Tropiquaria

B

bigcat speciali

Well-Known Member
I find this a little odd, somewhat misleading, anyone else care to shed some light on this...

'The European Union wants me to kill my raccoons', claims Watchet zoo director
Click to expand...

'The European Union wants me to kill my raccoons', claims Watchet zoo director (From Somerset County Gazette)

Directive EUR-Lex - 32014R1143 - EN - EUR-Lex REGULATION (EU) No 1143/2014 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 22 October 2014

Invasive Alien Species - Environment - European Commission

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/docs/ias-brochure-en-web.pdf
 
when the new legislation is passed permits may be applied for by zoos and research facilities to still keep the proposed invasive species (one of which is Common Raccoon), so long as they can provide for the appropriate checks and securities required.
 
A response to being a" little odd and misleading"

I wrote the article after reading the regulation in full.A regulation is directly applicable in all European countries whether their Parliaments approve or not. This one seeks to do everything for the whole of Europe in one strike.

It is though a potential disaster with 37 species currently suggested as being included. Once they are on there the clock starts ticking.Once they are on the list they cannot be imported into the EU,bought sold,kept,exchanged, released,permitted to breed or transported to, from or within the Union, except "for the transportation of the species to facilities in the context of eradication" This is Article 7. Article 8 does grudgingly give member states a possibility of permitting some of the above activities if it issues permits for a limited number of purposes.

Article 31 does private keepers the possibility of keeping their animals for the rest of their lives if they neuter them and keep them in escape proof cages. The owners also have to be "educated" (31(2)

Article 32 deals with "commercial stocks" and is less tolerant, and only permits them to be kept for 2 years before they have to be disposed of in a limited number of prescribed ways. For the majority of keepers, with the type of animal that will be included, this would be by "slaughter".

Just to add to the injustice the EU may add other species as it sees fit in the future.

Sadly raccoons are one of the species that it seeks to eradicate within the EU, I suspect because of the German experience and the spread there from. Germans million raccoons though did not start with one or two pets/zoo animals escaping; it started with a bomb hitting a fur farm and 200 plus escaping. Defra have said since 1990 that they might establish in the UK. Despite monitoring reports of the species in the UK I am not aware of any having bred in the wild since the Glasgow population died out in the 1970s.........
 
you're coming on a bit strong with phrases like "potential disaster" and "to add to the injustice". Invasive species should be heavily controlled, and they shouldn't be bred by private persons in areas where they could potentially establish new populations. This is pretty standard common sense. It is nobody's right to keep any animal, it is a possibility granted by a country's laws.

Once the legislation passes, private keepers will no longer be able to keep or breed these species - which is as it should be - but zoos and research facilities can apply for permits (whether they would be granted depends on the specific situations).
 
Unfortunately I spent a few years as a lawyer and many of us tend to be very cynical of European law. Under UK law it is actually a persons right to keep an animal unless that right is taken away by law ,eg. with dangerous wild animals or with endangered species. Alternatively that right might be taken away by a court of law (e.g. upon conviction for cruelty) Even where the right is taken away it may be restored by entitlement through government permit or licence.

Here a superstate is seeking to impose a restriction through a law that the member states are unable to challenge. It is a restriction that is not done on purely scientific reasoning, eg mink are not included because a couple of the member states still farm them for fur (when other member states have banned this),yet the species is accepted as one of the most damaging invasive species known. Raccoons are included because Germany and the surrounding countries have a problem, that dates back to the war and a founding population that could never be released in the UK.

Much of Britain's wildlife is introduced in historical times anyway, rabbits, grey squirrels, various deer. There is nothing new in species becoming established in foreign parts. I agree we should do something to protect against alien species establishing but killing much loved zoo animals and driving private keepers underground will not do that.

Zoos, by the way, are not mentioned in the Regulation, and whilst they might apply for the permission to keep species such as raccoons on the basis of research or ex-situ conservation, that will not be granted as of right,and will greatly add to administrative costs. We (zoos) are not vectors of introduced species, or even the more alarming invasive species, it is typically the more commercial operations that farm larger numbers of animals that are.

Do not be too damning of private keepers. I currently have a species of fish on exhibition that would be extinct if it wasn't for private keepers. I am also old enough to have advised against the (European) Common Fisheries Policy - which is currently looked upon as one of the most wasteful conservation measures ever (large numbers of dying fish are dumped back into the sea, because the "quota" for that species had been met and it was therefore illegal to land them).
 
