We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Road Kill
As the title suggests a question about road kill.
Where do you stand re the law on picking up road kill ? I think a lot of folk pick rabbits and pheasants up etc but what about bigger game such as deer etc ?
Am I right in thinking that if you kill the game then you aren't supposed to pick it up but you can pick it up if was killed by some one else ?
Where do you stand re the law on picking up road kill ? I think a lot of folk pick rabbits and pheasants up etc but what about bigger game such as deer etc ?
Am I right in thinking that if you kill the game then you aren't supposed to pick it up but you can pick it up if was killed by some one else ?
You may click thanks if you found my advice useful
0
Comments
-
Yep, you are correct0
-
Bear in mind that any animal that has suffered a heavy impact from a vehicle may have had its intestines ruptured, with the possibility that the contents have contaminated the rest of the carcase. Doubly so if actually run over and squished, rather than just hit.
Also, badgers are tough unless cooked slowly with lots of herbs.If someone is nice to you but rude to the waiter, they are not a nice person.0 -
The idea that you can't pick up roadkill you've hit yourself but you can pick up roadkill hit by someone else has always sounded like an urban myth to me, and on searching I can't find anything which resembles a reliable source to support it. Can anyone find one - or better still the statute or case law which establishes it?
Deliberately running over animals for food would doubtless fall foul of various animal protection and/or anti-poaching legislation, but if the original accident was unintentional, I can't think of any reason why it would make a difference whether you were the driver or not.
The most obvious offence you might commit is theft - many animals (certainly game and livestock) are the property of someone, and I don't believe ownership is extinguished just because the animal is dead. It seems that you'd be OK with wild animals though, unless they've already been "reduced into possession by another person" (ie captured or found by someone else, I think).
There's a specific offence of removing a deer carcass without the landowner's consent, which would certainly apply whether you hit it yourself, or you just found it at the side of the road.0 -
The idea that you can't pick up roadkill you've hit yourself but you can pick up roadkill hit by someone else has always sounded like an urban myth to me, and on searching I can't find anything which resembles a reliable source to support it. Can anyone find one - or better still the statute or case law which establishes it?
I can't imagine a law ever stating this either.0 -
The idea that you can't pick up roadkill you've hit yourself but you can pick up roadkill hit by someone else has always sounded like an urban myth to me, and on searching I can't find anything which resembles a reliable source to support it. Can anyone find one - or better still the statute or case law which establishes it?
Deliberately running over animals for food would doubtless fall foul of various animal protection and/or anti-poaching legislation, but if the original accident was unintentional, I can't think of any reason why it would make a difference whether you were the driver or not.
The most obvious offence you might commit is theft - many animals (certainly game and livestock) are the property of someone, and I don't believe ownership is extinguished just because the animal is dead. It seems that you'd be OK with wild animals though, unless they've already been "reduced into possession by another person" (ie captured or found by someone else, I think).
My best guess would be along those lines. On the basis that a badger is a wild animal that doesn't belong to anybody, so you're safe enough sticking that one in a pot, but a deer or indeed a sheep is more likely to be livestock, and therefore it might technically be considered theft....There's a specific offence of removing a deer carcass without the landowner's consent, which would certainly apply whether you hit it yourself, or you just found it at the side of the road.
Interesting.
Well the Act does say that an offence is committed "if any person enters any land without the consent of the owner or occupier or other lawful authority in search or pursuit of any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it".
I would therefore argue that someone driving down a public highway had in fact entered the land with both consent and lawful authority, and that the mere act of driving down said highway did not in anyway consist of a search or pursuit of any deer that happened to be on the highway.
That concludes the case for the defence. m'lud.:)0 -
My best guess would be along those lines. On the basis that a badger is a wild animal that doesn't belong to anybody, so you're safe enough sticking that one in a pot, but a deer or indeed a sheep is more likely to be livestock, and therefore it might technically be considered theft.
And if the animal is a horse, cattle, as s, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog, it is a reportable accident - s.170 Road Traffic Act 1988.0 -
I read it as creating two separate offences. Subsection (1) makes it an offence of entering land with the intention of killing or taking deer etc. Subsection (2) makes it an offence actually to take, kill or remove the carcass of a deer. Someone who entered the land lawfully but killed a deer or took away its carcass while he was there would commit the second offence, but not the first.Interesting.
Well the Act does say that an offence is committed "if any person enters any land without the consent of the owner or occupier or other lawful authority in search or pursuit of any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it".
I would therefore argue that someone driving down a public highway had in fact entered the land with both consent and lawful authority, and that the mere act of driving down said highway did not in anyway consist of a search or pursuit of any deer that happened to be on the highway.0 -
There's nothing better in life than a game bird0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards