Squirrel problems

[BrianD]

I have discovered I have a right problem with squirrels in my roof.

It seems they have taken up residence and have managed to get into built-in storage cupboards and have helped themselves to quite a few items - like nuts etc.

I live in a 1 and 1/2 so I do not have a ceiling with a hatch - this means, for me to get to where they are, I would have to remove ceiling boards.

They drive us nuts as we can here the chewing up the "stolen nuts" up above our heads - during day and/or night.

So what can I do to get rid of them? - these a American Greys - assuming I am right about them. Any ideas? I really do not want to open up my ceiling/roof.

 

[Travis]

Hello Brian---I hear you!!!!!
Here is my story-- First find where they are getting in to the attic.
My "tree rats" found their way in via trees overhanging the the roof and thru a knot hole in the gable of roof. I cut a 4" x 4" hole in the 1" thick cedar (which included the knot hole). I made a new 4 x 4 piece of cedar and used two hinges to attach the block back in the hole so that it could swing outward only. The tree rats (in my case) had to come out for food and water. I left it this way for about 2 weeks until I could no longer hear them running and playing at night when I was trying to sleep. I didn't like to hear them making noise and possible chewing on the electric wiring and burning down the house around me. :evil: :evil:

Then comes the woodworking skills---Making a 4 x 4 block that fit the 4 x 4 hole. Screw a 6" strip across the 4 x 4 block and put on the glue. When glue dried, remove 6" strip.

I know that your situation may vary, but maybe this will give you some ideas.

Travis

 

[White House Workshop]

I took a more drastic approach when we got some in the roof over our extension (in the US). All I did was find the hole where they were getting in and screwed a cover over it while they were inside. It drove them CRAZY! So much so that they gnawed another hole to get out and never came back. All I did then was replace the covers I'd put in the soffits with air vents so they looked as if they ought to be there.

Incidentally, tree rats make delicious stew, but only the grey variety. Don't touch the reds - they are protected and they taste bad! The greys taste like tender rabbit, and you can make nice warm gloves out of the furry skins....

 

[BrianD]

I read the posts with glee! I have to get rid of them.

The idea of a one way "door" is pretty good. Not so sure of the stew

 

[YorkieT]

Grey squirrels do make fabulous eating, trust me :wink:

YorkieT

 

[Digit]

Shoot the damn things, it's legal to do so!

Roy.

 

[dddd]

Is it true in this country that if you capture them (the Greys not the reds) that it is actually illegal to release them again and you have to kill them humanely?

 

[RogerS]

Is it true in this country that if you capture them (the Greys not the reds) that it is actually illegal to release them again and you have to kill them humanely?

Correct. They can be run into a sack and then despatched with a sharp blow to the head. Alternatively they can be shot while still in the cage by an experienced and competent marksman. Do I get my fur hat now ?

 

[Digit]

Correct dddd, then the bleeding hearts brigade start to complicate matters. They can only be struck TWICE, after that it's animal cruelty to hit them again, OR to leave them injured! :?
Take your pick!
A couple of years ago Roger you could have had fur coat! My neighbour insisted on feeding the dear little things, along with the local Foxes. Shortly after that her cats disappeared, along with most small birds, when they'd cleared her garden they moved to mine. The Rotty saw off the Foxes and I shot the Squirrels.
Now Rooks have moved into the stand of Pines and the squirrels and Magpies have shoved off!

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

They don't actually explain quite how you are going to hit them on the head given that a sack is opaque.

 

[Jake]

You keep mentioning that, Roy - what is the source?

I can see that a guideline is sensible to stop people torturing animals to death, but obviously the outcome you point to would be absurd. Has anyone been prosecuted in those circumstances?

 

[RogerS]

You keep mentioning that, Roy - what is the source?

I can see that a guideline is sensible to stop people torturing animals to death, but obviously the outcome you point to would be absurd. Has anyone been prosecuted in those circumstances?

This is where I got my info although it doesn't say anything about hitting them only twice.

 

[Digit]

Has anyone been prosecuted in those circumstances?

No Jake! Like adultery it's a crime rarely witnessed, and a demonstration of the stupidity of some of our law makers.
Being a lawyer you may well be aware of some of the other daft laws, but were you aware that it is still illegal for a taxi to ply for hire without a bale of hay in the boot?
And yes, a police officer had a taxi driver arrested on the charge last year.

Roy.

 

[Digit]

You keep mentioning that, Roy - what is the source?

List of daft laws in the Sunday Telegraph some months ago, I would add that nobody challenged it as being inaccurate. It's definitely daft enough to be true.
After all, it's also illegal to eat Mince Pies on Christmas Day, passed under the Commonwealth and still on the Statute Book.

Roy.

 

[Jake]

Here's one http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ncat09.xml - three or four blows, and a cat, not a squirrel. The prosecution failed and the RSPCA quite rightly got a pretty sharp rebuke for bringing the prosecution. I do feel sorry for the policeman, that's nuts.

The law they used isn't as rigid as prescribing not more than two blows (or he would have been guilty), though, so I'd guess that's a bit of journalistic spin, unless there is something more squirrel-specific.

 

[mr]

it is still illegal for a taxi to ply for hire without a bale of hay in the boot?


Roy.

Apparently not according to http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/legal_curiosities.doc It's a misconception arising from another law which was repealed in the late seventies in any case.

Cheers Mike

 

[Digit]

As I posted earlier mr a policeman had it brought to court last year in Norfolk I believe. The Magistrates threw it out.

So how about this for a load of cobblers Jake!

“any person mutilates, kicks, beats, nails or otherwise impales, stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or asphyxiates any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering he shall be guilty of an offence”. Any person so doing is liable to prosecution.

Which to my logical mind means that if any of the above actions are inflicted to cause death, as opposed to unnecessary suffering, it would be legal to do so.
Who drafted that I wonder?

Roy.

 

[mr]

As I posted earlier mr a policeman had it brought to court last year in Norfolk I believe. The Magistrates threw it out.
.

Apologies - I thought you were asking , as in "is it still illegal". I thought your comment re the case last year referred to smacking squirrels on the head. Would have thought a policeman should know better than to attempt prosecution under non existent laws though.

Cheers Mike

 

[Digit]

Locally they break 'em as well mr.
Please note that I am not anti police, they are attempting to do a job that government seems determined to stop them doing, but daft laws bring all law into disrepute.
Locally, about 11 am you will find all local squad cars outside a local cafe.
It is illegal to serve, or offer, refreshment to a policeman in uniform.
It is also illegal for the policeman to solicit such service.
Presumably they are required to take a lunch box containing Home Office approved five a day meals with them.

Roy.

 

[Jake]

So how about this for a load of cobblers Jake!

“any person mutilates, kicks, beats, nails or otherwise impales, stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or asphyxiates any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering he shall be guilty of an offence”. Any person so doing is liable to prosecution.

Which to my logical mind means that if any of the above actions are inflicted to cause death, as opposed to unnecessary suffering, it would be legal to do so.
Who drafted that I wonder?

I think you are are reading the wrong inference into the drafting. If you deliberately drag a squirrel repeatedly through burning embers to kill it, you are doing so with the intent of causing unnecessary suffering (on the way to its death) so you are guilty.

If you hit a squirrel in your car and it gets trapped somehow and you accidentally end up dragging it along and smearing it over the road, you lack the required intent, so are not guilty.

It's quite a neat bit of drafting which aims directly at the intent to cause unnecessary suffering, which is critical, and is precisely why it would not be an offence to hit the squirrel again to dispatch it if you messed up killing it with your first blow or two. Again, your intent in those circumstances would not be to cause unnecessary suffering, but the opposite.