Animal Traps

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30190, 23 July 1963, Page 3

Animal Traps

Sir,—ln referring only to section 8 of The Animals Protection Act, 1960, the effi-oer-in-oharge of the Chrtetch.urch police dMrfct has, in n>y opinion, given an incorrect interpretation. Section 2 reads: “AgUtovated cruelty, in relation to any animal, means crudity which . . . causes St to be 90 maimed or disabled or injured that it become* necenary to destroy the animal to terminate iite suffering.” “ Animal” includes ent, but not rabbit or opossum. Section 4: “Every person who wilfully commits an act of aggravated cruelty in respect of any animal commits an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding £5OO or both.” The Opawa case reported on July 11 in “The Pre«” fits exactly the definition of aggravated cruelty in section 2, and the offender, if caught, would be liable to fines according to section 4. Thus the offered reward for the identificaition of the trapper seems legally justified.— Yours, etc., M. MAYER. July 21, 1963.

Sir. —Animal-lovers were horrified to read of traps being used to catch cats, and of these domestic animals being found horribly mutilated by traps. Many children regard their pets as near-human (and incidentally these traps are a possible hazard to children). If brutality must be shown God’s creatures, surely a permit to shoot would be preferable to the use of steeljawed traps. Is the S.P.C.A. able to take further action in the matter?—Yours, etc., E.C.G. July 22, 1963.