Repeal of the Hunting Act

O

oakash

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2007
Messages
216
Visit site
Judging by this board, there are one or two lost souls who still think it is worth preserving the failed Hunting Act. Most people, it seems to me, now recognize that the Act was nothing to do with animal welfare but merely prejudice put into legislation.

So this gives the antis a real problem. Do they support hunting and the repeal of the Act, because they can no longer deny that hunting is as humane as fox control can get, or do they allow the increasing numbers of wounded animals roving the countryside to continue to die lingering deaths because they - the antis, hate hunters more than they love foxes?
 
Why do you think it's less cruel to hunt a deer with hounds for an average of three hours rather than simply shoot it without a chase?
 
Why do you think it's less cruel to hunt a deer with hounds for an average of three hours rather than simply shoot it without a chase?
Click to expand...

Shooting them while they are fleeing from hounds seems to be the worst of all worlds.
 
Zigzag,sorry, I thought you might have known something about hunting by now.

We know that up to 20 percent of shot animals are wounded with 'normal' stalking shooting. We know that a hunted animal either escapes completely or is killed quickly; in the case of deer, this is by a shotgun at very close range, when the deer has been bayed.

We know that hunted deer often stop and graze when they think they have enough distance from hounds.

Ergo, hunting is generally more humane, because it is more natural and more in tune with nature,
 
zigzagzig, you said "simply shoot it"

Its pretty apparent that you have no idea about shooting animals.

Have you ever "simply shot" a deer?
 
We know that hunted deer often stop and graze when they think they have enough distance from hounds.
Click to expand...

Good point. If you read ZigZags posts they are littered with false allegations and mis assumptions about things. He does it constantly.
 
<<Why do you think it's less cruel to hunt a deer with hounds for an average of three hours rather than simply shoot it without a chase? >>

.
It is this sort of question that demonstrates the almost childish naivety that is so typical in the anti-hunting movement.

The idea that the entire question of the future management policies of the Red Deer Herds on Exmoor and the Quantocks can be solved with an answer that starts “Oh, that? That’s simple! You simply go out and…” would be laughable if it wasn’t so frighteningly dangerous to both the deer and the surrounding countryside.

The thing about the voluntary management structure that has been practiced in the past by the three Stag Hound packs is that it works. Whether or not you love or loathe the methods that they use, the results are indisputable. Exmoor and the Quantocks boast the finest lowland wild Red Deer Herds in Europe. If the Stag Hounds were allowed to carry on their activities as before, there is no question that the future of the Herds on Exmoor and the Quantocks would be assured. The only question, therefore, is about the morality or ethics of their methods.

There is also no question that a complete lack of management would be a disaster. During the years that the Stag Hound Packs were suspended because of World War II, the herds rapidly went into a nose-dive from which it took them decades to recover. By whatever means, experience has shown, with nearly catastrophic results, that there HAS TO BE organised management. Doing nothing is not an option.

So, for those that find hunting with hounds distasteful, are there other options to consider? Of course there are. Many herds of red deer are managed perfectly successfully without the use of hounds in Scotland by Deer Stalkers using rifles.

So why not “simply” use the Scottish model on Exmoor? Problem solved?

Unfortunately not. Why not? Because Exmoor is not the same as Scotland. The majority of Red Deer Herds in Scotland live their entire lives on land (estates) belonging to one person or one small group of people who are working closely together. They employ one or more professional stalkers who work year round with the Herd and carry out the necessary culling and management programme.

Exmoor and the Quantocks, on the other hand, are comprised of many hundreds of small land owners and the Herds can cross many ownerships within a single day.

Why is this a problem? Because of the way that the game laws treat ownership of wild deer. Simply put, when a wild deer is standing on your property, it is “your” deer. You can look at it, admire it, fence it in, kill it, eat it, encourage it to breed, whatever you want. However, as soon as that deer steps across the boundary onto someone else’s land, it becomes their property and you have no rights to it whatsoever. They are completely entitled to fence it in or kill it or whatever and there is nothing that you can do about it – until it steps back onto your land or someone else’s, whereupon your neighbour has no rights to it and so on.

So, unlike Scottish Deer Herds that belong all the time to one person or small group of people, deer on Exmoor can “belong” to dozens of people in a day and literally hundreds of people during the course of a year.

So who culls the deer? Who manages them? Who monitors them? Who pays for it all? Currently, it’s the Stag Hound Packs. They do it though the local goodwill with the landowners that they have built up through generations of good management of the Herds.

So how, when you “simply” stop the hunting are you “simply” going to arrange for someone to “simply shoot them”?

It’s by no means impossible – but it ain’t simple.

First you’ve got to change the law with regard to deer ownership. Do you do this nationally – which is going to cause all sorts of unnecessary problems in other parts of the country – or do you just “nationalise” the Exmoor and Quantock herds? If so, where do they stop? Where do you draw the boundaries? How do you deal with the inevitable problems of where deer cross the boundaries. No doubt you have a “simple” answer.

Then you will need to set up your “Exmoor Deer Warden” service to take on the herd management. You will need to change the law to allow these Wardens to access private land, without the land owners consent if necessary, whilst carrying firearms.

You will need to establish how these people are going to be selected; how they are going to be trained; how they are going to be assessed and how their work is going to be monitored, who is going to do that monitoring, etc?

You are going to need to establish how you are going to pay for all of this and where the money is going to come from – and then write the necessary legislation to secure that funding.

You are going also to have to consider public safety. Stalking is safe(r) in the Scottish Highlands because the hills mean that bullets are not able to carry for the miles that their kinetic energy will allow in a lowland landscape like Exmoor. Exmoor is covered in public rights of way and open-access areas. You will therefore need change the law further to give your Deer Warden Service statutory rights to close parts of the area to public access for deer management reasons.

.
So it’s not impossible. I have covered most of the main points there. But if it is, as you claim, so “simple”, why haven’t you done it?

Why are these perfectly obvious measures not already enshrined in the Hunting Act 2004?

Why, if the Hunting Act 2004 is about animal welfare is there nothing in it – not one word – about the future management of the Deer Herds on Exmoor and the Quantocks; about the eradication of mink from our wetland habitats or about the future management of hare and fox populations in the British countryside?

This is why the top officers of the League Against Cruel Sports keep jumping ship – because their position forces them to realise that none of these matters are in the least bit “simple” after all, that there aren’t any “simple” alternatives and – oh dear – maybe the status quo wasn’t so bad after all.

Stop messing about with things that you "simply" do not understand.
 
Why do you think it's less cruel to hunt a deer with hounds for an average of three hours rather than simply shoot it without a chase?
Click to expand...

Why do you think it's less cruel for a Bird of Prey to rip out a foxes throat rather than a couple of seconds being ripped by hounds? And the former is well withing the law. Ridiculous.
 
Unless he's a savage, a person who's devoted a substantial part of his life to killing animals for fun will eventually ask himself: "Is this right?"

Whilst I'm gratified to see that my posts have been the catalyst for your recent examinations of the motives for hunting, I'm afraid there's some way to go before you accept the uncomfortable truth: namely that what you do and what you approve of being done amount essentially to animal abuse.
 
Like a puny, irritating pilot fish, you have to rely on the larger creatures around your for sustenance and direction. It seems that even you have bored yourself to tears with your obsessive (and dishonest) drivel about flushing deer from your copse. If you can't think of anything worthwhile to contribute here, perhaps your should retreat to the soapbox forum and talk about your favourite colour.
 
There is no need whatsoever to 'manage' the deer population. Populations naturally regulate themselves due to the availability of food and territory.

The idea that the deer on Exmoor are healthier through being culled is a nonsense as is the idea it has any benefit whatsoever to the countryside.
 
Quote Zigzagzig <<Unless he's a savage ... to animal abuse.>>

.
This addresses none of the points that I have raised in any way whatsoever.

It's pretty much the equivalent of the child in playground, who is being told something he doesn't want to hear, putting his fingers in his ears and shouting "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING!!!"

The thing that is so depressing about this is that you seem to think that you are qualified to make observations about how the countryside should be managed, but you appear to be unable to countenance your assumptions being questioned in any way. You seem to be unable to accept even the possibility that you might be wrong.

Can't you understand that if you are wrong, then your proposed management methods will cause just as much harm as you think our methods would if we were wrong.

If you cannot carry out a reasoned argument on this topic, then, if you really care about animal welfare, that ought to be raising real warning signals within your conscience.
 
Quote Bunce: <<There is no need whatsoever to 'manage' the deer population. Populations naturally regulate themselves due to the availability of food and territory.>>

.
.
Pseudo-scientific drivel! I find it hard to believe that you believe this yourself, let alone expect other people to swallow it.

The fact that populations of wild animals can be controlled by lack of food and territory in a *WILDERNESS* environment does NOT mean that these factors will control them at a level that is viable in a man-made agricultural or forestry environment. In fact, it almost invariably means the opposite.

