Would an otter kill poultry?

arctictree

OK, so I spotted an otter this morning in our garden this morning near the chicken run. I'm nearly sure it was an otter as it seemed way too big to be a mink or stoat. It was about 3 foot long. Anyway, let the dog out and he chased it off.

So has anyone here ever had an otter attack their poultry? Our neighbouring farm had 10 turkeys killed last week by something. We assumed it was a fox but are unsure.

We are about half a mile from a big lake with good fish stocks.

Just from reading on the net, I see that this does happen and they can be just as vicous as mink and stoat. Anyone here any experiance of this?

headmaster

Yes, they certainly will. If they get into your chicken coop they will kill everything Iin there and they love eggs. Sorry.

Cat Melodeon

Otters can kill poultry. They are much more likely to eat fish, but poultry attacks can happen in areas close to rivers and lakes. They are a protected species so you can't kill or trap them. Your best bet is an electric fence if you're afraid the chicken run isn't secure enough.

LostCovey

arctictree wrote: »

Just from reading on the net, I see that this does happen and they can be just as vicous as mink and stoat.

Viciousness is a human trait, they are just doing what they do for a living, like a butcher.

I think keeping them out as advised above is the best hope.

LC

johngalway

They have the capability to kill fowl for sure. But, as said, they're a protected species in this country so your only real option is to erect suitable defenses to keep them out and the fowl in.

wiilow74

arctictree wrote: »

OK, so I spotted an otter this morning in our garden this morning near the chicken run. I'm nearly sure it was an otter as it seemed way too big to be a mink or stoat. It was about 3 foot long. Anyway, let the dog out and he chased it off.

So has anyone here ever had an otter attack their poultry? Our neighbouring farm had 10 turkeys killed last week by something. We assumed it was a fox but are unsure.

We are about half a mile from a big lake with good fish stocks.

Just from reading on the net, I see that this does happen and they can be just as vicous as mink and stoat. Anyone here any experiance of this?

Otters are usually shy animals and although if hungry they might kill poutry I really think the animal you saw was a pine martin , countryside is full of them at the moment and they are the same size if not slightly larger than an otter .They are also brazen and aren't easily spooked by humans plus they love poultry. If you find any of it's excretement it will be full of berries and seeds as they also feed on haws. Hope this helps

fodda

Your poultry should be protected from predators which otters aren't (this must be the first i have heard) but saying that any animal could kill poultry if not protected.

Have a look here for electric fence set up which would protect your chickens www.grow-your-own.ie/electric_fence.html

LostCovey

fodda wrote: »

Your poultry should be protected from predators which otters aren't (this must be the first i have heard) but saying that any animal could kill poultry if not protected.

Have a look here for electric fence set up which would protect your chickens www.grow-your-own.ie/electric_fence.html

Great link Fodda.

The only part of these 'perfectionist' electric fence set-ups for poultry that I have a doubt about is the earthing.

Do you really need 5 x 1m galvanised earth rods in Ireland, or is this recommendation really intended for countries with the odd dry day?

It seems OTT - can anyone explain why so many are needed for an electric fence if soil has moisture in it?

The ESB mains pole only has one, after all

LC

fodda

The ESB updated their pole system by me about 3 years ago and installed 2 lengths of 30 meter earth underground cables to each pole going in opposite directions that was accesable.

If you have sandy soil you would be surprised what a bad earth it makes when it comes to energizers.

Your house I am told only has one earth rod.....don't know why..... I am not a spark

Condatis

johngalway wrote: »

They have the capability to kill fowl for sure. But, as said, they're a protected species in this country so your only real option is to erect suitable defenses to keep them out and the fowl in.

Where an otter attacks poultry you are entitled to trap or shoot it. You may apply for a licence to do so. Where it is not practicable to apply for licence – for example, you are on your land and the otter is threatening your stock – you have a defence under the Wildlife Acts to shoot the otter.

fodda

Condatis wrote: »

Where an otter attacks poultry you are entitled to trap or shoot it. You may apply for a licence to do so. Where it is not practicable to apply for licence – for example, you are on your land and the otter is threatening your stock – you have a defence under the Wildlife Acts to shoot the otter.

If an animal is totally or fully protected like Badgers, Stoats, Pinemartins you cannot touch them end of. All of these will take poultry if you do not protect them which is your obligation.

