On 2/12/2021 10:11 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 2/12/2021 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
>> Clocky wrote:
>
>>>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>>>
>>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>>
>>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>>
>> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
>> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
>> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
>> their own hands."
>>
>> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> That's the first time I've seen Autism linked with pig ignorant
> fucktardedness in a legitimate way :)
>
>>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>>
>> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>
> You know you're banging your head against a brick wall here, right?
> This imbecile will *never* admit that he's wrong,

wrong! he did so here just recently. you're the poster boy for never
admitting to being wrong.

> regardless of how utterly ridiculous he makes himself look....
>
>
>

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> On 2/12/2021 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
>> Clocky wrote:
>
>>>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>>>
>>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>>
>>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>>
>> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
>> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
>> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
>> their own hands."
>>
>> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> That's the first time I've seen Autism linked with pig ignorant
> fucktardedness in a legitimate way :)
>
>>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>>
>> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>
> You know you're banging your head against a brick wall here, right? This
> imbecile will *never* admit that he's wrong, regardless of how utterly
> ridiculous he makes himself look....
>
You looking in that mirror again Darren??? Sure looks like it.

———
Xeno

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 09:57:14 +1100, Daryl wrote:

>
> IMHO any venomous snake that's found to be somewhere where its likely to
> become a danger to a person even if its not an "immediate" threat is
> subject to the law above.
> This time last year I found a small brown snake at the back of my
> garage, no immediate threat to me but I couldn't just leave it be, IMHO
> if I left it alone my Grand kids may have found it or it may have
> wandered off to one of the neighbours places where there are plenty of
> small children and pets so it had to be "dealt with".
> My wife put a snake warning on our local Facebook page and not one
> person was unhappy that I had dealt with the problem.

It was probably a neighbor that put it there.

alvey
Wondering why getting a snake catcher wasn't an option.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:30:35 +1100, Noddy wrote:

>
> It's very presence in close proximity to people and animals is a danger,
> especially when you're talking about Brown snakes which are highly
> aggressive when startled, and that's enough of a "threat" for the law to
> be enacted.
>
> Put very simply, no matter how much of a fucking *moron* this ridiculous
> Westralian circus freak wants to make of himself, there isn't a
> jurisdiction in the country that would go so far as *charging* anyone
> for killing a venimous snake that posed a threat to them let alone a
> court that would ever convict anyone.

If Fraudster wasn't always sneering at other peoples mistakes and literacy
ability and boasting about his own (*hoot*) I wouldn't need to point out
his illiteracy. There is no such thing as a "venimous" snake Fraudster.
>
> Different story if you go out of your way to deliberately kill a snake
> that poses zero risk to you, such as serving your car to run over a
> snake that's crossing a road for example.

"serving your car"?

> These *are* things people have
> been charged and convicted for, and this why the law exists and makes a
> distinction between justified and non justified killing in the first place.

"non justified" relates to text. The word you should have used is
'unjustified'. [Aside: 'Justified' is also an excellent tv series].

alvey
"My command of the language is quite good even if I do say so myself.”
Fraudster, 06Aug20

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:11:36 +1100, Noddy wrote:

>
> You know you're banging your head against a brick wall here, right? This
> imbecile will *never* admit that he's wrong, regardless of how utterly
> ridiculous he makes himself look....

And the Bumhole Bandits concede their thousandth own goal in their 11 year
history!

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Daryl wrote:
>On 2/12/21 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
>> Clocky wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2021 8:00 am, John_H wrote:
>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it certainly
>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a waste paper
>>>>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the polished floor by
>>>>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a threat to
>>>>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a clue he
>>>>>>>> would know this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in reality
>>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's the big
>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>>
>>>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>>>
>>>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/wa-residents-allowed-to-kill-snakes-if-they-feel-threatened-20141021-119fke.html
Or.... https://tinyurl.com/y769xhca
>>>
>>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>>
>>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>>
>> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
>> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
>> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
>> their own hands."
>>
>> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>>
>>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>>
>> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>>
>
>IMHO any venomous snake that's found to be somewhere where its likely to
>become a danger to a person even if its not an "immediate" threat is
>subject to the law above.
>This time last year I found a small brown snake at the back of my
>garage, no immediate threat to me but I couldn't just leave it be, IMHO
>if I left it alone my Grand kids may have found it or it may have
>wandered off to one of the neighbours places where there are plenty of
>small children and pets so it had to be "dealt with".
>My wife put a snake warning on our local Facebook page and not one
>person was unhappy that I had dealt with the problem.

