Deer hunting is banned yes?

[wurzel]

Deer Hunting is banned yes?

Therefore, I am just about to start shooting them.

My farm is 400 acres.

I would like to know from the anti's, how many I should allow to survive to maintain I viable population?

It seems other farmers on Exmoor are starting a similar course of action.

 

[Nigel]

Hi Tom,

You will not get an answer from those twisted moronic lunatics that have no understanding of Deer control.



Where are the idiots at the LACS. IFAW and R.S.P.C.A when it comes to answering a simple question?


You read this website, I know you do, so answer Toms question?

Cheers

Nigel

 

[Ereiam_jh]

From what I understand the stag hunts have to shoot the deer they flush out. If they don't shoot them then they are breaking the law.

The law specifically allows the stag hounds to flush out deer with up to two dogs.

Scott et al are being prosecuted for taking the necessary steps to ensure the deer they flush out are shot as soon as possible.

If they are succesfully prosecuted for obeying the law then maybe they wonn't be for deliberately breaking it.

Shoot your deer if you wish.

But why don't the stag hounds start publicly flouting the law by flushing out deer and NOT shooting them. The police won't prosecute them for that. They've already made that clear.

A law whose letter contradicts its spirit is deeply perverse and deserves to be broken.

 

[Burnsall]

I give up. How many?

 

[Fairynuff]

I dont know the reply to your question. I can make a relatively intelligent quess although it is a guess so dont come down on me please.
They say an acre per sheep if the land is upland and poor and you have 400 acres-I would say 20 would be enough.Dont laugh, maths was always a mistery to me but Im using gut feeling here. Leave one mature stag and take out the old or sick hinds and most of this years bucks.The antis are going to love me for this
Has anew law been pased re the ban? Mairi

 

[Burnsall]

Hunters are always boasting that they are continuing to kill deer - legally or not - when out with the hounds. Why then the need to shoot more of them?

Incidentally, I think it's not very productive to refer to opponents in a debate as "scum", as the fragrantly named Nigel has done in this thread. It shows a lack of respect to people - pros and antis - using this site.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I think the argument goes that if deer cease to be quarry then they will become pests. This being to their detriment as people will tolerate something if they get some benefit from it.

No one really knows what the effect of the ban will be on the exmoor herd of red deer.

I also think the police left it for a year before starting to enforce the ban.

I'm quite sure the powers at be are now moving to close down all the staghound packs.

 

[Burnsall]

But deer haven't ceased to be quarry. People like Tom are still hunting them with hounds and killing them. So why the need to shoot even more?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

The stag hound packs are currently still operating by flushing out deer with two dogs and then shooting them. However the police have now started prosecuting them for doing that.

The law makes it legal to flush out deer with up to two dogs providing the deer is then shot.

Last time I looked stag hunting was meant to have been banned. They've given the Hunts a year's grace and are now moving to shut them down.

I have no idea whether they will manage to do this, it probably depends on the result of the current prosecutions. If they succeed then I'd imagine deer will no longer be legal quarry for the hunts. No one knows what the law is. No one knows what 'reasonable steps' are that people are meant to take to ensure flushed out animals are shot. No one knows how long 'as soon as possible' means. No one knows at what point it is legal to give up trying to shoot a flushed out animal. It's completely impossible to answer any of these questions and neither the stag hunts nor the police nor LACS nor the MPs who passed the law nor the general public have a clue what the law is.

When I bought this matter up with an MP he didn't even reaise the law said that animals have to be shot in these circumstances.

I don't know what the long term effect will be on the deer population, but the point that Tom is trying to make is that if he is prevented from hunting them for sport than that might have a negative effect on the herd of red deer.

It's the same point that Richard Course the Ex LACS guy made.

He said that deer control should be regulated to maintain a healthy population. Just banning hunting without any regulation of deer control measures might well have a negative effect on red deer.

 

[Burnsall]

People can still hunt deer with hounds and kill them, all within the law. I know this because hunters like Tom have said so on this site. You yourself say this in your reply.

"However the police have now started prosecuting them for doing that."

Well, they've arrested two people. As long as they were operating within the law they have little to worry about. If they hunted outside it they may be convicted. The point remains though that hunters can and do still hunt deer with hounds legally then kill them legally.

Why the need to shoot even more?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

LACS say they can't because the only way a flushed out deer can be shot is to chase it until it is made to stand at bay. They and the RSPCA say that flushing out is distinct from chasing. The judge in the Tony Wright case also said this.

No one knows whether deer can still be legally chased with dogs and then shot once they are standing at bay.

The impending prosecutions will determine this.

 

[Burnsall]

"No one knows whether deer can still be legally chased with dogs and then shot once they are standing at bay."

Where does the Hunting Act state that deer must be made to stand at bay?

The Act ACTUALLY requires that:

"Reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person."

This clearly prohibits the practice of chasing a deer until it's so exhausted it stops and is held at bay, a process which can take literally hours.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

My understanding is that it's illegal to shoot a deer in flight. Not under the hunting act but under other legislation. It is certainly impractical to do so and has severe welfare consequences as it is highly likely that the deer will just be wounded. Deer should only be shot at if the shooter is confident of getting a good clean kill. I would NEVER shoot at a running deer unless I had already wounded it and it was a second shot.

The hunting act says that the deer must be shot dead 'as soon as possible', the first point at which the deer can be shot dead is once it is standing still.

The other way to do it would be to flush out the deer, mark it in some way and then come back and shoot it. That seems very silly to me. What's the point, from an anti cruelty point of view of shootijg the animal just because it has been flushed out. I'm going to have a go at this this winter, not marking it but coming back and shooting it. It'll only wotrk with a stag I can recognise.

