107 dead deer

I may well be wrong, but the report which you've quoted was from 2002-3. Regardless of the date, this is a disgrace.

Animal welfare? do the LACS have any understanding of the term? Perhaps more to the point, do they actually care?

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
I may well be wrong, but the report which you've quoted was from 2002-3. Regardless of the date, this is a disgrace.
Click to expand...

And it's been going on a LOT longer - from memory, it was 1996 when The Spectator ran an article about LACS keeping deer on the sanctuaries by hand feeding them - and using Rumevite blocks to try and control the inevitable worm burdens. This sort of approach to worm control with wild deer is of course totally ineffective because you can't ensure that all deer get a sufficient dose over the requisite number of days. And it leads to wormer resistance. The journalist was rather anti-hunt when he went to do the story - he ended up VERY anti-LACS after - as he caught them outin so many lies!:rolleyes:
 
JanetGeorge said:
And it's been going on a LOT longer - from memory, it was 1996 when The Spectator ran an article about LACS keeping deer on the sanctuaries by hand feeding them - and using Rumevite blocks to try and control the inevitable worm burdens. This sort of approach to worm control with wild deer is of course totally ineffective because you can't ensure that all deer get a sufficient dose over the requisite number of days. And it leads to wormer resistance. The journalist was rather anti-hunt when he went to do the story - he ended up VERY anti-LACS after - as he caught them outin so many lies!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Janet, that's interesting, because I have just dug into google, and there's a very similar report, but from 2007, 10 years or so later!

A "Sanctuary" is a place of refuge. In Devon it seems, it's anything but. In Scotland, from the point of view of deer, a sanctuary, is an area of the hill, which is either un-stalkable, or the shot beasts can't be removed from it. Such areas are of value. Irritating, perhaps, from the point of view of the stalker, but not for the deer!

Back to the West Country. It is illegal to entrap wild deer. Those which are contained within Parks, are owned. Those which are wild, are just that, and must remain so until killed. Most Deer Parks have a "leap" or two. They're in place to allow any escapees to return to the herd. There's a world of difference between that, and what the LACS have done. These deer have been trapped within the confines of a fence. It isn't just illegal, it's also wrong.

The LACS would tell you, I would imagine, that they are saving the deer from being shot, or hunted. Saved, but for what? A miserable, inbred and sad existence.

Rumevite, as you will know, is a high protein energy supply, but with that many deer on such a small acreage, then without a suitable balancer, in the form of roots, hay or straw, then it's counter-productive. There's a bit of a science to administering wormers to Park deer. A science, which it seems, the LACS have yet to master.

Presumably the LACS will be in receipt of SF payments from this land. I wonder how they justify their management. A degree of research is called for. I'll make further enquiries.

Alec.
 
A revised Protection of Wild mammals Act as proposed by Lord Donoughue would make causing undue suffering (cruelty) to wild mammals illegal. It is highly likely that this law could have been used to prosecute LACS.

LACS accept this as the definition of suffering but they are one of the biggest opponents of banning it.

"Lord Donoughue is apparently planning to put forward some sort of Private Members' Bill in the House of Lords, which would make it an offence to be cruel to a wild mammal. The problem with that suggestion is that someone would actually have to be cruel to the animal before they could be charged with any offence."

Douglas Batchelor LACS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top