Any venomous snake is a threat by virtue of its proximity, which is
how the law is intended to be interpreted. Only a complete fool would
have it otherwise.
I was once struck on the leg by a brown because I inadvertently got
too close (luckily I was wearing jeans at the time). It never
attempted to get out of the way, shake its rattle or even hiss
loudly... it struck completely out of the blue which is what browns
are noted for.
I'm pleased to say the one I killed inside the house never got the
chance! :)

--
John H

On 2/12/2021 4:42 am, John_H wrote:
> Clocky wrote:
>> On 1/12/2021 8:00 am, John_H wrote:
>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it certainly
>>>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a waste paper
>>>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the polished floor by
>>>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a threat to
>>>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a clue he
>>>>>>> would know this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in reality
>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's the big
>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>
>>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>>>
>>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>>
>>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>>
>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>
>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>
> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
> their own hands."
>

*feared for their life*

Read what you wrote,

"I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it certainly
wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike. I used a waste paper
basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the polished floor by
belting or shooting it."

Wasn't aggressive and made no attempt to strike so clearly posed no
immediate threat. You placed yourself at greater risk of getting bitten
by attempting to kill a snake that was "not aggressive and made no
attempt to strike". The law is clear here and you were in breach of it.

"It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a threat to
people or pets!"

*immediate* threat.

Pets? Where is the clause for pets?

"Besides which, professional snake catchers are rarer than rocking
horse shit outside of suburbia!"

You won't find them if you don't bother looking, John.

"Do you happen to know how to positively identify an eastern brown
snake?

Clue: It's much easier after they're dead."

So you admit to killing snakes that you haven't even positively
identified as well!

It doesn't matter how much you protest, what you said clearly puts you
in breach of the law. Perhaps it's best you check to see what the law
actually states vs what you think it states to prevent revealing your
breaches in public.

It's even worse for your cowardly mate, he was so proud of his unlawful
snake trapping behaviour that he not only went into great detail
describing his actions but kindly provided photographic proof to back it
up!

You would have to wonder why someone who is so "fearful" to deliberately
lure a snake into a trap isn't the least bit concerned about his son,
the safety of which he legally and morally responsible for, flying
through the front windscreen of an old "truck" in case of an accident to
not even bother to make sure he's wearing the available seat belt.

On 2/12/2021 6:57 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 2/12/21 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
>> Clocky wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2021 8:00 am, John_H wrote:
>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it
>>>>>>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a
>>>>>>>>>>> waste paper
>>>>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the polished
>>>>>>>>>>> floor by
>>>>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a
>>>>>>>>> threat to
>>>>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a
>>>>>>>> clue he
>>>>>>>> would know this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's
>>>>>>> the big
>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>>
>>>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>>>
>>>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>>>
>>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>>
>>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>>
>> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
>> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
>> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
>> their own hands."
>>
>> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>>
>>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>>
>> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>>
>
> IMHO any venomous snake that's found to be somewhere where its likely to
> become a danger to a person even if its not an "immediate" threat is
> subject to the law above.

The law is clear so no, it clearly isn't.

Immediate threat means immediate threat.
No situation placing either of the two clowns under immediate threat was
presented.

On 2/12/2021 7:30 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 2/12/2021 9:57 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 2/12/21 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
>
>>>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>>>
>>>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>>>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>>>
>>> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
>>> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
>>> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
>>> their own hands."
>>>
>>> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>>>
>>>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>>>
>>> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>>>
>>
>> IMHO any venomous snake that's found to be somewhere where its likely
>> to become a danger to a person even if its not an "immediate" threat
>> is subject to the law above.
>
> It's very presence in close proximity to people and animals is a danger,
> especially when you're talking about Brown snakes which are highly
> aggressive when startled, and that's enough of a "threat" for the law to
> be enacted.
>

The law is clear, your interpretation of it is irrelevant and incorrect.

>
> Different story if you go out of your way to deliberately kill a snake
> that poses zero risk to you, such as

luring a non-threatening snake it into a trap to kill it and then
posting photos of it?

