I have thought about this. The story as described, does not seem to be a nonsensical charge, even if it is weird to lay such a charge against the person who could be considered by us as the good guy. I agree that surely Wildlife Officers have far better things to do with their time. There is little doubt that the attempt by this person to rescue the bird would prolong its stress and suffering. This is not good. Should this then be punished? Should an example be made to argue that both activities of shooting and attempting rescue, when there is little prospect of success are (equal?) affronts against animal welfare. The defence argument is about how good is it on animal welfare principles to leave an injured animal to suffer. Of course the shooting is the cause of the problem and thus quite weird to blame a rescuer. However given that the shooting had already happened, I don’t know what the alternative is. I understand that a rescuer would be motivated by a wish to pick up a wounded duck to take it to a vet for treatment. But how practical and realistic is that? It depends on the nature of the injury. What happens to the bird then?
I wonder at the “The hunter didn’t attempt to retrieve it.” Could that have been due to wishing to avoid confrontation with a nearby person of the opposite viewpoint? Of course the bad part of the story is the whole phenomenon of shooting at wild things for fun or maybe even food. I feel that should be the illegal part. Then again how self righteous should I be, when I as a customer, support an industry that non randomly treats chickens far worse.
The story finishes with: “The matter will return to court on August 13.” Hopefully, with the point having been made, it will be dismissed.
Philip Veerman 24 Castley Circuit Kambah ACT 2902
02 – 62314041
