Cows Shot

Shocking!

You have to wonder though why they were shot only after the authorities on animal welfare had inspected them, still not an excuse for shooting them on the spot poor cows.
 
It is complete madness, not only to shoot them but for them just to be incinerated, what a needless waste! Typical town mouse and country mouse conflict!
 
Chirk is in quite a rural area so would have thought a sensible solution could have been found. I can't believe healthy cows were shot like that, I suspect they may have had health issues.
 
if they managed to round them up into a field could they not be rounded into a wagon and taken back to where they came from.
Its stupid to do that infront of kids too. I wouldnt be too bothered if a cow wandered into my garden. I def wouldnt want it shot. poor things.
 
This sounds crazy - our cattle get out sometimes and we just have to get them rounded up again. I would say that most farmers with cattle have them get out occasionally.

Maybe the farmer was very elderly and couldn't call on enough people to help round them up, and then how do you load them, but if they were just peacefully grazing in a field then it would have taken a couple of days to get someone witht he right equipment to come and help.

The only case I can think of was where an old farmer had lots of cattle in a field crossed by a bridlepath and they were uncastrated yearlings and didn't have passports. Those were shot in the field on the grounds of public safety (the farmers was incapable of getting them moved) and the fact that they didn't have passports made them worthless.
 
amymay said:
Yep, I think that's probably right. But rounding them up and popping them on a lorry for the abbotoir would not have been too radical a move :o:(
Click to expand...

Oh yes, totally agree with you there. I will keep an eye on local papers and see if any more details emerge.

ETS. It does say on another link I found that they hadn'tbeen dehorned, so maybe they were not quite the placid dairy cows we are led to believe.
 
Id say there is more to this than what meets the eye.

They probably had no documents to prove health or something like that ie no tb or bse tests records...........if it was emergency slaughter on injury etc grounds they would have been sent to an abbatoir.....
incinerator means they must not have been safe for the food chain.
An incinerator also wouldnt have the facilities to put them down probably why they were pts before hand...and if they were quite wild then pts by gun in the open rather than a confined space would be safer for everyone involved.A wild cow without a crush to confine it is not easy to handle.

My bets are on no records for them so they were a potential danger to human health.
 
"Rounding them up and popping them on a lorry." Ahem! Obviously not something you have tried lately. It is very hard to round up cattle if they are not used to it. They panic and just run and go through and over fences. You need proper handling facilities like a large, strong crush - small fenced area to keep them altogether - that they can't jump over (and one of ours jumped a tractor once), where you can back up a lorry so they have no option but to go up. And then hope you don't get flattned if they decide to turn round and come back out again. (Been there, got the tee shirt!)

There are portable crushes available, which is what I meant in my previous post of leaving them grazing quietly for a day or two while the authorities managed to get enough eqipment and man-power together. But they obviously decided it wasn't worth the risk to handlers and by-standers. Still seems a bit brutal though.
 
Re-read
Article says they were destroyed under Section 18 of Animal Welfare Act 2006:

Animals in distress
18 Powers in relation to animals in distress
(1) If an inspector or a constable reasonably believes that a protected animal is
suffering, he may take, or arrange for the taking of, such steps as appear to him
to be immediately necessary to alleviate the animal’s suffering.
(2) Subsection (1) does not authorise destruction of an animal.
(3) If a veterinary surgeon certifies that the condition of a protected animal is such
that it should in its own interests be destroyed, an inspector or a constable
may—
(a) destroy the animal where it is or take it to another place and destroy it
there, or
(b) arrange for the doing of any of the things mentioned in paragraph (a).
(4) An inspector or a constable may act under subsection (3) without the certificate
of a veterinary surgeon if it appears to him—
(a) that the condition of the animal is such that there is no reasonable
alternative to destroying it, and
(b) that the need for action is such that it is not reasonably practicable to
wait for a veterinary surgeon.
(5) An inspector or a constable may take a protected animal into possession if a
veterinary surgeon certifies—
(a) that it is suffering, or
(b) that it is likely to suffer if its circumstances do not change.
(6) An inspector or a constable may act under subsection (5) without the certificate
of a veterinary surgeon if it appears to him—
(a) that the animal is suffering or that it is likely to do so if its circumstances
do not change, and
(b) that the need for action is such that it is not reasonably practicable to
wait for a veterinary surgeon.
(7) The power conferred by subsection (5) includes power to take into possession
dependent offspring of an animal taken into possession under that subsection.
(8) Where an animal is taken into possession under subsection (5), an inspector or
a constable may—
(a) remove it, or arrange for it to be removed, to a place of safety;
(b) care for it, or arrange for it to be cared for—
(i) on the premises where it was being kept when it was taken into
possession, or
(ii) at such other place as he thinks fit;
(c) mark it, or arrange for it to be marked, for identification purposes.
(9) A person acting under subsection (8)(b)(i), or under an arrangement under that
provision, may make use of any equipment on the premises.
(10) A veterinary surgeon may examine and take samples from an animal for the
purpose of determining whether to issue a certificate under subsection (3) or
(5) with respect to the animal.
Animal Welfare Act 2006 (c. 45) 13
(11) If a person exercises a power under this section otherwise than with the
knowledge of a person who is responsible for the animal concerned, he must,
as soon as reasonably practicable after exercising the power, take such steps as
are reasonable in the circumstances to bring the exercise of the power to the
notice of such a person.
(12) A person commits an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person in the
exercise of power conferred by this section.
(13) A magistrates’ court may, on application by a person who incurs expenses in
acting under this section, order that he be reimbursed by such person as it
thinks fit.
(14) A person affected by a decision under subsection (13) may appeal against the
decision to the Crown Court.
 
Talk about sensationalism but there must be a lot more to this than has been told. I'm wondering if they were from a TB reactor farm or something. You can see some ear tags in the pics which means they do have passports and we would call them sterks, not cows, they're not old enough for a start and it's rare for horns to be left on anything but beef cattle now too.
 
Maesfen said:
Talk about sensationalism but there must be a lot more to this than has been told. I'm wondering if they were from a TB reactor farm or something. You can see some ear tags in the pics which means they do have passports and we would call them sterks, not cows, they're not old enough for a start and it's rare for horns to be left on anything but beef cattle now too.
Click to expand...

I agree about the possibilities of being from a tb reacting herd,or one on restrictions of some sorts.
 
Initial reaction is WTF!!!!

There must be more to this than a case of rural/townie worlds colliding and rural coming off worst, I freely admit I know little about cattle but can't believe that there wasn't an alternative to this.
 
Hanno Verian said:
Initial reaction is WTF!!!!

There must be more to this than a case of rural/townie worlds colliding and rural coming off worst, I freely admit I know little about cattle but can't believe that there wasn't an alternative to this.
Click to expand...

Agree there must be more to this and would like to know more

The farm is not in Wrexham constituency but in Clwyd South
susan.jones.mp@parliament.uk
 
Farmers Weekly version; http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2011/03/15/125916/Farmer-faces-court-after-escaped-cows-are-shot.htm


FW forum; http://www.fwi.co.uk/community/forums/p/57794/175972.aspx#175972
"I was appalled when I heard about these cows but there is something odd here. How come the farmer didn't move them back to his farm? In my experience it would take some time to get the police, council and environmental health out and the discussion would take ages!! So I Googled the details and I found that the farmer had had problems with his cattle before over TB tests. "Published date: 09 September 2010 | Published by: Staff reporter THREE cows had to be shot during tests for bovine TB. A joint operation was being carried out between the police, Wrexham Council, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Animal Health Agency at a farm in Chirk when the three animals started behaving dangerously and were shot at the request of the farmer." This is the link http://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/92984/cows-shot-during-routine-tests-in-wrexham.aspx This may not be the same farmer. I still think the shooting was an unforgiveable thing to do. It brings back bad memories."
 
Last edited:
Over2You said:
Bloody police!! Haven't a clue how to handle animals. They only know how to shoot them!!
Click to expand...

If you actually bothered to read the article, you would see that it was NOT the police who shot these cows O2Y.

Why am I so not surprised that you would put your, completely wrong, two penneth worth in?
 
Sad story, but if they had to be destroyed it seems it was badly done to the inconvience of the public, thats the main hoo-haa going on here I think.
If they couldn't be moved then they should have told the locals what will be happening and do the deed as descretly as possible. Perhaps should have put screens up or something? I dunno, but it all seems a bit 'open to all' and that has question marks.
 
Over2You said:
Bloody police!! Haven't a clue how to handle animals. They only know how to shoot them!!
Click to expand...

Read the article PROPERLY before commenting - the decision to shoot them was not a Police one and neither did any Police Officers participate in the acting of shooting them. No doubt you'll be writing to the Chief Constable for an explanation.....
 
Thanks for pointing that out - I read it at lunch time when I was at work and not registered so couldn't reply and scanned the replies when on forum tonight and didn't pick up on that fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top