<snip white noise>

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

On 2/12/2021 7:53 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 2/12/2021 10:11 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 2/12/2021 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
>>> Clocky wrote:
>>
>>>>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>>>>
>>>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>>>
>>>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>>>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>>>
>>> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
>>> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
>>> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
>>> their own hands."
>>>
>>> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>>
>> ROTFL :)
>>
>> That's the first time I've seen Autism linked with pig ignorant
>> fucktardedness in a legitimate way :)
>>
>>>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>>>
>>> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>>
>> You know you're banging your head against a brick wall here, right?
>> This imbecile will *never* admit that he's wrong,
>
>
> wrong! he did so here just recently.

I've done so quite a number of times. People fuck up, I'm not immune to
that and neither is anyone else. That I don't know a lot about glass is
something I'll happily admit. I know what laminated glass is and it's
construction in a general sense but I was thrown by the broken
windscreen which appeared to have a layer of plastic externally which I
thought odd but really didn't think about. On second look with my
glasses on after being corrected here it was clear I was wrong and
admitted it.

I'm not a glazier. Who cares.

I also apologised to Keith. No biggy, I was being a dick.

NoddyLiar would rather throw people in his killfail and snipe than ever
admit he was wrong. Plenty of evidence to show that to be the case.

you're the poster boy for never
> admitting to being wrong.
>
>

How long did it take for him to finally admit to being wrong when I
educated him on the fact that his "All Imperial Jeep" that he worked on
himself was in fact nowhere near "All Imperial" and that the American
car industry had been metricating production since the 70's. NoddyLiar
the self-proclaimed "mechanic" had no idea what fasteners his own
vehicle he worked on used and argued tooth and nail against all the
presented evidence.

The fucking idiot even tried to argue against official Jeep parts lists
showing countless metric fasteners for his model FFS.

He *still* maintains he owned a PC *before* anyone else in the world
took delivery because you know, recorded history is completely wrong and
his ABI affected memory grants him perfect recall...

Clocky wrote:
>On 2/12/2021 6:57 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 2/12/21 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/2021 8:00 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it
>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a
>>>>>>>>>>>> waste paper
>>>>>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the polished
>>>>>>>>>>>> floor by
>>>>>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a
>>>>>>>>>> threat to
>>>>>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a
>>>>>>>>> clue he
>>>>>>>>> would know this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's
>>>>>>>> the big
>>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>>>>
>>>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>>>
>>>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>>>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>>>
>>> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
>>> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
>>> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
>>> their own hands."
>>>
>>> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>>>
>>>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>>>
>>> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>>>
>>
>> IMHO any venomous snake that's found to be somewhere where its likely to
>> become a danger to a person even if its not an "immediate" threat is
>> subject to the law above.
>
>
>The law is clear so no, it clearly isn't.
>
>Immediate threat means immediate threat.

Here's a sane person's interpretation of the relevant Act I'm most
familiar with....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8veb2EFcVU&ab_channel=EdwinHenryBlachford

Proximity being the operative word. And, by extension, if it's close
enough to be a danger my dog, chooks, or canary it's close enough to
be a threat to me or anyone else at my place, and probably the
neighbours' as well if I happened to live in suburbia.

>No situation placing either of the two clowns under immediate threat was
>presented.

There's no mention whatsoever of immediate threat in the Act. If it's
a venomous snake and I consider it a danger the law clearly allows me
to kill it!

--
John H

On 2/12/2021 1:33 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 2/12/2021 6:57 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 2/12/21 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/2021 8:00 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and
>>>>>>>>>>>> it certainly
>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a
>>>>>>>>>>>> waste paper
>>>>>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>> polished floor by
>>>>>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a
>>>>>>>>>> threat to
>>>>>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a
>>>>>>>>> clue he
>>>>>>>>> would know this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law,
>>>>>>>> that's the big
>>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014
>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this
>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>>>>
>>>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>>>
>>>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>>>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>>>
>>> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
>>> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
>>> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
>>> their own hands."
>>>
>>> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>>>
>>>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>>>
>>> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>>>
>>
>> IMHO any venomous snake that's found to be somewhere where its likely
>> to become a danger to a person even if its not an "immediate" threat
>> is subject to the law above.
>
>
> The law is clear so no, it clearly isn't.
>
> Immediate threat means immediate threat.
> No situation placing either of the two clowns under immediate threat
> was presented.

so would you let a venomous snake run loose in your house because it's
not posing an 'immediate' threat?