Under UK law it is actually a persons right to keep an animal unless that right is taken away by law
Click to expand...
Can I ask what part of UK law do you refer too?

The EU list of invasive alien species comes into force in January 2016, but the UK government has until December this year to say what is to be on this list, the list mentioned under the EU Directive is thus far just a list but as of yet not in force; feel free to correct if wrong. In general though I find your [Quagga] comments to be more "anti-Europe" and is echoing what is currently seen and heard from the political parties and politicians regarding getting out of Europe and all that stuff rather than being helpful.
 
Legal and biological Theory

In answer to your question Common Law - the law common to all men,(and women). In the UK it is assumed that all actions are deemed to be legal unless the law prescribes otherwise. So you can possess whatever you want unless the law says otherwise (e.g. common prohibitions are firearms, dangerous drugs, dangerous animals, certain types of ***********, etc.).

Anti-European? when it takes away our liberties may be. History is full of poorly written laws being ignored and challenged. The bottom line here is that currently the UK is considering 37 species that Europe wants to stop existing through out the super state by wiping them out in 1 generation in each country (or member state) in each species natural lifetime, or less. It might be spread through 33 Articles, but ultimately those animals and plants, unless their existence is ultimately required because it is "unavoidable to advance human health" (Article 8), will be killed off within the EU in 1 generation. My argument is that this is excessive and unnecessary.

History and Biology are full of horrible tales about invasive species. The majority involve species, not mentioned in the regulation, goats, rats, cats, pigs, etc. often introduced deliberately for commercial reasons (or shear survival in historical times). This regulation targets the accidentals and opportunists not the key offenders. Indeed the key offenders are clearly avoided for commercial reasons. As one of the parties involved in the "European List" was the World Trade Organisation is this surprising.

As the lawyers say, this Regulation could "open the floodgates" if the Eurocrats, in a few years time, come looking for your children's Syrian Hamsters or Guinea Pigs (both of which have set up breeding colonies in the wild in the UK in recent times) do not say that you haven't been warned.
 
Your reply is more akin to that of a Political Party Broadcast and sound bite for one of the various political parties voicing their woes against the EU and Europe in general. There is no "super-state" that you refer too, if that were so, then the fall of the Euro, the mass exodus of transients passing through various boarders etc. would not be so. So, in truth you are in reality an anti-European and anti-EU rules person which really as noting what soever to do with your argument as any invasive species requires control, be it human, plant, animal, insect etc. and this has been going on since time and planet were a mass of chemicals and so on. It is not a new thing.

In answer to your question Common Law - the law common to all men
Click to expand...
In the UK it is assumed that all actions are deemed to be legal unless the law prescribes otherwise
Click to expand...

You have not answered the question, just given a layman's term of what your interpretation of "common law" is. You refer to the UK but that in itself is factually incorrect, as English and Scots laws differ to each other with Scots law being older and covering various groups of law to make into one (such as Roman, Anglo).

So which part of law and can you name the parts you refer to please.
Given that you have Civil; Criminal; Statute; Case. with all its sub divisions such as Tort. "Common" law is that law made through principles established in cases over the centuries during the standardization of laws throughout England and Wales from the eleventh century onwards and upto the modern era.

Scots law which differs to English law (not UK) is laid out as such: Feudal Period; Dark Age Period; Roman Period and Modern Period. [General Principles of Scots Law. Enid A. Marshall 1 -7 editions] Under the Modern Period, this is seen as when both nations moved to use each others laws, especially under the Act of the Union. English law starts from when the Anglo-Saxons started to be part of the English shires. After the Norman Conquest, you had the various levels of courts; with the Saxon shire courts, the feudal courts of the barons and the ecclesiastical (church) courts. From the 17th and 18th centuries, common law absorbed the Law Merchant, the international code of mercantile customs, which included ships and all their goods, alcohol and all things worn and used. During the 19th century virtually the whole of English law was reformed by legislation.

Under various "Common Laws" such as the laws regarding "Commoners" which my late grandparents passed that to the family still use within the New Forest is a very unique set of rules, and only a few forests apply. So I ask, can you please be more specific as to what part of "common" law is it you refer to, please name that part of law.
 