The “availability of food” comprises:

A) Stuff that farmers don’t mind the animals eating or want them to eat

PLUS

B) Stuff that the farmers do mind the animals eating.
.

“Natural control” of the sort that you are referring to will cut in at “A+B”. In other words, the animals would have to eat all of "B" as well as "A" before they start auto-controlling their own population level by starvation, illness, foetal suppression and other control factors.

Obviously, farmers need to preserve “B”, so they have to artificially control the animals at a population level for which “A” alone will be sufficient.

This is elementary stuff.
.
.
.
Quote Bunce: << The idea that the deer on Exmoor are healthier through being culled is nonsense as is the idea it has any benefit whatsoever to the countryside.>>
.
.
As I said, it is a matter of Historical Record that the welfare of the deer herds on Exmoor and the Quantocks crashed during the War. It's not my "opinion" - it happened. Learn from it.

The benefit and necessity of culling in any managed population is entry-level conservation theory.

You are either saying stuff that you know to be untrue in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting that you are wrong, or you really do not understand even the most basic principles of conservation and eco-system management – and I’m really not sure which is worse…
 
Having tried unsuccessfully several times, I've finally managed to trawl through your incredibly long post. The first thought that occurred to me was: "He doth protest too much."

I don't want to add an equally lengthy (and dull) reply so I'll ignore the normal hunter's tricks you employ (answering questions I never posed, stating "my" opinions which I never held) and make several points:

1. You appear to be saying that the notion that deer can be culled on Exmoor etc by stalking and then shooting them, without subjecting them to a chase, is not practicable. Why then were the vast majority (85%) of deer killed in this way before the ban? "It ain't simple," you say (and I'm afraid the "quaint" country argot makes me gag). Well, it seemed to have been simple pre-ban. It happened all the time.

2. Even Lord Burns, the fence-sitter par excellence, suggested that stalking deer and shooting them (with dogs on hand to track injured animals) was better from an animal welfare perspective than hunting the deer with hounds.

3. As I've said many times now - whether you hunt or not is a personal choice. I disagree with the ban. In the context of hunting with hounds, if you decide you want to kill an animal for fun, that is a matter for you and your conscience. But I personally cannot understand how people like you can get any gratification from doing what you do (or did, pre-ban) to deer: chasing it for three hours then seeing it cower at the end of its life in front of baying hounds. It's all so pathetic and demeaning, not just for the poor beast, but for you as a human being.
 
<<I don't want to add an equally lengthy (and dull) reply so I'll ignore the normal hunter's tricks you employ (answering questions I never posed, stating "my" opinions which I never held) and make several points>>

And conveniently use that to avoid answering any of the points that I raised or questions that I answered.
.
.
You fail to draw a distinction between managed culling and people just going out and shooting them in an uncontrolled way.

I stated several times in my post - and I apologize if you find something that covers a whole page of A4 to be a bit too lengthy for you to be able to tackle all at one go - that shooting Deer on Exmoor is perfectly possible.

What I pointed out were the steps that needs to be taken to ensure that the herd is managed well. Surely you should want the Herd to be managed well, as much as you should want us to stop managing it "badly". I find it odd how you don't seem to care what happens next - even if it's worse than what we do...?

It's a funny sort of situation where, in order not to agree with a hunter, you are forced into a situation of having to pretend that uncontrolled, unmanaged shooting of the deer is somehow a good thing.

Providing a good system of control that is of benefit to the herd as a whole is not demeaning to me - and being shot whilst standing at bay is no more demeaning to deer than being shot whilst eating grass or having a dump.
 
As one who shoots on foot,as oposed to riding I am rather at odds with you on this thread as you seem to forget that the deer 85% that are mentioned above on Exmoor were "culled" ie:chosen by the stalkers to maintain the quality of the herd Some might say that riding to hounds for deer is a sport that should be banned,but lets not forget that all are entitled to their opinions as for me? DO what you DO and dont knock the other side.After all they may not like "shooting"
 
I think you are slightkly bmissing his point. What he's saying is that shooting isn't always appropriate and that it isn't organised on a large enough scale - ie by one body covering the whole of exmoor.

The risk is that in time deer will more and ore become seen as a pest and landowners will get rid of them.