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

On 2/12/2021 2:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 2/12/2021 7:53 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 2/12/2021 10:11 am, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2021 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>>>>>
>>>>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>>>>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>>>>
>>>> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
>>>> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
>>>> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
>>>> their own hands."
>>>>
>>>> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>>>
>>> ROTFL :)
>>>
>>> That's the first time I've seen Autism linked with pig ignorant
>>> fucktardedness in a legitimate way :)
>>>
>>>>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>>>
>>> You know you're banging your head against a brick wall here, right?
>>> This imbecile will *never* admit that he's wrong,
>>
>>
>> wrong! he did so here just recently.
>
> I've done so quite a number of times. People fuck up, I'm not immune
> to that and neither is anyone else. That I don't know a lot about
> glass is something I'll happily admit. I know what laminated glass is
> and it's construction in a general sense but I was thrown by the
> broken windscreen which appeared to have a layer of plastic externally
> which I thought odd but really didn't think about. On second look with
> my glasses on after being corrected here it was clear I was wrong and
> admitted it.
>
> I'm not a glazier. Who cares.
>
> I also apologised to Keith. No biggy, I was being a dick.
>
> NoddyLiar would rather throw people in his killfail and snipe than
> ever admit he was wrong. Plenty of evidence to show that to be the case.
>
>>
>> you're the poster boy for never admitting to being wrong.
>>
>>
>
> How long did it take for him to finally admit to being wrong when I
> educated him on the fact that his "All Imperial Jeep" that he worked
> on himself was in fact nowhere near "All Imperial" and that the
> American car industry had been metricating production since the 70's.
> NoddyLiar the self-proclaimed "mechanic" had no idea what fasteners
> his own vehicle he worked on used and argued tooth and nail against
> all the presented evidence.
>
> The fucking idiot even tried to argue against official Jeep parts
> lists showing countless metric fasteners for his model FFS.
>
> He *still* maintains he owned a PC *before* anyone else in the world
> took delivery because you know, recorded history is completely wrong
> and his ABI affected memory grants him perfect recall...
>
>
>
>

facts are an anathema to him. he hates them because they keep disproving
his lies, lol

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

On 2/12/2021 3:49 pm, John_H wrote:
> Clocky wrote:
>> On 2/12/2021 6:57 am, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 2/12/21 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 1/12/2021 8:00 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> waste paper
>>>>>>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the polished
>>>>>>>>>>>>> floor by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a
>>>>>>>>>>> threat to
>>>>>>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a
>>>>>>>>>> clue he
>>>>>>>>>> would know this.
>>>>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's
>>>>>>>>> the big
>>>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>>>>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>>>>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>>>>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>>>> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
>>>> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
>>>> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
>>>> their own hands."
>>>>
>>>> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>>>>
>>>>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>>>> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>>>>
>>> IMHO any venomous snake that's found to be somewhere where its likely to
>>> become a danger to a person even if its not an "immediate" threat is
>>> subject to the law above.
>>
>> The law is clear so no, it clearly isn't.
>>
>> Immediate threat means immediate threat.
> Here's a sane person's interpretation of the relevant Act I'm most
> familiar with....
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8veb2EFcVU&ab_channel=EdwinHenryBlachford
>
> Proximity being the operative word. And, by extension, if it's close
> enough to be a danger my dog, chooks, or canary it's close enough to
> be a threat to me or anyone else at my place, and probably the
> neighbours' as well if I happened to live in suburbia.
>
>> No situation placing either of the two clowns under immediate threat was
>> presented.
> There's no mention whatsoever of immediate threat in the Act. If it's
> a venomous snake and I consider it a danger the law clearly allows me
> to kill it!
>

"you don't have to call a snake catcher and spend $300 if you have a
snake in your yard. you can kill the snake with a shovel"

what the law is saying basically is if you see a snake close to you and
are afraid of it you can kill it.

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

>>> No situation placing either of the two clowns under immediate threat was
>>> presented.

>> There's no mention whatsoever of immediate threat in the Act.  If it's
>> a venomous snake and I consider it a danger the law clearly allows me
>> to kill it!

Likewise. Are you supposed to wait till it threatens your kids, your
wife, your life, your dog before it becomes an issue?