After that lecture I almost wish I had not wasted my time doing my LLB,and legal practice course........

I do agree that Scots Law and English differ, but not when European Regulations are imposed, they are equally applicable in all member states. Ultimately the part of the Common Law that I refer to is sometimes referred to as the "Rule of Law" (it does overlap with other areas of law too) - but if you look at say, Entick v Carrington as far back as 1765, it establishes the idea that the Executive, cannot lawfully assume powers which are not known to the courts. The Common Law being the guardian of the rights of the individual has been re-iterated many times since, e.g.Derbyshire CC v The Times (1993). However here is not the place to argue this matter, nor do I have the time to do so.

The priority at the moment is not to give carte blanche for invasive species to roam the UK but to stop draconian legislation that will make illegal the possession of a whole range of species in Western Europe on the off chance that they may establish if they escape.The exceptions that do permit possession are really only a sop to the euro-doctrine of proportionality and are not of any practical use to the small and medium zoos who might wish to continue to keep these animals as an educational exhibit.
 
Indeed when I did my LLB and under the 6 year rule, it may seem a somewhat expensive use of money to go through such a law degree but it serves well when need be.

I do agree that Scots Law and English differ, but not when European Regulations are imposed, they are equally applicable in all member states. Ultimately the part of the Common Law that I refer to is sometimes referred to as the "Rule of Law" (it does overlap with other areas of law too) - but if you look at say, Entick v Carrington as far back as 1765, it establishes the idea that the Executive, cannot lawfully assume powers which are not known to the courts. The Common Law being the guardian of the rights of the individual has been re-iterated many times since, e.g.Derbyshire CC v The Times (1993).
Click to expand...

Again, you use English law which actually has no bearing within the UK as a whole, albeit in England. You started off early by using and saying the UK and now you have drifted off to the European legislative, which again also has no bearing on UK law as it must still pass through the various houses, charters, temples, papers etc within courts and so on within the UK. So I once again ask; what part of law do you refer too re
In answer to your question Common Law - the law common to all men,(and women). In the UK it is assumed that all actions are deemed to be legal unless the law prescribes otherwise. So you can possess whatever you want unless the law says otherwise (e.g. common prohibitions are firearms, dangerous drugs, dangerous animals, certain types of ***********, etc.).
Click to expand...
is factually incorrect and misleading if not erroneous.

As for setting the tone regarding what is and is not allowed regarding invasive species, your stance is in line with the quasi-superficial group of anti-Euro EU folk. There has to be a set of checks and balances regarding what is and is allowed, what can be and not be kept or grown or allowed to migrate. If that includes racoons to that of a certain species of crayfish or a species of plant or that of an insect, then to control and create a barrier where harm can be caused then such checks and balances must be set out, just because you do not like it or you personally have a grudge over it does not mean that it is all wrong.
 
EEC Law

The invasive species controls that I have taken issue with are a European Regulation that was made on 1st January 2015. As a regulation it is directly applicable under Article 189 (of the original treaty) to all member states, whether we like it or not. Much case law such as Politi 1971 and Leonesio (1972) confirmed this. If you are in any doubt about the Supremacy of Community Law look at Costa v ENEL (1964), and then the Factortame case in 1991 (the one that basically destroyed much of our (UK) fisheries and cost this country a phenomenal amount of money in damages to "aggrieved" foreign fishermen).

Our domestic checks and balances went straight out the window with EU regulations - ultimately this directive will lead to the virtual annihilation of any species deemed to be invasive (on the European List) in all the member states whether there was a chance of it establishing in the individual member states particular climate or not. Irrespective of your disagreements with me on constitutional law do you really think that it is right that all the raccoons, coatis and raccoon dogs in UK zoos should be destroyed because the European Parliament and Council for Europe feel that they might become established if the odd one escapes?
 
Irrespective of what the law says in print (again your argument refers to English law), the job of courts, lawyers, paralegals etc is to interpret the laws and argue that interpretation, a case either leans to one side or the other, it may fall or succeed.

