What To Do?

[The-Wolf]

I have purchased an illegal 'lobster'

he is a crayfish of some kind, possibly a P.clarkii.

I am awaiting contact from CEFRA/DEFRA as to what the next steps are.
My understanding is they will take him from me and destroy him
and possibly prosecute the shop and or wholesaler.

I don't want him to be destroyed so what should I do
1 ) refuse to hand him over and risk prosecution for owning it and ultimately having him destroyed anyway
2 ) make a lot of noise with the media and still face prosecution
3 ) go quietly into the night and let them kill him
4 ) other

what would you do, take on the Government or just accept that there are somethings you can't change?

 

[Miss Wiggle]

did you buy him knowing he was illegal? did you contact DEFRA/CEFRA yourself?

 

[pinkdolphin_113]

it depends why this is illegal.
and i don't think they would go to the trouble of physically taking him from you.
how much was the crayfish?
how long have you had it?
did you know it was illegal on purchase?

 

[Miss Wiggle]

and i don't think they would go to the trouble of physically taking him from you.

was an article in PFK a little while back about a reader who had unwittingly purchased some illegal fish and had applied for a licence to keep them, DEFRA took the fish and destroyed them

it's perfectly possible

 

[PoPoV]

Its not illegal inless some one finds out

 

[The-Wolf]

I knew he was illegal as the only legal species of crayfish in the UK is Cherax quadricarinatus
and took it upon myself to notify DEFRA (on the advise of Matt Clarke;PFK)

I purchased him so no-one else could have him to potentially relese him into the wild.
I do understand the reasoning behing the legislation but Ican't accept the needless slaughter of any animal.
Idealy I'd like him sent to a public aquarium or zoo where he can live out his life in peace and fullness,
but that is not the Governments policy. it is to destroy all illegal animals.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

Can I ask why, knowing that DEFRA's response was likely to be to destroy the animal, you contacted them yourself if you didn't want this to happen?

Why don't you try and contact a zoo/aquairum etc and get something in place, perhaps if you can present DEFRA with evidence of an agreement to have it live out it's days securley and happily somewhere safe (while in the mean time semi-threatening them with going to the media) they may reconsider they're policy.

however I do think it's unlikely, I think DEFRA are unlikely to be swayed and if you put up too much of a fight you are likely to be prosecuted yourself.

what a horrible situation wofly, my thoughts are with you and the poor little crayfish.

keep us updated please

 

[PoPoV]

That is good that you did that. I wonder if their is some way he could be taken to a local aqairium?

 

[Maxta]

Why is it illegal may i ask? And why do they have to destroy it instead of homing it?

 

[The-Wolf]

why you contacted them yourself if you didn't want this to happen?

good question
I do not want to be proceuted myself, so owning upto having an illegal seemed
a 'good faith' gesture. My own sense of good really does compelle me to abide by the law (most times )
but I also have an need to do no harm to animals.
I understand that the UKs native crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes is very endangered because of
people bying non-native species and useing them either as bait for fishing (and them escaping the hook), or just releasing them to 'free' them.

It is really hard to put into words what I'm struggling with but I hope you can understand
the... I suppose Ego/Id fight I'm in.

I guess it was an empty half-threat about the media but it was something in my mind.
thinking about it more clearly, they (the media) wouldn't give a monkeys anyways.

I guess I'll just have to wait untill they contact me for the next step.
I'll keep you informed of the outcome.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

why you contacted them yourself if you didn't want this to happen?

good question
I do not want to be proceuted myself, so owning upto having an illegal seemed
a 'good faith' gesture. My own sense of good really does compelle me to abide by the law (most times )
but I also have an need to do no harm to animals.
I understand that the UKs native crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes is very endangered because of
people bying non-native species and useing them either as bait for fishing (and them escaping the hook), or just releasing them to 'free' them.

It is really hard to put into words what I'm struggling with but I hope you can understand
the... I suppose Ego/Id fight I'm in.

I guess it was an empty half-threat about the media but it was something in my mind.
thinking about it more clearly, they (the media) wouldn't give a monkeys anyways.

I guess I'll just have to wait untill they contact me for the next step.
I'll keep you informed of the outcome.

I think I do understand Wolfy, it's the desire to do 'the right thing' which in a lot of cases is obeying the law and at least hoping that if you hold your hands up to them and say you have it but your reasons for purchasing it were sound and in line with the spirit of the law (if not the actual letter of it) and you'd be then prepared to sign something or whatever to promise it would never be released into the wild.

I think the problem is that while this individual crayfish in this individual situation is unlikely to cause any threat to Britains wildlife DEFRA do not know you and while they may have a few correspondances, visits etc with you they are unlikely to get to know you as well as we do and therefore could not be as clear on your intentions, experience and knowledge that we are. And if they made an exception for you then they could easily find themselves embroiled in a legal scandal with other owners of illegal pets who are maybe not as responsible as you are.

I would still make contact with a few public aquariums etc and see if they could offer it a home (DEFRA permitting), even a slim chance should be take in this situation IMO and I think you'd probably agree.

Why do you think the media would not be interested, I can see some of the tabloid papers liking it, go with the needless loss of life angle and hope they don't have the intelligence to research the reason's why it is illegal!!

 

[andywg]

Why is it illegal may i ask? And why do they have to destroy it instead of homing it?

Because it can survive british winters and imported crayfish are decimating native stock. To prevent further problems the only cray allowed to be imported is the blue claw cray that is purely tropical and cannot survive british winter.