Again, i've shot one red-bellied black because it got between me and
mine. Actually, i shot it twice, so there's no fucking around. 12g
cartridges are cheap. :-) I've let maybe 40 of 'em on their way. I've
probably seen 40 snakes of all sorts, mainly Red Bellied Blacks, and the
odd Brown in my 11 years as a landowner.. Most of them are in the grass
and slither away at hi-speed in front of the quads. Then there's Boris.
(dinner is ready, and I need to find his pic. He's a possible 6 foot
Brown, maybe more. He has more balls than all of us together. He puts
his head up and looks at you, I'll guarantee YOU WILL RUN. Cunt wandered
into the scrub; while were looking at his tail, his head is 3 feet away
looking at us!! ...There is nothing else. If you or your family are
threatened by a snake, the the law is the law. I dont kill shit if i
cant eat it (Tiger snake is shit! More cartlidge that garfish bones)

The law is the law. And If I break it saving my family, then so be it.
Call the police.

> "you don't have to call a snake catcher and spend $300 if you have a
> snake in your yard. you can kill the snake with a shovel"
>
> what the law is saying basically is if you see a snake close to you and
> are afraid of it you can kill it.

On 2/12/2021 3:49 pm, John_H wrote:
> Clocky wrote:

>>> IMHO any venomous snake that's found to be somewhere where its likely to
>>> become a danger to a person even if its not an "immediate" threat is
>>> subject to the law above.
>>
>>
>> The law is clear so no, it clearly isn't.
>>
>> Immediate threat means immediate threat.
>
> Here's a sane person's interpretation of the relevant Act I'm most
> familiar with....
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8veb2EFcVU&ab_channel=EdwinHenryBlachford
>
> Proximity being the operative word. And, by extension, if it's close
> enough to be a danger my dog, chooks, or canary it's close enough to
> be a threat to me or anyone else at my place, and probably the
> neighbours' as well if I happened to live in suburbia.

Exactly.

>> No situation placing either of the two clowns under immediate threat was
>> presented.
>
> There's no mention whatsoever of immediate threat in the Act. If it's
> a venomous snake and I consider it a danger the law clearly allows me
> to kill it!

And that's precisely what the law permits you to do.

You do *not* have to wait until you find yourself in a position of being
faced with imminent danger before you can act. It is *not* about
"immediate threat", and it *never* been. It's about your assessment of
the situation and whether or not you perceive that you or anyone else is
potentially at risk. If you do, then you're entitled to take action.

This has been the law for as long as I can remember, and anyone who
claims otherwise is completely ignorant of it.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 2/12/2021 8:27 pm, lindsay wrote:

>>> There's no mention whatsoever of immediate threat in the Act.  If it's
>>> a venomous snake and I consider it a danger the law clearly allows me
>>> to kill it!
>
> Likewise. Are you supposed to wait till it threatens your kids, your
> wife, your life, your dog before it becomes an issue?
>
> Again, i've shot one red-bellied black because it got between me and
> mine.  Actually, i shot it twice, so there's no fucking around. 12g
> cartridges are cheap. :-) I've let maybe 40 of 'em on their way. I've
> probably seen 40 snakes of all sorts, mainly Red Bellied Blacks, and the
> odd Brown in my 11 years as a landowner.. Most of them are in the grass
> and slither away at hi-speed in front of the quads. Then there's Boris.
>  (dinner is ready, and I need to find his pic. He's a possible 6 foot
> Brown, maybe more. He has more balls than all of us together. He puts
> his head up and looks at you, I'll guarantee YOU WILL RUN. Cunt wandered
> into the scrub; while were looking at his tail, his head is 3 feet away
> looking at us!! ...There is nothing else. If you or your family are
> threatened by a snake, the the law is the law. I dont kill shit if i
> cant eat it (Tiger snake is shit! More cartlidge that garfish bones)
>
>
> The law is the law. And If I break it saving my family, then so be it.
> Call the police.

Yep. I'll lend you my phone.

The only person around here who's got it completely wrong is the Westie
fuckwit who thinks if he pins his Sheriff badge on then anything he says
is law when in reality he seems to be the only person who *doesn't*
understand what the law actually states :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 2/12/2021 3:24 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 2/12/2021 3:49 pm, John_H wrote:
>> Clocky wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2021 6:57 am, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/21 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/12/2021 8:00 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waste paper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the polished
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> floor by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a
>>>>>>>>>>>> threat to
>>>>>>>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>>>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a
>>>>>>>>>>> clue he
>>>>>>>>>>> would know this.
>>>>>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's
>>>>>>>>>> the big
>>>>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014
>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the
>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this
>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>>>>>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>>>>>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>>>>>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>>>>> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
>>>>> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
>>>>> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
>>>>> their own hands."
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>>>>> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>>>>>
>>>> IMHO any venomous snake that's found to be somewhere where its
>>>> likely to
>>>> become a danger to a person even if its not an "immediate" threat is
>>>> subject to the law above.
>>>
>>> The law is clear so no, it clearly isn't.
>>>
>>> Immediate threat means immediate threat.
>> Here's a sane person's interpretation of the relevant  Act  I'm most
>> familiar with....
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8veb2EFcVU&ab_channel=EdwinHenryBlachford
>>
>>
>> Proximity being the operative word.

