redneck retard shoving a camera in the face of a lynx and wondering why it swipes at them.
Ok let look at this in a different way. Say this lynx was laid up in a kids Wendy house where it was nice and warm and felt nice and safe. Along comes little Wendy to play in that wendy house. On seeing the lovely, but big pussy cat went to stroke it. But the lynx feeling trapped would of courses swipe maybe more depending on the size of little Wendy to get away.That little girl was not a redneck she was just going to her wendy house in her garden to play and did not know that you do not corner a hungry wild animal. "
That's just an arguement for trying to eliminate all risk from society. In that world people shouldn't have dogs then. There are no instances of what you are talking about. Ever. Rules need to proportional, we can't live in a risk free world and it's no fun living in a lowest common denominator world either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"I don't want to argue semantics but I'm talking about a lynx looking at a human and thinking "yeah i fancy that for dinner" and trying to kill the human. Not some redneck retard shoving a camera in the face of a lynx and wondering why it swipes at them.
Ok let look at this in a different way. Say this lynx was laid up in a kids Wendy house where it was nice and warm and felt nice and safe. Along comes little Wendy to play in that wendy house. On seeing the lovely, but big pussy cat went to stroke it. But the lynx feeling trapped would of courses swipe maybe more depending on the size of little Wendy to get away.That little girl was not a redneck she was just going to her wendy house in her garden to play and did not know that you do not corner a hungry wild animal.
That's just an arguement for trying to eliminate all risk from society. In that world people shouldn't have dogs then. There are no instances of what you are talking about. Ever. Rules need to proportional, we can't live in a risk free world and it's no fun living in a lowest common denominator world either. "
That because there are no wild lynx running about because they got shot.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't want to argue semantics but I'm talking about a lynx looking at a human and thinking "yeah i fancy that for dinner" and trying to kill the human. Not some redneck retard shoving a camera in the face of a lynx and wondering why it swipes at them.
Ok let look at this in a different way. Say this lynx was laid up in a kids Wendy house where it was nice and warm and felt nice and safe. Along comes little Wendy to play in that wendy house. On seeing the lovely, but big pussy cat went to stroke it. But the lynx feeling trapped would of courses swipe maybe more depending on the size of little Wendy to get away.That little girl was not a redneck she was just going to her wendy house in her garden to play and did not know that you do not corner a hungry wild animal.
That's just an arguement for trying to eliminate all risk from society. In that world people shouldn't have dogs then. There are no instances of what you are talking about. Ever. Rules need to proportional, we can't live in a risk free world and it's no fun living in a lowest common denominator world either. "
In our society, certain individuals are responsible for managing those risks and being accountable for decisions.
You're not one of them sat on the end of your mobile device posing for and against.
I love animals but the lynx ultimately doesn't be ling in that environment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't want to argue semantics but I'm talking about a lynx looking at a human and thinking "yeah i fancy that for dinner" and trying to kill the human. Not some redneck retard shoving a camera in the face of a lynx and wondering why it swipes at them.
Ok let look at this in a different way. Say this lynx was laid up in a kids Wendy house where it was nice and warm and felt nice and safe. Along comes little Wendy to play in that wendy house. On seeing the lovely, but big pussy cat went to stroke it. But the lynx feeling trapped would of courses swipe maybe more depending on the size of little Wendy to get away.That little girl was not a redneck she was just going to her wendy house in her garden to play and did not know that you do not corner a hungry wild animal.
That's just an arguement for trying to eliminate all risk from society. In that world people shouldn't have dogs then. There are no instances of what you are talking about. Ever. Rules need to proportional, we can't live in a risk free world and it's no fun living in a lowest common denominator world either. That because there are no wild lynx running about because they got shot. "
At least we can understand why the council feel a need to kill the animal. Because no amount of facts or rationality will stop some people pretending there's immanent danger  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't want to argue semantics but I'm talking about a lynx looking at a human and thinking "yeah i fancy that for dinner" and trying to kill the human. Not some redneck retard shoving a camera in the face of a lynx and wondering why it swipes at them.
