Can You Stop A Rescuer Treating A Sick Animal?

 

legally, they generally cannot prevent authorized professionals or a member of the public from taking a sick, injured, or orphaned wild animal to a vet or rescue for adequate treatment. However, in practice, bystanders can create conflict, and there are varying rules depending on the situation and location. [1, 2]

The Legal Standing (UK)

Taking for Treatment: The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 legally permits anyone to take a sick, injured, or protected wild animal from the wild for the express purpose of providing it with adequate treatment and supportive care until it is fit to be released. [1]
Prevention Rights: A member of the public does not "own" the wildlife on their property. Therefore, they do not have the legal right to stop an authorized person (like an RSPCA officer or a licensed wildlife rehabilitator) from recovering or helping an animal in distress.

Private Property and Trespass

Access Rights: Private landowners can prevent rescuers from physically entering their land based on trespass laws. However, if an animal is in distress, rescuers often work with local authorities to negotiate access or involve the police to prevent an animal from being subjected to unnecessary suffering. [1, 2]
Interfering with a Rescue: Intentionally obstructing a lawful wildlife rescue or abusing a rescuer can escalate into a civil dispute or even a criminal offense, particularly if the prevention leads to cruelty or a protected species being harmed. [1]

Handling and Ethics

Intervention Debates: While people generally cannot stop rescuers, there is an ongoing ethical debate surrounding the rescue of wildlife. Some individuals believe in the natural order of things (survival of the fittest) and may voice frustration or try to stop well-meaning rescuers from intervening, though this does not grant them a legal right to stop the rescue. [1, 2]
The Danger of "Killing with Kindness": The British Wildlife Rehabilitation Council actively warns that while the public's intentions are compassionate, unlicensed or untrained individuals attempting to keep and treat wild animals themselves can cause more harm or delay necessary veterinary care. [1]

How to Handle Confrontation

If a property owner or bystander is attempting to obstruct a rescue, professional organizations strongly advise the following steps: [1]

Avoid confrontation: Step away to ensure personal safety.
Document the situation: Note the location, the animal's condition, and the person preventing the rescue.
Involve authorities: Contact the Police or a national animal welfare charity (such as the RSPCA in the UK) to handle the dispute and ensure the animal receives the care it needs. [1, 2]

They Confirm What i have said for years

 

 The New Hunting Ban

Do you want these men to have more of a say on hunting than you?

A Freedom of Information request by The New Hunting Ban has exposed the pro-hunting lobbyists invited to a government “round table” meeting on hunting law, while the consultation on trail hunting continues.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has refused to disclose what was discussed, claiming that releasing the contents of the meeting “would not be in the public interest”.

So here’s the question: whose interests are being protected?

It is our duty to make sure the voices of those who promote the suffering and death of our wildlife are drowned out by those who love animals and want hunting with dogs ended for good.

Take part in the consultation. Tell the government a ban on trail hunting alone will not be enough. The Hunting Act must be strengthened to end hunting properly.

There's less than two weeks left before the consultation closes - the most comprehensive guidance on completing it can be found here: https://thenewhuntingban.com/trail-hunting-consultation

#TheNewHuntingBan

There's A Fox In The Painting?

 Another discovery by my colleague LM. A painting rediscovered is part of an exhibition and it mentions the eagles and how they were treated (200 years on it is still happening)  and that foxes would not go near the trapped bird. Look at the image....

Information:

Yes, wonderful eagle illustration. But here is the thing: NO mention of the unusual appearance of the fox. It is "the elephant in the painting" so to speak. No comment about it not looking like a modern fox or anything.  It is an image of an extinct British species and very clearly a mountain fox.

But, of course, "it's just a fox". To us it is even more pictorial evidence of the Mountain fox and matches taxidermy specimens but you would think that only the eagles are visible when the image is looked at.

My thanks to LM for forwarding.

Wolf Attack In Hamburg?

  NDR (Germany) https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/hamburg/wolf-der-in-altona-eine-frau-attackierte-ist-vermutlich-tot,wolf-628.html

Wolf, who attacked a woman in Altona, is presumed dead.

As of June 5, 2026, 9:18 PM

The Hamburg environmental authority believes it is likely that the wolf that ran through Altona at the end of March and injured a woman is now dead. Experts assume that the young wolf was shot and its tracking device destroyed.

The young wolf, after biting a woman in Hamburg in April, was initially taken to a wildlife rescue center in Lower Saxony. On Easter Sunday, it was fitted with a transmitter and released south of Hamburg, near the border with Lower Saxony. The environmental authorities had assured the public at the time that the wolf could be located at any time.

Both the wolf and the tracking device have disappeared.

The transmitter's data is available until the end of May – then contact is abruptly lost, the authority writes in response to an inquiry from NDR Hamburg. At the time of the last signal, the wolf was far away from Hamburg – in Damme, 160 kilometers away.

A defect is unlikely – as is the possibility that the wolf lost its collar. The transmitters are technically extremely reliable and well-tested, according to the authorities. A search operation failed to locate either the wolf or the collar. Therefore, the animal's death is considered probable.

Was the wolf shot?

Experts assume that the young wolf was shot and the transmitter destroyed. Since wolves are generally protected, a permit would have been required for the cull. However, authorities in Hamburg and Lower Saxony are still investigating whether this scenario is accurate.

The wolf sighted in Tötensen was a different animal.

According to the environmental authority, the wolf sightings in Tötensen and Neu Wulmsdorf involved a completely different wolf and not the one that attacked a woman in Altona in March. This could be ruled out based on the fur color and markings.

And here is the kicker: the wolf did NOT bite the woman which is why it was released. The following says it all.