Annex
Note by Chief Superintendent Kevin Degenhard
for the evidence session on 14 December 1999
AIR WEAPONS
— Criminal statistics relating to firearms
used to abuse animals do not reflect the magnitude of the problem.
A survey of 1,300 veterinary surgeons carried out by the Cats
Protection League in 1996 concluded that 74 per cent had treated
cats for air gun pellet wounds and that 10,390 cats had been shot
that year in Great Britain. While the RSPCA only extends coverage
to England and Wales a typical year results in up to 60 investigations
with a view to prosecution for such offences. Many are never reported.
We, and the police, only see the tip of the iceberg.
— Regarding each animal as a single
statistic is also misleading as many animals are shot several
times due to the lower power of thousands of common air weapons.
I have seen an X-ray of a cat shot 11 times with air weapon pellets
and the animal survived. We have evidence of a dog shot in the
head with a similar weapon 12 times and of a hedgehog shot through
both eyes and the anus before it died. We have further evidence
of a cat tied into the crucifix position and shot several times
with an air weapon before it died. All these animals suffered
extensively prior to death.
— The low noise emission of these weapons
suits them to clandestine use whereas special conditions would
have to be applied to the certificate holder of Section (1) and
Section (5) firearms held under the Firearms Act 1968 to make
those weapons equally quiet.
— The commonest domestic animal harmed
in this way appears to be the cat. Each time it is done there
is either an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911
or killing without suffering may occasionally create an offence
under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. As most offences occur in
built up areas we should ask ourselves why so few convictions.
There are an enormous number of air weapons in circulation and
the best guess is that over a million are not certificated. It
was only comparatively recently that forensic ballistic science
has been able to prove which weapon fired which pellet but this
is only part of the equation to successful prosecution. It is
often of little use without police having records of people holding
such firearms in the neighbourhood. This can only be achieved
through certification otherwise it is like looking for a needle
in a haystack. The majority of complaints received involved people
younger than 18.
— Not only would certification help
the police trace offenders, more importantly, it would provide
the deterrent of traceability in stead of assured anonymity.
— A minimum age of 18 and proof of
competence should be established.
— All firearm holders should show good
cause for holding each firearm.
— Where each firearm may be used and
for which specific purpose should be defined.
— Certification to achieve traceability
and accountability should be established.
SHOTGUNS
The abuse of animals by people using shotguns
is less common but where it occurs it usually involves wildlife
and game. Such abuse includes disregard for species, taking shots
too far away and using insufficiently sized shot to achieve a
clean kill. This indicates that not all people using shotguns
are competent. We believe proof of competence is required and
that the person assessing that competence is subject specific,
ideally to a Training and Development Lead Body D32/33 Assessor
qualification ensuring objective assessment.
— We believe applicants for shotgun
certificates should show sufficient cause or need to hold the
firearm in the same way as rifle holders have to.
— All firearm holders should show good
cause for holding each firearm.
— Where each firearm may be used and
for which specific purpose should be defined.
— The types and amount of shotgun cartridges
held should be limited to the specific purposes of use specified
on the certificate ensuring appropriate size shot is possessed.
— Shotgun ammunition should be subject
to certification in the same way as rifle ammunition.
FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1997
— A number of people have protested
at the proposed surrender of their hand guns under the provisions
of the first firearms amendment Act in 1997 on the grounds that
they were suitable, and would be used for, the "humane killing
of animals". This was the first piece of legislation to use
this term and a number of appeals were taken to Crown Court in
an endeavour to turn over the police licensing officers decisions
to refuse such applications. I gave evidence at three such hearings
supporting the police views as to the unsuitableness of such firearms
for the use intended by the appellants. In all three cases the
Judges found in favour of the police.
— It became clear to me that a number
of people purporting to be competent in the humane killing of
animals were proven to have their judgement discredited in these
cases as the weapons and proposed methods were clearly inappropriate.
I feel that the words "competent person" should describe
the person using the firearms within Section (3) of this Act.
— All RSPCA Inspectors undergo training,
both theoretical and practical, using a captive bolt stunner under
strict supervision on cattle in an abattoir and in the field before
they graduate to using a single shot .32 humane slaughter pistol.
Following this they undergo refresher training twice a year and
have to comply with strict RSPCA protocols on security, safety
and humaneness. Similar standards should apply to all who undertake
this responsibility to ensure competence is achieved and maintained.
|