Ok let look at this in a different way. Say this lynx was laid up in a kids Wendy house where it was nice and warm and felt nice and safe. Along comes little Wendy to play in that wendy house. On seeing the lovely, but big pussy cat went to stroke it. But the lynx feeling trapped would of courses swipe maybe more depending on the size of little Wendy to get away.That little girl was not a redneck she was just going to her wendy house in her garden to play and did not know that you do not corner a hungry wild animal.
That's just an arguement for trying to eliminate all risk from society. In that world people shouldn't have dogs then. There are no instances of what you are talking about. Ever. Rules need to proportional, we can't live in a risk free world and it's no fun living in a lowest common denominator world either.
In our society, certain individuals are responsible for managing those risks and being accountable for decisions.
You're not one of them sat on the end of your mobile device posing for and against.
I love animals but the lynx ultimately doesn't be ling in that environment. "
Lol, no I'm not dumb enough to work at my local council. Maybe if i take up glue sniffing as a hobby i could cut it. I make far more important decisions on risk than they ever will on a daily basis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"On average 50 people a day get shot dead in S Africa, around 30 in Mexico.
UK seems a good place to be to me
And we'd rather it stayed that way,wouldn't we. Those other countries could become more like us with regard to guns,rather than us becoming more like them."
Indeed but sadly can't see either trend changing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Does amuse me that so much effort is placed by people in this country to ensure species are preserved in all sorts of other countries.
But any suggestion of reintroducing previously native species back here in the UK leads to hysteria. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does amuse me that so much effort is placed by people in this country to ensure species are preserved in all sorts of other countries.
But any suggestion of reintroducing previously native species back here in the UK leads to hysteria."
To be fair, i do see the farmers perspective against it. But they are beautiful animals and they used to live here... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does amuse me that so much effort is placed by people in this country to ensure species are preserved in all sorts of other countries.
But any suggestion of reintroducing previously native species back here in the UK leads to hysteria.
To be fair, i do see the farmers perspective against it. But they are beautiful animals and they used to live here... "
Oh I know. Can't have their llamas put in jeopardy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lue NarwhalMan
over a year ago
Iceland, but Aldi is closer.. |
There was probably more risk to the public from the person with a loaded weapon wandering the streets hunting and cat that's slighty larger than a domestic moggy.
Love to see the risk assessment they quickly toshed together for that quick clear up job..
I reckon swans pose more of a threat to children than a lynx would, if the council's ever worked that out, Prince Phillip would be better onto to a nice little sideline.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ceredigion Council have shot dead a lynx that escaped from Borth Wild Animal Kingdom after failing to recapture it since it jumped an electric fence.
In their statement the council insisted the lynx had been "humanely destroyed". I really hate the way councils have a euphemism for everything. Why don't they have the balls to just admit they killed it and stand by that decision rather try and pretend it was something it wasn't? "
This is very unfortunate.
I personally don't think the lynx was a significant enough threat for something so drastic...
It's not a big man eating animal. It would probably run away from a dog and people.
My guess is it wanted to be as far away from people as possible.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To be fair, i do see the farmers perspective against it. But they are beautiful animals and they used to live here... "
It's for the farmer to decide...
Not the council....
If the farmers association asked the council specificly
"We all agree etc..."
I would only shoot it personally if it affected me....
But more likely I would want to catch it humainly!
It's a lynx! It's cool! It's the only one of its kind living in Britain!
Atleast spend time trying to catch the poor bastard rather than shooting it! I'm sure you can tranquilise it safely!
It's not a lion or tiger
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *htcMan
over a year ago
MK |
they were too afraid someone was going to get hurt and sued.
but to be honest all zoos should be closed down, no animals should be kept like how they are at zoos. they should be in large conservation parks if they are endangered species not kept in cages with noisy visitors |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