If Otters fall in to this category then they have the same protection.

On the same point otters eat mainly fish and river/sea stuff but can take small water fowl.

According to this they are under threat from many sources so protected.

http://conserveireland.com/mammals/otter.php

johngalway

Condatis wrote: »

Where an otter attacks poultry you are entitled to trap or shoot it. You may apply for a licence to do so. Where it is not practicable to apply for licence – for example, you are on your land and the otter is threatening your stock – you have a defence under the Wildlife Acts to shoot the otter.

Link to the particular source please. I believe you are mistaken. There may be licenses available in certain situations, but I would like claims made about protected species to be linked to evidence, rather than opinion.

Condatis

johngalway wrote: »

Link to the particular source please. I believe you are mistaken. There may be licenses available in certain situations, but I would like claims made about protected species to be linked to evidence, rather than opinion.

If you take the trouble to look up the Wildlife Act 1976 you will see that Section 23 provides for the issue of licences to capture or kill under many circumstances.

Taken with Section 23, Section 42 the Act provides that in cases of 'urgent necessity' such as a threat to poultry, other livestock, or, indeed, to crops you may capture or humanely kill a protected animal.

Most of the other posts here are also based on 'opinion'.

fodda

Condatis wrote: »

If you take the trouble to look up the Wildlife Act 1976 you will see that Section 23 provides for the issue of licences to capture or kill under many circumstances.

Taken with Section 23, Section 42 the Act provides that in cases of 'urgent necessity' such as a threat to poultry, other livestock, or, indeed, to crops you may capture or humanely kill a protected animal.

Most of the other posts here are also based on 'opinion'.

The act has been amended several times since then.

Bizzum

It would be my opinion that Condatis is fairly right here.
However the hoops that have to be jumped through to attain such a licence make the process almost unworkable.
IF Mr Otter was killing poultry, he'd have all before him killed and long moved on again the Dept would provide a licence!

Best upgrade the chicken coop. Prevention is better than cure!

fodda

Wildlife act amendment 2000

Look at last paragraph.......(it wont copy paste correctly)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0038/sec0031.html#sec31

Bizzum

Could you clarify exactly what paragraph you refer to?
Maybe give us your interpretation of it as well. Thanks.

fodda

I think it is all there under the word "TABLE"

It does say something about licenses but i dont know who to or who would ever get one.

I dont have an interpretation as i am not going to risk breaking the law.

The only thing i would say is nobody is going to write legistration to protect an animal/plant if allowing people to not protect it at the same time.

Basic common sense really unless you have another agenda as not to comply with the law.

Bizzum

fodda wrote: »

I think it is all there under the word "TABLE"

It does say something about licenses but i dont know who to or who would ever get one.

I dont have an interpretation as i am not going to risk breaking the law.

The only thing i would say is nobody is going to write legistration to protect an animal/plant if allowing people to not protect it at the same time.

Basic common sense really unless you have another agenda as not to comply with the law.

I would be the last person to advocate breaking the law. In fact I am employed to uphold it!
I have some experience with these licences to reduce numbers of protected animals, and as I stated above are practically unworkable.

And I'll tell you another one from experience: Basic common sense isn't always high on the agenda of those that draft legislation.

So again I would urge the OP to upgrade the chicken coop and make it impossible for Mr Otter do harm (IF indeed this was the case!).

fodda

Bizzum wrote: »

I would be the last person to advocate breaking the law. In fact I am employed to uphold it!
I have some experience with these licences to reduce numbers of protected animals, and as I stated above are practically unworkable.

And I'll tell you another one from experience: Basic common sense isn't always high on the agenda of those that draft legislation.

So again I would urge the OP to upgrade the chicken coop and make it impossible for Mr Otter do harm (IF indeed this was the case!).

Hey i dont mean you or anybody here, i mean in general.

Common sense and politic people never did mix.

Condatis

fodda wrote: »

The act has been amended several times since then.

There have been two amending Acts – 2000 and 2010 neither had any effect on the the Sections quoted above. The 1976 Act remains on the Irish Statute as 'The Principal Act'

fodda

I think it was also amended in 1986 as well but i can't be bothered to look it up as already stated proper fencing is the only way to go in any situation.

johngalway

Condatis wrote: »

If you take the trouble to look up the Wildlife Act 1976 you will see that Section 23 provides for the issue of licences to capture or kill under many circumstances.

