League Against Cruel Sports and Culling Deer

Tom_Ov

Well-Known Member
Taken from http://www.league.org.uk/blogs_entry.aspx?id=257

You can post a comment on there if you so wish...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does the League cull deer?
Written by Steve on 17 November, 2010 : 10:08


There's some misunderstanding floating around, especially on Facebook, as to the League's position on culling deer and whether or not we do it on our own sanctuaries in the south west.

Let us be clear: We do not cull deer on our sanctuaries.

We don't support the notion of 'population management', such as that espoused by those who thought the shooting of the Exmoor Emperor was a good thing. We believe that populations manage themselves. We don't feed deer on our land, partly to avoid transmission of tuberculosis, but partly also because we like to leave nature to take its course. The only 'population management' on our land is by Mother Nature.

In circumstances where a sick or injured animal is found on our land, and it cannot be rehabilitated, we will take action to euthanase the animal as quickly and humanely as possible. This can include dispatching a deer with an appropriate shotgun, for which our sanctuaries staff are fully trained and licensed.

Animal welfare is at the heart of what we do, and we will continue to do all we can to prevent animal suffering, whether it's a bull in a bullfight, a hunted fox, a coursed hare, a shot pheasant, or a deer on our land. Does the League cull deer?
 
Apologies for replying to my own thread, but I then noticed their next blog entry.

Interesting move, as despite their increasingly vociferous opposition to driven game shooting, I don't ever recall seeing the league attack stalking before.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another way
Written by Matt on 17 November, 2010 : 13:50


Sometimes it is interesting to revisit a story in the aftermath of publication to gauge the level of traction upon the public conscience. No better recent example that I can think of involves the shock and dismay felt by so many people at the news that the stag, known as Emperor, had been shot by a trophy hunter in the South West of England.

Predictably the bloodsports lobby went into overdrive to justify what it does best: kill. In a recent interview in the Independent newspaper Countryside Alliance Chief Executive, Alice Barnard - the latest voice of unreason to hold office in Kennington - bemoaned the public’s lack of understanding of ‘country ways':

"There has been an overblown reaction to the shooting of a single animal when thousands are culled every year as part of deer herd management. It might be the first time people have heard that deer are shot... Once it is taken in context they do understand. I think it is about making those connections, which are sometimes lost. People look at him and think one thing in the day and then are quite happy to sit down and eat venison at night."

Sorry Alice but I really don’t think that people do understand or take to being patronised in this way! A recent League blog demonstrates quite clearly that there is another way and news reaches us that a petition is gathering momentum calling for greater protection for deer. Why not take a look if you have a spare minute?
 
How is it that this is allowed to continue, it comes to something if things are so bad that a self confessed 'anti' comes out and calls for a cull plan. The worst thing is we get all the s**t for being cruel?????
 
In circumstances where a sick or injured animal is found on our land, and it cannot be rehabilitated, we will take action to euthanase the animal as quickly and humanely as possible. This can include dispatching a deer with an appropriate shotgun, for which our sanctuaries staff are fully trained and licensed.

Removing beasts from a herd based on specific criteria, be it for population management or due to disease/injury, is the definition of culling. Furthermore, if there is such concern for quickly and humanely euthanizing animals, it seems that they might be better off using an appropriate deer calibre rifle as opposed to the "appropriate shotgun" they mention.

In my (very) humble opinion, it seems to me that the League has a strong set of theoretical ideals, but a poor knowledge base in which to practically and feasibly apply them. Just my 2p.
 
I think it might be best if we leave the thoughts, comments and propaganda of the green nutters on their own green nutter web sites rather than spreading it around a stalking site as well. Their system of beliefs is based on a pseudo-religious unscientific fantasy land of doom, destruction and disaster while we get out and enjoy the countryside and all it has to offer - we have nothing in common with these people and nor would we want to have. I appreciate that it is useful for us to keep up to date with what their latest fantasy beliefs are when they are directly attacking us but my personal position would be that we should leave that on their sites for them to wring their hands over while sitting in their mud huts knitting with yogurt. To be honest it comes as a shock to me that they are allowed to use electricity to power computers as I thought that caused babies to die on Christmas day, or the biggest living wild animal in the UK to fall over dead or whatever their latest punishment for breaking the green code is.

No publicity is bad publicity remember.
 
Interesting...

Thoughts in no particular order:

My intention in posting was to raise awareness that the LACS position had changed somewhat and that they appear to be moving towards making stalking more of a target (see the latest blog from their Chief Exec as well). I think it's good for everyone in the fieldsports community to have an awareness of these things so that they can react in whatever ways thet see as being appropriate. I also thought that a few comments on their blog might redress the balance a bit - sadly they don't seem to be accepting pro fieldsports comments anymore (they did in the past). At least, they haven't posted the link to the youtube clip of the starving deer on their Baronsdown sanctuary which I submitted as a comment...

