End of the Emperor

Alec Swan said:
Within the general shooting community, probably not, because many would take no real interest in deer. By those who have an abiding interest, then yes, most certainly. "Frowned upon" is something of an understatement!

The Red Deer of the West Country have reached their status because of hunting. Those who would now shoot them, and those who think that there should be no management, will be equally responsible for the decline.

Red deer, regardless of their location, tend to be nomadic, and a fragmented "management" policy, over very small parcels of land, will have dire repercussions.

Regulations? Really? Deer can be shot at any time of year, under the claim that they are damaging crops. Does anyone think that regulation will work? I don't.

Alec.

Ets, all male deer are stalked and shot during their respective ruts. It's the correct way of doing things. It makes selection far more accurate. a.
Click to expand...

Thank you Alec, I wonder if the person responsible will be openly displaying his trophy or if it will be hidden away.

I am not opposed to shooting at all but it does seem a great shame that the largest wild mammal in the country has had it's life ended in this way.
 
wipeout said:
Thank you Alec, I wonder if the person responsible will be openly displaying his trophy or if it will be hidden away.

I am not opposed to shooting at all but it does seem a great shame that the largest wild mammal in the country has had it's life ended in this way.
Click to expand...

wipeout, you're welcome.

Para 1. Yes, probably. If the person responsible has no understanding of what they've done, then they will be equally blind to their folly.

Para 2. With respect, I think that you may have missed the point. One day that stag was going to die, and whether it be before hounds, or from a bullet, is immaterial. No huntsman would allow hounds to hunt such a beast, in his apparent youth. Similarly, no person with a rifle should feel justified in pulling the trigger, on such a beast.

It brings into question the whole case of "Trophy" hunting, and this may well be the future for the deer of the West Country. The stags of the quality in the original photo' would be left in peace, by those who hunt, just as they should be by those who stalk.

As an example, I know of a Park Stag, which was in his prime, when the owner was offered a staggering £25k to shoot him! He was beautifully symmetrical and was a monster, by any standards! The stag was subsequently "sold" for a mere £4k, but not until his sons, had taken over his role, two of which were virtually replicas, and he had "gone back", to the extent that his head was but a shadow of its former glory.

I fear for the deer of the West Country.

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
I fear for the deer of the West Country.

Alec.
Click to expand...

Me too. And groups like LACS care about them so much that in their latest report they produced a report showing deer numbers had not declined since the ban. The problem is that the report covered the years 1977 = 2002.
 
Xlthlx said:
Me too. And groups like LACS care about them so much that in their latest report they produced a report showing deer numbers had not declined since the ban. The problem is that the report covered the years 1977 = 2002.
Click to expand...

The degree of stupidity behind the reports of the LACS, would make marginally more sense if they came from an imbecile.

Alec.
 
amymay said:
No - I stated that I was opposed to hunting deer with hounds. You assumed I was opposed to all hunting with hounds. I am not. And certainly have enjoyed many hours in the field fox hunting.
Click to expand...

It is this complete hypocrisy from those who have enjoyed one form of quarry hunting and then turn round and bleat that hunting another quarry with hounds is abhorrent.

I am in the fortunate position of having observed hunting with staghounds, foxhounds (aswell as beagles, harriers and minkhounds) and for me even as a recent follower with the Devon & Somerset Staghounds, staghunting will always be the most defensible form of hunting. Don't get me wrong I am pro all forms of hunting with hounds.

As other posters who have the luck to reside in the West Country have said there is a vast difference between land ownership in Somerset and that of the large estates in Scotland, there is also a lack of deer fencing in general, which means a wounded deer can easily stray for miles if stalked on Exmoor and take cover in the massive blocks of forestry. Deer are as much agricultural pests to farms in the West as the fox and hare can be to agricultural interests in lowland Britain. Furthermore a hunted deer is held at bay by the hounds, before a mounted marksmen is brought forward to quickly and humanely dispatch the deer with a head shot rather than being dispatched by the hounds themselves. The venison is then distributed to farmers who have suffered damage by the deer.