I purchased him so no-one else could have him to potentially relese him into the wild.
I do understand the reasoning behing the legislation but Ican't accept the needless slaughter of any animal.

Yet surely you understand it is not entirely needless? The policy is to prevent it getting into the wild and devastating an entire ecosystem. The needs of the many, et al.

Why do you think the media would not be interested, I can see some of the tabloid papers liking it, go with the needless loss of life angle and hope they don't have the intelligence to research the reason's why it is illegal!!

Really? I think most would adopt the line of "This person bought a species that is known to be able to devestate the british coastline and the purchaser knew what it was when purchasing it, but now wants to be above the law".

The "broadsheets" (only the Telegraph is actually "broad" any more) might take a more sober look at the legislation and its effects and the possible damage of one owner, but would still probably come down on the side of DEFRA for one reason, there is evidence that our natural crays are already suffering from imported species, so this is not a hypothetical risk, but a real one.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

I purchased him so no-one else could have him to potentially relese him into the wild.
I do understand the reasoning behing the legislation but Ican't accept the needless slaughter of any animal.

Yet surely you understand it is not entirely needless? The policy is to prevent it getting into the wild and devastating an entire ecosystem. The needs of the many, et al.

I'd disagree with that andy

If the individual circumstances for the crayfish are that it is kept in an appropriate environment with a responsible keeper, is never sold on or allowed to breed and dies naturally in it's tank then it will never do any harm to our ecosystem therefore there is no need to kill it.

I appreciate that these are not always the circumstances (wolf is most likely the exception not the rule) and that DEFRA probably can't ake exceptions to they're rule.

but technically speaking in these indivudal circumstances I think it could be decribed as needless

Why do you think the media would not be interested, I can see some of the tabloid papers liking it, go with the needless loss of life angle and hope they don't have the intelligence to research the reason's why it is illegal!!

Really? I think most would adopt the line of "This person bought a species that is known to be able to devestate the british coastline and the purchaser knew what it was when purchasing it, but now wants to be above the law".

The "broadsheets" (only the Telegraph is actually "broad" any more) might take a more sober look at the legislation and its effects and the possible damage of one owner, but would still probably come down on the side of DEFRA for one reason, there is evidence that our natural crays are already suffering from imported species, so this is not a hypothetical risk, but a real one.

If you say so, I'm not a journalist and won't argue the point, just an avid reader of the news of the world just my opinion that they might go for that sort of story

 

[andywg]

If the individual circumstances for the crayfish are that it is kept in an appropriate environment with a responsible keeper, is never sold on or allowed to breed and dies naturally in it's tank then it will never do any harm to our ecosystem therefore there is no need to kill it.

I appreciate that these are not always the circumstances (wolf is most likely the exception not the rule) and that DEFRA probably can't ake exceptions to they're rule.

but technically speaking in these indivudal circumstances I think it could be decribed as needless

could...

Defra has to look after the whole environment. I doubt they want to take the risk. They don't know wolf from the next person, and they don't know what might happen in the long term. Sure, in this case the risk of environmental damage is small, but there is still a risk. I for one am more than happy for an individual creature to die to protect our coastline.

How can DEFRA know that this cray will die in its tank? The killing would be security. Suppose they didn't do anything about this one, or the next one, or the one after that and suddenly we have no natural cray left? Then we will bemoan DEFRA for not doing enough.

My understanding is they have a zero tolerance. With exceptions you have a line that is far more variable and grey.

If you say so, I'm not a journalist and won't argue the point, just an avid reader of the news of the world just my opinion that they might go for that sort of story

In honesty, it all depends on which way the wind is blowing, especially with the drivel that finds its way into the tabloids.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

Defra has to look after the whole environment. I doubt they want to take the risk. They don't know wolf from the next person, and they don't know what might happen in the long term. Sure, in this case the risk of environmental damage is small, but there is still a risk. I for one am more than happy for an individual creature to die to protect our coastline.

How can DEFRA know that this cray will die in its tank? The killing would be security. Suppose they didn't do anything about this one, or the next one, or the one after that and suddenly we have no natural cray left? Then we will bemoan DEFRA for not doing enough.

My understanding is they have a zero tolerance. With exceptions you have a line that is far more variable and grey.

I fully understand that andy as you can see form my earlier quote in this thread. I just think that speaking technically (probably just playing with semantics a bit here) it is a needless death

the need (given by DEFRA and those who have deemed it to be illegal) to destroy it is that it is a threat to british wildlife, the individual circumstances show that this animal will not be be a threat therefore the need for this individual is not there, therefore it is needless.

I think the problem is that while this individual crayfish in this individual situation is unlikely to cause any threat to Britains wildlife DEFRA do not know you and while they may have a few correspondances, visits etc with you they are unlikely to get to know you as well as we do and therefore could not be as clear on your intentions, experience and knowledge that we are. And if they made an exception for you then they could easily find themselves embroiled in a legal scandal with other owners of illegal pets who are maybe not as responsible as you are.

If you say so, I'm not a journalist and won't argue the point, just an avid reader of the news of the world just my opinion that they might go for that sort of story

In honesty, it all depends on which way the wind is blowing, especially with the drivel that finds its way into the tabloids.

probably right, but i have to say there's nothing better i love on a sunday afternoon that putting my feet up with a brew and reading said drivel. get my real news elsewhere but i like a bit of light entertainment!