The law is clear, you are trying to create ambiguity where there is none
for the situation you and especially your dumb mate described.
The situation you described did not give you a legitimate reason to kill
the snake and your bullshit in protest doesn't change that fact.

You placed yourself in greater risk yourself, that does not provide for
a reason to kill the snake.

You can argue with your own government, or try learning something
instead of pig-ignorantly and illegally killing native wildlife for no
reason other than irrational fear and a lack of education/intelligence.

https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/wildlife/animals/living-with/snakes/frequent-questions#snake_myths

On 2/12/2021 3:07 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 2/12/2021 1:33 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 2/12/2021 6:57 am, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 2/12/21 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 1/12/2021 8:00 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it certainly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> waste paper
>>>>>>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> polished floor by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a
>>>>>>>>>>> threat to
>>>>>>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a
>>>>>>>>>> clue he
>>>>>>>>>> would know this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law,
>>>>>>>>> that's the big
>>>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014
>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this
>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>>>>>
>>>>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>>>>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>>>>
>>>> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
>>>> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
>>>> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
>>>> their own hands."
>>>>
>>>> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>>>>
>>>>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>>>>
>>>
>>> IMHO any venomous snake that's found to be somewhere where its likely
>>> to become a danger to a person even if its not an "immediate" threat
>>> is subject to the law above.
>>
>>
>> The law is clear so no, it clearly isn't.
>>
>> Immediate threat means immediate threat.
>> No situation placing either of the two clowns under immediate threat
>> was presented.
>
>
> so would you let a venomous snake run loose in your house because it's
> not posing an 'immediate' threat?
>
>

They don't "run around loose" and they rarely ever pose an immediate
threat. The threat almost always created by humans interacting with the
snake, the snake isn't going to chase *you* around the house. Using your
brain and staying calm and rational is the best way to deal with a snake.

To answer your question, there is a snake catcher a few streets away and
doesn't charge a cent, so it's a no-brainer - but I haven't had to deal
with a venomous snake inside this house. We do get coastal browns around
the house from time to time. The kids have been educated and know to
avoid them and what to do should if they or someone else gets bitten. A
phonecall is much safer than attempting to kill a snake and snakes don't
chase you and would rather avoid human contact. I've had dugites and a
tiger snake in and around my house before at my old place and both are
venomous. Plenty of pythons too but they are beneficial to have around.
For the adult dugite that found it's way into my kitchen I closed off
all but one clear exit point and turned the A/C to maximum and monitored
it from a distance, broom in hand. Before long it slithered out the door
towards the outside heat and off it went.

Check out this little fellow that takes care of vermin around my place:

https://ibb.co/jWkJBP3

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 18:24:22 +1100, Yosemite Sam wrote:

>
> what the law is saying basically is if you see a snake close to you and
> are afraid of it you can kill it.

That's a useful precedent. All we need to do is substitute 'snake' with
'Peter Dutton'...

alvey
Wondering how many guvmint pollies will resign today...

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 22:22:58 +0800, Clocky wrote:

>
> Check out this little fellow that takes care of vermin around my place:
>
> https://ibb.co/jWkJBP3

Much darker than our much-liked Handsome Harry (A Coastal Python).

https://ibb.co/YB7HwyM

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 3/12/2021 1:22 am, Clocky wrote:

> Check out this little fellow that takes care of vermin around my place:
>
> https://ibb.co/jWkJBP3

Yep. Harmless to humans, thats why you can get close enough to
photograph, or even handle them.

Then there's Boris, https://imgur.com/a/Y2sA9RS

an angry Eastern brown who can kill you after a bite. He's probably
6', and upset because he nearly got run over by a quad. (skid marks on
track and on riders jocks!) ) He's just a shiny wet stick at 30km/h. We
just let him go on his way. It's when they turn to you and put the head
up, then it's time to go. They've been known to chase people, and I
reckon he could move way faster than I can run.