I'm getting it organised with a freind who's kitted out for these things. I want to experience at first hand the difference between not shooting a deer I've flused out and breaking the law and obeying the law by shooting a deer I've flushed out as soon as possible.

I think the law should be changed so that if you flush out a deer you can choose just to let it go. If I could legally do this I'd be happy to stop my dogs chasing the der once its been flushed out. As it is, seeing as I don't want to kill the deer and have no gun, I can't see the point of obeying the law at all.

My view is that although people should have the RIGHT to shoot a deer they have flushed out it is wrong that they should HAVE to. I think there are all sorts of implications to the Hunting Act which haven't been properly thought through. Basically it is bad law and should be broken.

 

[wurzel]

"Leave one mature stag and take out the old or sick hinds and most of this years bucks."

OK. I will do that.

I will pass it on to the others.

Thanks

 

[wurzel]

"Hunters are always boasting that they are continuing to kill deer - legally or not - when out with the hounds. Why then the need to shoot more of them?"

But now they are starting to enforce the ban.

That means we all have to control the deer.

 

[wurzel]

""Reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person."

This clearly prohibits the practice of chasing a deer until it's so exhausted it stops and is held at bay, a process which can take literally hours."


It would be more sensible to shoot any Red Deer when found.

I had two sitting ducks tonight....two stags boving away !!!

I am bored with all this hunting animosity I will ban what remains of the hunt and on Wednesday I am going to start shooting the Deer.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

If it's cruel to flush the deer out it should be banned, if it isn't it should be legal.

Saying it's ok to flush out but only if you then kill them makes no sense at all.

It's like saying it's ok to burgle but only if you then kill the burglee to alleviate the distress you've caused. Where the sense in that.

Why not shoot all the deer bEFORE you flush them out.

That's animal welfare worthy of the twenty first century.

The hunting act was drafted by complete dorks. It is dork-law. It is quite right for it to be broken.

I break it with pride.

 

[Burnsall]

If it means shooting a deer without the need for chasing it for hours beforehand, then I agree with it because it's less cruel.

 

[Shoveller]

My understanding is that it's illegal to shoot a deer in flight. Not under the hunting act but under other legislation.

I have suspected that this is the case for a long time, but no one seems to know anything about it, and no one can point me to the legislation that confirms this. Does anyone know any more?

Of course, you can chase a deer with 2 hounds for an unspecified length of time for purposes of scientific research. Whatever that may mean.... "I am researching how long it takes to tire it out officer..."

 

[Burnsall]

The bottom line is this: if you need to kill an animal, do it in the most humane way. This obviousy excludes the traditional hunting of deer with hounds which is barbaric.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

But the hunting act doesn't just ban killing animals. There need be no need for any intent to kill for the law to be broken.

 

[ROSSTHEJOCK]

"Scum you read this website, I know you do, so answer Toms question?"

YAAAAAAAAAWN.....Yes.....ok.....whatever, Nigel.

 

[Fairynuff]

Sorry if it was a stupid answer-I did try at least! Mairi.

 

[wurzel]

"Sorry if it was a stupid answer-I did try at least! Mairi. "


No it was a good answer.

Most of us on the eastern side of Exmoor are going to start shooting the deer on our land.

The police and LACS are happy but the national park authority are not !!!

Why can't everybody be happy for once ?!!?

 

[Burnsall]

What Tom is failing to mention is that even pre-ban the great majority of deer were shot without being chased on Exmoor - around 85% in fact. If al deer are shot in this way that's fine by me - but why the need to increase the size of the cull? Sounds like spite to me.

 

[Hercules]

''Sounds like spite to me''

Just like the Hunting Act then. Deuce.

 

[wurzel]

What Burnsall is failing to mention is that he has not got a clue how I manged deer numbers before the "ban" !!!!

We used a method of deer being chased by hounds until they stood at bay. Then they were shot.

Both the chasing and shooting were done by the hunt.


If the hunt is not going to be operating this is what is going to happen....

Farmers at :
Silcombe
Hawkington
Warren
Cloud
Hawkwell
Ash
Burrow
Picked Stones
Landacre
Newlands
Leigh
Blackworthy
Foxtwitchen
Uppington
Lyncombe
Torre
Halse
Upcott
North Quarme
Witheridge
Fairgarden
Steart
Buckethole

and all the rest......

Will be shooting deer on their land.

Work out what will happen !!

Nothing to do with spite boy !!

I like to see some deer, it is you that will be responsible for their demise.

The national park know this but you don't !!

Ask them why they are not pro ban.

 

[Burnsall]

At last! Finally a hunter has the honesty to give the real reason for this cull: pure spite. Full marks to you Hercules!

 

[Hercules]

Spite isn't against the law. In fact, as warned before the ban, the Hunting Act encourages spite.

I only used to hunt. In addtion, I now trap and shoot foxes. As do the majority of landowners, farmers and gamekeepers in my locality. After all, isn't that what you LACS freaks and this ignorant government want us to do?

If not, you should have listened to our arguments. It is night night to Charlie, and as Tom has stated, the existence of deer on Exmoor is likely to be very shortlived. Well done Burnsall and your mates.

 

[Burnsall]

The question you, Tom, Giles & co have to answer is this: pre-ban only 15% of deer culled on Exmoor were killed by hunts. Just because you can't hunt this small number of deer post-ban (let's leave aside for a moment the apparent "loopholes) why is it necessary to kill the ENTIRE population of deer? Deer expert Hercules says in the post above that due to the actions of people like Tom "the existence of deer on Exmoor is likely to be very shortlived". I can't understand the logic of this.