Do I want raccoons, coatis, raccoon dogs that are UK zoos to be destroyed? No, but there lies the dilemma. They will not be destroyed and the two year process etc shall dictate that. Animals will not have to be euthinazed, everyone will have two years to implement the act, which basically currently means no breeding groups of these species are allowed in zoos or privately. However, people already keeping these species will most likely have grandparent rights and will be able to continue to keep them until they die, so long as they aren't bred from or sold for money. Given that raccoon dogs are wide spread as pets these days and are kept by many, it would be gladly seen as a method of control to stop such species being kept as pets in the first place. As for the rest, and that includes trees, plants, insects etc. I am 100 % as are the vast majority and the collective agreed on the matter of control and the laws. If you find such laws to be of a personal vendetta against you and your zoo and of others, then why don't you participate in voicing your personal concern to those of the EU. It feels that your stance comes across as being more ant-EU than being pro conservation, preservation and education. Have a look at the work done by COAST with regards to marine seabeds, do you feel that the directive is against them or the others who are trying do do good by stopping the rot including invasive species.

From what I believe to be listed but is not all inclusive.

Branta canadensis Canada goose Should not be included as already regulated by another EU Instrument ***8211; The Birds Directive
Callosciurus erythraeus Pallas's squirrel
Caprella mutica Japanese skeleton shrimp
Cervus nippon Sika deer
Chrysemys picta Painted turtle
Corvus splendens Indian house crow
Crassotrea gigas Pacific oyster Should not be included as already regulated by another EU Instrument ***8211; The Aquaculture Regulations
Crepidula fornicata Slipper limpet
Didemnum vexillum Carpet sea-squirt
Eriocheir sinensis Chinese mitten crab
Lithobates (Rana) catesbeianus North American bullfrog
Muntiacus reevesii Muntjac deer
Myiopsitta monachus Monk parakeet
Myocastor coypus Coypu
Orconectes limosus Spiny-cheek crayfish
Orconectes virilis Virile crayfish
Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy duck
Pacifastacus leniusculus Signal crayfish
Perccottus glenii Amur sleeper
Potamopyrgus antipodarum New Zealand mudsnail
Procambarus clarkii Red swamp crayfish
Procambarus spp. Marbled crayfish
Procyon lotor Raccoon
Nasua Nasua coati
Pseudorasbora parva Stone moroko
Psittacula krameri Rose-ringed parakeet
Rapana venosa Rapa whelk
Sciurus carolinensis Grey squirrel
Sciurus niger Fox squirrel
Sicyos angulatus Star cucumber
Tamias sibiricus Siberian chipmunk
Threskiornis aethiopicus Sacred ibis
Vespa velutina Asian hornet
Trachemys scripta elegans Red-eared terrapin/slider

PLANTS
Scientific name Common name
Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common ragweed
Azolla filiculoides Water fern
Baccharis halimifolia Eastern Baccharis
Cabomba caroliniana Green cabomba
Crassula helmsii Australian swamp-stonecrop
Eichhornia crassipes Water hyacinth
Fallopia japonica (& F. x bohemica?) Japanese knotweed
Fallopia sachalinensis Giant knotweed
Heracleum mantegazzianum Giant hogweed is not eligible as no approved risk assessment has been concluded for this species.
Heracleum persicum Persian hogweed
Heracleum sosnowskyi Sosnowski's hogweed
Hydrocotyle ranunculoides Floating pennywort
Lagarosiphon major Curly waterweed
Ludwigia grandiflora Water primrose
Ludwigia peploides Floating primrose willow
Lysichiton americanus American skunk cabbage
Myriophyllum aquaticum Parrot's feather
Parthenium hysterophorus Whitetop weed
Persicaria perfoliata (Polygonum perfoliatum) Asiatic tearthumb
Pueraria lobata Kudzu vine
Sargassum muticum Japweed, wireweed
Senecio inaequidens Narrow-leaved ragwort
Solanum elaeagnifolium Silver leafed nightshade
 
Just a quick question about why certain species are NOT on this list -

Grey Squirrel -

These have come very close to wiping out our Red squirrel population so why aren't they on the list as most collections actually have the species within the re ground if not in captivity.

Mallard duck -

These ducks breed invasively with other species of duck, isn't this why the Ruddy duck is on the list.

Canada goose -

As above but with other goose species.

If we don't control these species then many duck/goose species will become hybrids with in a very short time.

By the way I love Mallards and Canada goose as I think both are beautiful looking and wonderful species to watch and study.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top