Going up the block with new mower today. I'd expect to see plenty with
all the water, and the frogs. I'll do a head-count. Neighbor has seen 4
red-bellied blacks (nearly harmless) this week.

Noddy wrote:
>On 2/12/2021 3:49 pm, John_H wrote:
>> Clocky wrote:
>
>>>> IMHO any venomous snake that's found to be somewhere where its likely to
>>>> become a danger to a person even if its not an "immediate" threat is
>>>> subject to the law above.
>>>
>>>
>>> The law is clear so no, it clearly isn't.
>>>
>>> Immediate threat means immediate threat.
>>
>> Here's a sane person's interpretation of the relevant Act I'm most
>> familiar with....
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8veb2EFcVU&ab_channel=EdwinHenryBlachford
>>
>> Proximity being the operative word. And, by extension, if it's close
>> enough to be a danger to my dog, chooks, or canary it's close enough to
>> be a threat to me or anyone else at my place, and probably the
>> neighbours' as well if I happened to live in suburbia.
>
>Exactly.
>
>>> No situation placing either of the two clowns under immediate threat was
>>> presented.
>>
>> There's no mention whatsoever of immediate threat in the Act. If it's
>> a venomous snake and I consider it a danger the law clearly allows me
>> to kill it!
>
>And that's precisely what the law permits you to do.
>
>You do *not* have to wait until you find yourself in a position of being
>faced with imminent danger before you can act. It is *not* about
>"immediate threat", and it *never* been. It's about your assessment of
>the situation and whether or not you perceive that you or anyone else is
>potentially at risk. If you do, then you're entitled to take action.
>
>This has been the law for as long as I can remember, and anyone who
>claims otherwise is completely ignorant of it.

I was around when the law was enacted and distinctly recall it being
introduced with the assurance that no one who killed a snake in their
backyard would be prosecuted under the Act (for what politicians'
promises are worth). Plenty of harmless snakes are also killed by
those who're paranoid about snakes but I doubt if any of them has ever
been prosecuted either

The same Act also allows you to kill swooping magpies but I wouldn't
recommend it. :)

--
John H

lindsay wrote:
>
>Going up the block with new mower today. I'd expect to see plenty with
>all the water, and the frogs. I'll do a head-count. Neighbor has seen 4
>red-bellied blacks (nearly harmless) this week.

Make sure you don't accidently tread on one as they're certainly
venomous! :)

Back when I worked for GovCo I was involved in field work in SE SA and
SW Vic entailing a fair amount of plodding through swamps. Our advice
from the experts was there were four potentially lethal species in the
area, those being the common brown (as it was called in those parts),
tiger, copperhead and red bellied black. I came across plenty of each
with tigers being the most common and the most dangerous, mainly
because they were too slow to get out of the way and easily trodden
on. They've also got a much more efficient fang structure than
browns.

--
John H

On 3/12/2021 8:10 am, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>>> There's no mention whatsoever of immediate threat in the Act. If it's
>>> a venomous snake and I consider it a danger the law clearly allows me
>>> to kill it!
>>
>> And that's precisely what the law permits you to do.
>>
>> You do *not* have to wait until you find yourself in a position of being
>> faced with imminent danger before you can act. It is *not* about
>> "immediate threat", and it *never* been. It's about your assessment of
>> the situation and whether or not you perceive that you or anyone else is
>> potentially at risk. If you do, then you're entitled to take action.
>>
>> This has been the law for as long as I can remember, and anyone who
>> claims otherwise is completely ignorant of it.
>
> I was around when the law was enacted and distinctly recall it being
> introduced with the assurance that no one who killed a snake in their
> backyard would be prosecuted under the Act (for what politicians'
> promises are worth). Plenty of harmless snakes are also killed by
> those who're paranoid about snakes but I doubt if any of them has ever
> been prosecuted either

Not that I've ever heard, but then it's not a subject I actively search
for information about. On the other hand, I do recall reading a report
in the Herald-Sun about a bloke who was fined for for deliberately
driving over a snake to kill it, and that's the only prosecution I can
recall ever hearing about for someone killing a snake.

> The same Act also allows you to kill swooping magpies but I wouldn't
> recommend it. :)

Neither would I :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.