Staghunting offers a controlled management plan for the deer herd, which is truly magnificent when seen up close as I have been fortunate enough to do. The harbourers will pick out an old stag, that is past his prime or been injured as the target for that hunting day. Something more selective than other forms of hunting with hounds.

I was deeply saddened to read of the loss of the Emperor of Exmoor. While I am pro country sports of all types. This holes the case of shooting as management below the water line.
 
Because shooting an animal at point blank range is kinder than killing it with hounds, being hunted by canids is just as much if not more within deer's natural experience as it would be for a fox, unlike foxes deer cannot be managed solely within the context of small holdings but over a larger area with the co operation of many land owners and the effect on the exmoor deer population in the event of a complete ban is likely to be greater?

Why is harrying a fox for miles and then disemboweling it with a pack of dogs kinder than pursuing a stag in a series of flushes until it turns to face the hounds and then shooting it at point blank range?

Stalking may well in some cases be the preferred method just as lamping may be for a fox however hunting deer has its place just as fox hunting does.

A large proportion of the deer hunted and killed by the staghounds are casualty call outs however groups such as LACS are doing their level best to put them out of business. To say it isn't hunting if the deer is sick or wounded is a nonsense. Of course it's hunting, using dogs to track locate and flush deer into a position where they can be shot is hunting . Stag hunting aims to select deer that need taking out to preserve the well being of the herd.

I would never approve of all hunting in all circumstances. Not everything that fox hunts do is good not stag hunts.
 
combat_claire said:
If it is okay in your mind to chase foxes with hounds then how can it possibly be considered wrong to do the same thing with a stag. Bearing in mind the different nature of the kill in stag hunting.
Click to expand...

Surely one of the primary concerns over the hunting ban was that to legislate against the hunting of the fox with hounds was that it was the most affective way to manage the fox population. Presumably becasue it was and is felt that to try and control them in any other way would lead to unnessary suffering by the fox - due to injury through shooting, trapping etc. Given its size and wily nature I can to a degree concur with that argument.

However, once a deer is flushed (and you don't need a whole pack of hounds for that) a marksman can dispatch it very quickly.

Just because you can hunt something with hounds doesn't mean you should.

That is not hypocrocy - just common sense.
 
amymay said:
However, once a deer is flushed (and you don't need a whole pack of hounds for that) a marksman can dispatch it very quickly.
Click to expand...

Shooting a deer while it is running is the worst possible point at which to do it because you have the highest chance of wounding it. Better to either stalk it and shoot it while standing still or to flush it out and get it to stand at bay then kill it at point blank range.

Moreover the courts have ruled that the Hunting Act requires enough guns to be used to destroy all the deer that are flushed out. That is completely barmy from any perspective and shows no understanding of deer management whatsoever.

The current situation is leading to more unregulated stalking and the stag hounds are dealing with deer shot through the head but not killed.

Some stalkers go for a head shot so as not to spoil the meat. But actually unless done at close range head shots can lead to horrendous injuries.

Stalking is not necessarily a better option than hunting it can be but it depends on circumstances. It would be far better to have a combination of the two with both properly regulated to ensure they are done appropriately.

I wont allow stalkers on my land because I don't think it is safe. If there are deer causing problems I flush them out and chase them with my dogs to disperse them and I am happy for the staghounds to do the same. Stalking lacks this key dispersal effect. If I just shot deer to stop them damaging my woodland I would have to kill a large percentage of them. It's far better to disperse them.
 
amymay,

over the years I've shot a great many deer, and only in genuine emergencies should a moving deer be shot. Very few become competent enough to shoot at a moving target, often in excess of 100 metres, with any serious chance of stopping the animal, and those who would claim otherwise, either know far more than I do, which is possible, or they have a degree in BS, with honours!!

Despite what others may say, hunting is the least efficient way of killing a fox. It is, however the most certain. Snaring is barbaric, and with shooting the risk of wounding is always there. With hounds the fox lives, or he doesn't. When killed by hounds, the end of the fox is perhaps a few seconds, if that, and the suffering is negligible.

When a deer is actually killed by hounds, which is very rare, it's a genuine accident. Perhaps a sickly hind jumping up in front of hounds which are actually in pursuit of another animal, something like that.