Taken with Section 23, Section 42 the Act provides that in cases of 'urgent necessity' such as a threat to poultry, other livestock, or, indeed, to crops you may capture or humanely kill a protected animal.

Most of the other posts here are also based on 'opinion'.

Yes, most are based on opinion. I have not yet checked, as I have not yet had the time to check. I did say there may be licenses available under certain circumstances. The reason I asked you for links was because of the bit about the "It's coming right at me" defense of urgent necessity, it's not something I have heard of before. The reason that defense would trouble me is it may be open to abuse by people who should know better, and that type of thing tends to give everyone a bad name. That's all, wasn't anything personal

I'm going to check the act and sections you've quoted (though I'm no legal eagle) and email NPWS later on. (Am emailing them on another matter anyway so may as well tag that on).

Condatis

The 'urgent necessity' provision covers a situation where a protected animal is attacking or is about to attack your livestock or crops – in other words 'clear and present danger'.

It the threat is not imminent but there is evidence that there is predatory activity the 'urgent necessity' provision does not apply and you need to have a licence. If your local Wildlife Officer is reasonable, as most of them are, there will not be a problem.

As a matter of interest the 'urgent necessity' provision also covers other situations. For example; if you have orphaned young who were dependent on their mother for survival it is permissible to kill them humanely.

This situation could arise, for example, after a road kill.

Birdnuts

Condatis wrote: »

Where an otter attacks poultry you are entitled to trap or shoot it. You may apply for a licence to do so. Where it is not practicable to apply for licence – for example, you are on your land and the otter is threatening your stock – you have a defence under the Wildlife Acts to shoot the otter.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1976/en/act/pub/0039/sec0042.html#sec42

I beleive you are mistaken - unless I'm reading the above wrong I can see nothing in the above section that suggests any protected species can be harmed under any circumstances without a specific licence or ministerial order.

fodda

Agreed.

Birdnuts

Condatis wrote: »

The 'urgent necessity' provision covers a situation where a protected animal is attacking or is about to attack your livestock or crops – in other words 'clear and present danger'.

It the threat is not imminent but there is evidence that there is predatory activity the 'urgent necessity' provision does not apply and you need to have a licence. If your local Wildlife Officer is reasonable, as most of them are, there will not be a problem.

As a matter of interest the 'urgent necessity' provision also covers other situations. For example; if you have orphaned young who were dependent on their mother for survival it is permissible to kill them humanely.

This situation could arise, for example, after a road kill.

The old act simply referred to "urgent necessity" as something that could be used in defence of a suspect in court - but that the burden of proof in that regard would be on the defendant during court proceedings. In any case this clause have been removed by subsequent amendments to the act so is no longer valid in any case.

Condatis

Birdnuts wrote: »

The old act simply referred to "urgent necessity" as something that could be used in defence of a suspect in court - but that the burden of proof in that regard would be on the defendant during court proceedings. In any case this clause have been removed by subsequent amendments to the act so is no longer valid in any case.

Well of course you must have reasonable cause. In such circumstances, assuming that you are a responsible landowner, no Wildlife Ranger is going to recommend a prosecution – they are reasonable people who understand the countryside and the need to act reasonably in defence of livestock or crops.

The Section to which I referred is: 23: (8) "In any proceedings for an offence under this section relating to a protected wild animal which is of a species other than a species specified in Part II of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove that any capturing or killing complained of was urgently necessary for the purpose of stopping damage described in section 42 (1) of this Act being caused and that in the particular circumstances of the case it was not practical for him to apply to the Minister beforehand for a permission under section 42 of this Act and that the defendant reasonably believed that damage mentioned in the said section 42 (1) was being caused by the protected wild animal to which the alleged offence relates or by protected wild animals of the same species as that of such protected wild animal."

If by the 'old Act' you mean the 1976 Act, that Act remains as the 'Principal Act' the provisions to which I referred were not altered by the Acts of 2000 or 2010.

You say that this provision was amended elsewhere. Can you point to that legislation?

fodda

If the act is amended and it doesnt include what was written before hand then it doesnt apply anymore other wise we would still be enacting laws back to the dark ages and hanging people and burning them at the stake.