This was none of the reasons why Richard Course left LACS.

http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/evidence/richardcoursesubmission.htm
 
forgive cut and paste :

DEER CONSERVATION IN DEER HUNTING AREAS

Obviously there could be no deer hunting if there were no quarry. Conversely, but not so obviously, without deer hunting the quarry would disappear. Just as anglers go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the fisheries are stocked with fish, and game shooting interests ensure there are pheasants to shoot, the deer hunters ensure they also have a quarry to pursue.

The main support for deer hunting comes from landowners and farmers in Devon and Somerset.

They cannot, and will not, tolerate the crop losses caused by uncontrolled herds of wild red deer. The deer numbers, for the most part, are controlled by regulated deer shooting by the consent of the land owner. These landowners and farmers ensure that a sufficient number of deer are left for their winter games of deer hunting. They claim that without that interest ALL of the deer would be shot. Farmers and others are likely to use shotguns and low calibre weapons to kill deer unlawfully, resulting in wounding and cruelty from indiscriminate culling (often at night). Few such individuals would bother to be licensed to hold a rifle of sufficient calibre (as required by statute) or do the killing in a restricted but lawful fashion. Red deer should be shot with a .270 calibre rifle.

There is an abundant amount of evidence to support that claim.

For example, in the past when there was a cessation of deer hunting, the red deer were wiped out in Devon and Somerset. That was probably a combination of landowners and farmers protecting their crops with an added financial incentive for venison, and a hungry populace poaching for venison.

THERE WERE VERY GOOD INCENTIVES TO KILL THE DEER AND NO INCENTIVES AT ALL TO PROTECT THE DEER.

However the main evidence to support the "no hunting - no deer" claim is to be found hundreds of miles away from Devon and Somerset. In the times of King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I, the Enfield Chase area of Middlesex had a very healthy herd or herds of wild red deer, many accounts of royal hunting on the Enfield Chase exist. With the cessation of hunting and the advent of farming the red deer have totally disappeared from the Enfield Chase. It is still open countryside with a lot of woodland, is it still called "Enfield Chase" but the quarry that gave the area its name has long gone. The deer were all shot.

Similarly when Henry VIII first met Anne Boleyn at Hever Castle in Kent The royals were there, in force, to hunt the red deer that existed around the Castle at that time. These herds went the same way as the Enfield Chase herds - all shot. In fact, this happened across the entire country which was populated by red deer from end to end.

Of course farming interests were the cause of these extinctions, but the same farming interest are present in Devon and Somerset. The wild herds of red deer only survive in Devon and Somerset because the landowners and farmers are prepared to tolerate them. That is an irrefutable fact.

The question is WHY?

It is, almost certainly, the hunting interests of those landowners and farmers which allows the survival of the red deer herds in and around the Exmoor National Park.

This leaves a clear dilemma between animal welfare considerations and deer survival considerations. Personally I believe that the extinction of the red deer in Devon and Somerset is a price worth paying in the cause of Animal Welfare; other people would strongly disagree with such a controversial statement.

However that conflict is very real and the Committee of Inquiry will have to wrestle with it.

It may well be that the Government will see fit to offer a financial inducement to the landowners and farmers to maintain a herd or herds of wild red deer and to suffer the enormous crop losses such deer inevitably cause.
 
There is no need whatsoever to 'manage' the deer population. Populations naturally regulate themselves due to the availability of food and territory.

The idea that the deer on Exmoor are healthier through being culled is a nonsense as is the idea it has any benefit whatsoever to the countryside.
Click to expand...

Fair enough!!

Lets explore this.

The deer are in my fields eating my grass.

What do I do?
 
There is no need whatsoever to 'manage' the deer population. Populations naturally regulate themselves due to the availability of food and territory.

The idea that the deer on Exmoor are healthier through being culled is a nonsense as is the idea it has any benefit whatsoever to the countryside.
Click to expand...

Fair enough!!

Lets explore this.

The deer are in my fields eating my grass.

What do I do?
Click to expand...

Let them! They have a right to the grass.
 
There is no need whatsoever to 'manage' the deer population. Populations naturally regulate themselves due to the availability of food and territory.

The idea that the deer on Exmoor are healthier through being culled is a nonsense as is the idea it has any benefit whatsoever to the countryside.
Click to expand...

Fair enough!!

Lets explore this.

The deer are in my fields eating my grass.

What do I do?
Click to expand...

Let them! They have a right to the grass.
Click to expand...

How does their "right" to the grass manifest itself ?

Seeing as I own the field, plant the grass from seed I purchase and then either harvest it or use it to feed animals I own, it seems the deers "right" is a little shaky.

Can you show me where this "right" is documented ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top