Xlthlx said:
Stag hunting aims to select deer that need taking out to preserve the well being of the herd.
Click to expand...

and so it should also be the aim of those who stalk. Human nature, being what it is, and with the ever present greed of those who only consider profit, then the deer of the West Country, are now in for a very rough ride. Sad, isn't it?

Alec.
 
It certainly should be Alec but it isn't always. Stalkers actually take out more deer on Exmoor than the stag hounds did. However the staghounds took the largest number of any single body so by regulating the balance of animals they took out they could make up for imbalances resulting from un co ordinated stalking.
 
Quote:
"Very few become competent enough to shoot at a moving target ..."

A good reason for limit shooting to those that are truly competant, whatever the animal - deer, fox, rabbit, pheasant, etc.
 
The culling policies of Scotland cannot be held up as an example of how things should be done in the south west of your country.

The stalking season in Scotland allows for most cull stags to be shot before the rut gets properly underway. That means that stags which are undesirable as breeding animals are taken out of the herd before they can pass on their genes at the rut. By the beginning of October, the bulk of the cull is over and the stags are really run-up and smelly, and the venison is no good to eat anyway. Those stags which are still alive at that point should be desirable beasts which can be left to breed, as the old, infirm, and those with poor heads have been culled.

Trophy hunting is a different thing altogether from the culling done by employed stalkers. Scottish estates will sell stalking, but not every stag shot by a client is a trophy beast. In fact, quite a few clients pay good money to shoot culls, and simply couldn't afford to shoot a trophy.

In Scotland, the deer roam over vast tracts of land. Neighbouring estates have to work together for successful overall management of the national herd.

As far as I know, we don’t have areas of ill-managed deer such as those in the south run by ignorant bunny huggers.

Some estates may have only hinds on their forests for most of the year, with stags living in male only herds elsewhere. Around the end of August, those stags 'break out'. The mature stags travel as individuals and make their way into the hind forests, looking to set up stands and gather their group of hinds. The young stags move around in groups and as individuals, and are always trying their luck in stealing a few hinds away from the master stags. The more hinds on a forest, the more stags will come in.

The cull numbers are met mainly by employed stalkers, and hinds are culled through the winter once the stag cull is over.

The Scottish winters are severe to say the least. Last winter, even with proper culls, there were a great many deer lost to prolonged freezing conditions. Many estates feed their deer through the worst weather, but not all do.

A totally different scenario that in the south west of Englandshire, and one which calls for a totally different approach.
 
Last edited:
amymay said:
Surely one of the primary concerns over the hunting ban was that to legislate against the hunting of the fox with hounds was that it was the most affective way to manage the fox population. Presumably becasue it was and is felt that to try and control them in any other way would lead to unnessary suffering by the fox - due to injury through shooting, trapping etc. Given its size and wily nature I can to a degree concur with that argument.

However, once a deer is flushed (and you don't need a whole pack of hounds for that) a marksman can dispatch it very quickly.

Just because you can hunt something with hounds doesn't mean you should.

That is not hypocrocy - just common sense.
Click to expand...

You destroy your own argument in this post.

You say hunting a fox with hounds is the most effective way to manage the fox population, exactly the same arguments apply to hunting a stag, which is why I stand by my accusation that you are a hypocrite to support fox hunting and yet oppose stag hunting.
 
Amymay, with due deference I would suggest that if you don't know much about something, it may be better to reserve your judgement. The deer is surely the quarry animal par excellence. It has evolved over millions of years as prey for the larger predators, which no longer exist in this country. Hunting it with hounds, it seems to me, is a direct and totally natural link with that species history.
 
Toby773 said:
There have been some good points made on this thread but "blazingsaddles", your comment is by way the best!
Click to expand...

Yeah that's right forget conservation , animal welfare etc.

I shall defer to it's supreme debating skills forget any attempt at rational argument and just call her a f uckwit. :D :D

do I get a prize too?
 
blazingsaddles said:
God, no wonder lay people have certain perceptions about people who hunt. Some of you sound like pompous old *****.
Click to expand...