If any law is broken it isnt up to the wildlife ranger. Anybody including you and me can report an offence or if we think the law has been broken and the the Gards will take it further if it has.

It is the judge you have to convince not a wildlife ranger.

If an animal is fully protected you cannot touch them end of. Unless authorised people from dept who are properly authorised and licensed.

Also it is up to you as a farmer pet owner or whatever to fully protect your animals from harm to themselves and from straying or harm/damage to others and their property.

Condatis

fodda wrote: »

If the act is amended and it doesnt include what was written before hand then it doesnt apply anymore other wise we would still be enacting laws back to the dark ages and hanging people and burning them at the stake.

If any law is broken it isnt up to the wildlife ranger. Anybody including you and me can report an offence or if we think the law has been broken and the the Gards will take it further if it has.

It is the judge you have to convince not a wildlife ranger.

If an animal is fully protected you cannot touch them end of. Unless authorised people from dept who are properly authorised and licensed.

That is not so. Amending legislation affects specified provisions of Act and those provisions only. Provisions not so amended remain in force.

Birdnuts

fodda wrote: »

If the act is amended and it doesnt include what was written before hand then it doesnt apply anymore other wise we would still be enacting laws back to the dark ages and hanging people and burning them at the stake.

If any law is broken it isnt up to the wildlife ranger. Anybody including you and me can report an offence or if we think the law has been broken and the the Gards will take it further if it has.

It is the judge you have to convince not a wildlife ranger.

If an animal is fully protected you cannot touch them end of. Unless authorised people from dept who are properly authorised and licensed.

Also it is up to you as a farmer pet owner or whatever to fully protect your animals from harm to themselves and from straying or harm/damage to others and their property.

And thats the key point from the piece of 76' legislation that our friend quoted - I have asked a law friend of mine to clarify a few things that Condatis has referred too and he said that the provision is there to help with sentancing in these cases(as is the case with many other acts). It also involves a potential mountain of potentially expensive scientific proof on the defendants side, which going on cases he has reviewed, rarely work out well for the defendant.

PS: I see the point you were making Condatis, I think the confusion arose over different interpretations of it and subsequent amendments to the 76 act. I hope what I have written above clarifies things for people in that regard:)

Tora Bora

All this fuss, over a murdering blood thirsty otter. FFS.:eek:

I would be of the opinion that anything, which swipes, or kill my chickens, is asking for trouble.:cool:

rancher

fodda wrote: »

I think it was also amended in 1986 as well but i can't be bothered to look it up as already stated proper fencing is the only way to go in any situation.

You sound like you work for the NPWS, a farmer was summonsed and fined for getting two shooters to shoot starlings in his sheds earlier in the year during the snow,he was unaware they were protected species, wildlife ranger said he'd have to fence them out!!!!, another public servant not living in the real world, a warning would suffice
Definitely an unreasonable wildlife ranger

fodda

rancher wrote: »

You sound like you work for the NPWS, a farmer was summonsed and fined for getting two shooters to shoot starlings in his sheds earlier in the year during the snow,he was unaware they were protected species, wildlife ranger said he'd have to fence them out!!!!, another public servant not living in the real world, a warning would suffice

No i don't and not a public servant either.

But bad publicity can cause laws to introduced which affect all of us and usually not to our benefit.

Birdnuts

Tora Bora wrote: »

All this fuss, over a murdering blood thirsty otter. FFS.:eek:

I would be of the opinion that anything, which swipes, or kill my chickens, is asking for trouble.:cool:

A chap saw an otter in his garden - thats the begining and end of the matter since no-one saw the animal do anything.

PS: There is evidence from the UK that the recovery of otters in a number of rivers has reduced invasive mink populations. This can only be be good news given that mink take large numbers of all types of fowl as opposed to otters that primarily prey on fish and shellfish. I've trapped plenty of mink in and around farmyards for various people over the years but I've yet to see an otter in similiar situations which underlines my point above

Bizzum

Birdnuts wrote: »

There is evidence from the UK that the recovery of otters in a number of rivers has reduced invasive mink populations. This can only be be good news given that mink take large numbers of all types of fowl as opposed to otters that primarily prey on fish and shellfish.

This was widely reported. Hope our native Otter is reading and will act accordingly!
I'm starting to see more sign of Otter activity in the last couple of years too.