As someone who has hunted with hounds for years and has been heavily involved in that debate, I suppose it just worries me that LACS etc will use the media furore over the Emperor to launch an attack on stalking. You can see from the responses on most websites carrying stories about the Exmoor stuff that the vast majority of the public don't 'get' stalking. Place this against the background of the Cumbria shootings and the subsequent inquiry and I think I'm right to be concerned.

I was also interested in any comments from more knowledgeable deer managers about any effects that their 'policy' might have on the welfare of individual animals and the wider deer herd.

I'm sure seeing the text reproduced here isn't to everyone's taste (and that lots of folk just aren't interested!) but 'know thine enemy' and all that....

Tom

PS - Caorach. I count myself as a Green myself mate - I do my recycling like a good little greenie and even read The Guardian. I always think my interest and involvement in the countryside compliments wider environmental awareness. But thats a different thread...
 
I was also interested in any comments from more knowledgeable deer managers about any effects that their 'policy' might have on the welfare of individual animals and the wider deer herd.

For a number of years I stalked and controlled deer numbers on an estate that was adjacent to their main Westcounty 'sanctuary' at Baronsdown. From a vantage point we could look into the few open fields on their 200 acre holding, and on a good day it was not unusual to count 300+ red deer.

The effects of attracting such abnormally high numbers of wild deer onto land that quite clearly cannot support them, both in terms of the welfare of the animals and the impact on surrounding farms, have been noted before - although there cannot be any empirical reporting without the involvement and consent of you-know-who, and they are hardly likely to be forthcoming as the probable outcome would be negative for them.

Here's a flavour of what it's been about locally:

http://www.exmoor.org.uk/beardsall.htm

The area surrounding Baronsdown is the only place where I have personally taken red deer which have been in less than the perfect condition I see elsewhere in the Exe Valley - liver fluke, lungworm, very heavy parasite burdens, etc. and generally poor condition.

BTW. Although the LACS might like to portray animal welfare as being at the heart of what they do, my take on them is that they are far more driven by their ideology of being anti-hunting and anti all the other 'cruel sports' that have since been tacked on as campaigns, rather than addressing issues such as the condition of the deer on and around Baronsdown. IMO they are very wary of allowing any independent body, (BDS for instance or one of the University based research units), from carrying out a professional deer management assessment of the local situation, because it would prove once and for all that they have been falsely advocating and promoting 'hands-off' self-management of deer populations to their supporters for years.
 
Last edited:
Interesting...

Thoughts in no particular order:

My intention in posting was to raise awareness that the LACS position had changed somewhat and that they appear to be moving towards making stalking more of a target (see the latest blog from their Chief Exec as well). I think it's good for everyone in the fieldsports community to have an awareness of these things so that they can react in whatever ways thet see as being appropriate. I also thought that a few comments on their blog might redress the balance a bit - sadly they don't seem to be accepting pro fieldsports comments anymore (they did in the past). At least, they haven't posted the link to the youtube clip of the starving deer on their Baronsdown sanctuary which I submitted as a comment...

As someone who has hunted with hounds for years and has been heavily involved in that debate, I suppose it just worries me that LACS etc will use the media furore over the Emperor to launch an attack on stalking. You can see from the responses on most websites carrying stories about the Exmoor stuff that the vast majority of the public don't 'get' stalking. Place this against the background of the Cumbria shootings and the subsequent inquiry and I think I'm right to be concerned.

I was also interested in any comments from more knowledgeable deer managers about any effects that their 'policy' might have on the welfare of individual animals and the wider deer herd.

I'm sure seeing the text reproduced here isn't to everyone's taste (and that lots of folk just aren't interested!) but 'know thine enemy' and all that....

Tom

PS - Caorach. I count myself as a Green myself mate - I do my recycling like a good little greenie and even read The Guardian. I always think my interest and involvement in the countryside compliments wider environmental awareness. But thats a different thread...

its people like you that have fooked our country up.Do me a favour and stay on your own website as we don't publish on yours
 
its people like you that have fooked our country up.Do me a favour and stay on your own website as we don't publish on yours

Eh :?:

In my own local paper (Swindon Advertiser) a letter was published a couple of days ago from someone who professed to have no problem with culling deer where there are too many. They said that they and their relatives come from the Scottish Highlands and a lack of deer management there led to high winter attrition. So far so good.

However, they then went on to say that they couldn't understand why anyone would have killed the Emperor as (a) at 12 he was in the prime of life, (b) he had many more years ahead of him, and (c) there was no problem in terms of the local deer population. Ignoring the fact that none of these points is true, of course then they talked about the sort of people who would pay £2,000 or more to shoot this magnificent beast.

If you don't believe that the Emperor is being used as a way of specifically targeting deer management and stalking then you're very sadly mistaken.

willie_gunn

PS - I also live on the Berks/Oxon border and recycle, so should I leave the site as well??? If it helps though, I read the Daily Telegraph rather than the Guardian.
 