What wonderful oratory skills you possess. I am deeply in awe of your mature and well-reasoned arguments.

If correcting common misconceptions and falsehoods being spouted by people on this forum who have no understanding of the issues at hand makes people consider me pompous then so be it.
 
Another from my B/W days this was taken in 1935 I think, don't know the people or if its UK????




img104.jpg
 
Last edited:
Simsar,

most certainly Continental, and as a previous post, German or Austrian, probably the latter. If you look at the adornments on their hats, you will see a Brusch. It's made from the hair of a wild boar. The attire is also very Continental, as is the carrying of his rifle.

The stag is a big bodied beast, and certainly shootable. If you look at his "Head" (antlers), and from a side view, you will see that they more or less form the shape of a triangle. A stags antlers will "go back" as they age, and like a tree, they will start to die in the "tops". Five years earlier, his tops would have been much stronger, and the whole appearance would have been as a rectangle. Does that make sense?

Whether the Continentals were using 'scopes on rifles in the mid 30s, I'm not sure, and if they weren't then the pic would probably be latter. Very strangely, the rifle appears to have a sound moderator. It can't be that, but what it is, I can't say, unless it's a part of his stick!

Alec.
 
Simsar said:
Alec


I'll mail you the picture maybe you can have a look.

Sarah
Click to expand...

Thanks for the pic, which is a slight improvement. What appeared to be a sound moderator, is in fact a muzzle cap, in place to stop crap from entering the business end of the barrel. I've also noticed that if the apparent mark, on the flank of the beast, is the entrance hole of the bullet, then he was hit a bit too far back. Such shooting doesn't seem to bother the Continentals too much. Bullet placement isn't something which they give much thought to!!

An historic pic, none the less. Do you have more? I'd very much like to see them.

Alec.
 
combat_claire said:
The harbourers will pick out an old stag, that is past his prime or been injured as the target for that hunting day.
Click to expand...

Depends on whether you go Spring or Autumn staghunting ;)

The rut has been going on for a few weeks now already, so the stag in question was not shot before the rut. Tomorrow is the DSSH's last Autum Staghound meet and traditionally they would have a two week break before they start hind hunting (pre ban).

Whether its due to Global Warming - or whatever name you like to give it, the rut has been happening a lot earlier than that over the last few years.

Re the arguments for and against stalking and hunting, what most of you fail to realise is that not only is the land in this area mostly in small pockets of ownership (as already pointed out) but that commercial shoots have sprung up in just about every conceivable corner - diversity at its best!!

This has led to most of the outlying areas of Exmoor being very heavily keepered and hence the land for deer to roam has been dramatically reduced even further.

For example, where I live, we used to have a huge herd of deer opposite us, it was wonderful during the rutting season to hear the stags bolving, watch the younger stags try their chances etc but unfortunately due the commercial shoot here now - they are not to be seen anymore, at all.

So, where have all these deer gone? Its safe to say that since the ban on hunting, poaching is now a huge problem and deer are shot without any thought to conservation of the herds.

I am pro hunting, pro shooting etc etc but I too fear for the deer here on Exmoor as other posters say they are even though it seems they know nothing about this area!
 
R_W,

if your last sentence was for my benefit, you're entirely right!! I know nothing of your country, but thank you for your thoughts. I have no knowledge of stag hunting, apart from what I read!

The benefit of hunting with hounds, is that the "whole" of the hunters country, comes under their care and control. It is highly unlikely, even though the claim would be otherwise, that those who would shoot deer, in the West Country, will adhere to "principles".

Before man started to stalk deer in Scotland, the deer lived on lower ground than they do now. They migrated to the Hill, and now generally only come down during hard weather, or in places, in the evening to raid the lower ground!

Scottish heads are generally considered to be of a poorer quality, because of the harsh high ground weather conditions, and diet, and it may well be that the deer in your neck of the woods, will spend ever more time on the moor, through the pressures of shooting, and with a predictable decline in head quality. I don't know, if I'm honest, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I've spent many nights, lying in a hotel bed, with the window open, and dropped of to sleep listening to the roaring stags on the hill. Heaven!!

Alec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top