Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 applies to protected animals and animals for which a person is responsible (which includes owning or being in charge of). It is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any such animal.


An animal is protected for the purposes of the Act if and only if:


(a) it is of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands,

(b) it is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or

© it is not living in a wild state.


That would seem to exclude a squirrel.


It is an offence under the Act to cause an animal fight to take place, where ?animal fight? means "an occasion on which a protected animal is placed with an animal, or with a human, for the purpose of fighting, wrestling or baiting". I think that would not include a dog's chasing and killing a squirrel.


The only reference within the Act to wild mammals (other than those to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976) is a clause amending the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. That clause simply defines redefines wild mammals as 'any mammal which is not a ?protected animal? within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act 2006?'.


The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, s.1 reads:


"If, save as permitted by this Act, any person mutilates, kicks, beats, nails or otherwise impales, stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or asphyxiates any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering he shall be guilty of an offence."


So proof of intent to inflict unnecessary suffering to the squirrel would be necessary to obtain any conviction. That would probably require compelling evidence, in examination and cross-examination, from more than one witness, as to the intent of the person in charge of the dog.


The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 makes it an offence to be in charge of a dog dangerously out of control in a public place. It has to be proved that a *person* has been injured by it, or put in fear or apprehension that they might be injured by it. That would exclude a dog's chasing and injuring a squirrel.


The Dogs Act 1871 provides for the making of a complaint to a magistrate that a dog is dangerous and not under proper control, and empowers the court to order that the dog be destroyed or kept under specified proper control. For the purposes of this Act, "dangerous" can include being a danger to other animals. Any breach of the order can be dealt with under the Dangerous Dogs Act.


As has been said here before, it seems that it's only the Dogs Act 1871 that has any possible specific application in cases, like this one, where a dog injures another animal, unless intent to inflict suffering can be proved.


http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf (PDF, 160 kilobytes) provides a useful summary.

Thanks to all that also think it is barbaric.I have been informed by the police that he will be questioned if I see him again I have been told to call the police. The RSPCA said he broke sereral laws,and the parks by laws, and yes grey squirrels are protected under quite a few different laws. He stood two feet away and watched his dog savage the squirrel.He chose to let his dog do this, he got some sort of thrill out of it. When I confronted him he laughed and said they are vermin. There has been several incidences, a woman shaking a small tree while the dog waited underneath, in the hope the poor thing would fall, another with three small dogs and he often puts his terrier in the trees. I asked him if he lets his dogs kill squirrels, he said yes they've caught about twenty so far, so this is not a one of , it is a regular thing. Why don't they buy there dogs a ball. These people need to take a long hard look at theirselves, as they are just like the scum who organises dog fights. I am now ready to get evidence by filming as requested by police. I also had my brother as a witness and the two horrified kids who witnessed it too. thanks all, my faith has been restored .
Delainie, I agree that you were right to post about these people's cruel and barbaric behaviour and I am sorry that you've been accused of trolling. Dogfights are deplorable, but a dog is fighting a dog. Siccing a dog on a squirrel (or even a rat) is just wickedness.
Dogfights are deplorable, but a dog is fighting a dog. Siccing a dog on a squirrel (or even a rat) is just wickedness.


Whereas, training dogs to tear each other apart (not because they instinctively want to as some people believe) for one's financial gain is perfectly acceptable?


What about "dogfights are deplorable" suggests that civilservant thinks they're "perfectly acceptable"? I'm confused.


Some people enjoy watching suffering and death. These are the same freaks who probably watched the Daniel Pearl video, or the Saddam execution and thought it was cool.

Thank you, Otta.


Tallulah, can I say that I think dogfights, catfights, cockfights, bullfights, cagefights, [add your fave fight here] are ALL deplorable.


So... the point that I was trying to make is that when dog fights dog, or mouse fights mouse, the fighters are (usually) picking on someone their own size. Or being made to pick on someone their own size.

Any fight in which someone is outclassed by their opponent e.g. squirrel against dog, is not a fair fight, and is therefore worse than deplorable - and anyone who promotes it is wicked.


AND I said that Delainie was perfectly right to write about it on the forum and should not have been accused of trolling


OK?

Oh dear - no need for apology, humble or otherwise - I was just a bit worried about being lumped in with the hunting, shooting and squirrel-baiting brigade.


Anyway - we met a squirrel in Peckham Rye Park this morning. He was very tame and stood up and begged, even though we had a dog (on a lead) with us! Silly squirrel. Some passing girls went 'awww' and even took snaps.

The squirrels in Battersea Park, Hyde Park and St James's Park do the same - beg, I mean, not take snaps. There used to be one who had his regular pitch at the Queen Anne's Gate entrance to St James's Park.


Given that all these squirrels get away with it in other parks, are park-goers in Dulwich more brutish than in Peckham or Central London (wonders civilservant, inviting further controversy...)



AND In fairness, I did only suggested that she was engaged in a little lite-trolling ( the one without mayo & extra cheese )


[quote name=I'm almost given to think that this whole thing is a lite-trolling exercise. Incendiary phrase & words wedged in-between seemly legitimate concerns and commendable actions only reinforce my feeling on this one]



AND given her rant on "class, social housing, testicles, education and the likes" I stand by what I wrote, it was appropriate in my view following her OP


AND you'll note, in her later post she's reigned back on all that class-war nonsense and stuck with the subject, which is commendable



Lastly, she hasn't (to my knowledge) complained about/referred to the accusation herself, has she ?


NO


*flicks hair*



Nette:-S(tu)

AC, my turn to apologise

I speak as a humble admirer of your wit, wisdom and general guard-doggery against forum trolls, lite or otherwise


Group hug, everyone (except the nasty people who set their dogs on smaller animals).


Have a good weekend yourself!

On the subject of squirrels,I could not believe my eyes on Thursday morning, as looking out of my window in East Dulwich Grove I saw a red squirrel jumping around my pond. I have seen several such squirrels in the Lake District but never in London. I just wondered if anyone else has seen a red squirrel in the local area as I presume that if there was one there must be more !

Harry Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On the subject of squirrels,I could not believe my

> eyes on Thursday morning, as looking out of my

> window in East Dulwich Grove I saw a red squirrel

> jumping around my pond. I have seen several such

> squirrels in the Lake District but never in

> London. I just wondered if anyone else has seen a

> red squirrel in the local area as I presume that

> if there was one there must be more !


xxxxxx


There are almost certainly no red squirrels in East Dulwich.


What you almost certainly saw was a grey squirrel with reddish fur, as sometimes happens.


Sorry to disappoint you :)


See the East Dulwich Nature Watch thread :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...