Hiding our heads in the sand and pretending it will not exist if we don't acknowledge it is the first rung on the ladder for those who wish to walk all over us - and being a Scot, living anywhere in the world, does not make anyone an authority on highland deer matters. The people mentioned by willie_gunn are just reciting the generalised propoganda which was the selective verbage of the Scottish Deer Commission over two decades. I know of plenty native highlanders who would not know a Roe from a young Red and who are naively ill-informed of anything living a hundred yards off the tarmac.

There ARE areas in the lower highland area which are difficult to manage. The wintering deer have a habit of collecting en-mass from surrounding estates in some places and one shot sends the lot hell-for-leather. There is also the problem of ever-increasing rambling - and hiking - and Munroe-bagging, which is the 'right' of those aspiring to utilise the hills for their leisure pursuits, and surprise-surprise, rhe anti-establishment government who granted the rights were never informed that those who required to manage the hills and the wildlife thereon should also be given the right to carry out their job - unimpeded.

Perhaps they DID know this. Perhaps it suited their purpose not to acknowledge it.

Then there were the clever intellectuals who suggested that every Tom, Dick and Harry should be given a rifle to sort the problem out ! Avid 'buffalo hunter' types from all airts were right on the scene offering to solve the problem.

But onto matters management - when I joined the stalking team on this peninsula which is three parts surrounded by sea and because of it's geography, almost an island as far as the deer are concerned, a decision had been in force for over ten years to undertake a form of 'modern' deer culling.
With the avid interest of the boss and the professional expertise of his stalkers who were decendants of long-term stalking families,(I was differeent and a newcomer to the scene and the area), this culling program was simply to do a deer count every year when the calves were at foot, decide upon a number to be extracted as a result of that count, then undertake to shoot the poorest stag heads - including the old and 'going back', then shoot selected hinds. This included poor 'doers' and their calves, larger hinds which did not rear good calves, the old and poor yearlings.
There was more to it than just that, and you had to be able to tell at a glance in 'the glass' if a beast was shootable. Because the hind selection and shooting was more difficult, it was left strictly to the stalkers.

Strictly no feeding was the rule because - as the boss said - if a hard year came when finances did not permit it - the herd would suffer, and they should be culled to a number where they could sustain themselves on the ground they lived on.

In the next thirty years, on this peninsula which is roughly 70 miles in circumference, we carried out this program and for the last 18 I was privileged to be given the head stalker's job when my mentor retired.

On a forest of some 2000 deer which hefted mostly eight pointers as good stags, we gradually improved the herd until ten pointers were common-place, twelve pointers and royals were regularly seen, and we had quite a number of fourteen pounters and everything in between. Approximately fifty percent of the eighteen-month 'knobbers' now appeared as spikers.
Our best 'head' was a seventeen pointer and our heaviest beast taken off was 23 stone. It was not unusual to take off a 20 stone stag each year during the cull.

The herds had gradually been decreased to around 1500 and it stabilised in weights at that number. Over a period of three years it was seen that three year-old stags improved in weight and stabilised there. One of the larger 'unshootable' calves, trapped in a fence, was shot and weighed in at 87 lbs whilst average cull calves came in at 50 lbs, which was quite good for hill deer.

The point of this narrative is that pure cull management does work, and we were fortunate in having an almost captive herd on which to work and plan a culling program. Deer management is vital, but NOT the deer massacre which is taking place in the highlands today at the behest of the birders and tree fanatics who want a reversion to the Caledonia of five hundred years ago.

I'm a tree and bird enthusiast. I've made a private oasis in a comparitive wilderness which was burned to death in aid of sheep geazings, but I also believe in managing the environment for all species.

If only this sort of viewpoint could be put across to the general public. Proper herd management is really akin to long-range farming at its best.

As for the bleeding hearts - The government bodies certainly enforce their rules on the legitimate stalking world - at the behest, presumably, of some people who have jumped on the bandwagon and who have the ear of those who count.
It strikes me as a bit odd that they do not march in to these 'sanctuaries' with their expert cohorts and do their bit there as well. I imagine that in some of the continental countries there would be no such shilly-shallying about.
It must be pointed out that there were sheep on the hill as well.
 
its people like you that have fooked our country up.Do me a favour and stay on your own website as we don't publish on yours

Mick - I think you'll find that it's more likely to be people who don't read, digest and fully understand the entire message before passing derogatory comments who may have caused some trouble with the nation in the past!

PS: - I'm a Chartered Environmentalist (as well as Chartered Environment Manager and Chartered Engineer) and do my bit to ensure I pass on to my future generations that which my ancestors passed on to me, should I leave with Tom & Willie too?
 
My apologies for the terrible keying mistakes / spelling in my last post. I was in the process of heading towards bed and had animals nagging at me for their goodnight 'outs' so I posted it and ran.
There have been big changes on the peninsula since I retired out of the job ten years ago - the 'future' is flooding in and hey ! I's not my 'mess of lentils' any more, but that's up to the new generation. What I can say is that for those who come up to the highlands and expect to see the famous highland Red deer, they'll have to work a darned sight harder to spot any.
The hills are being emptied.
Propaganda rather than informed education from those who wish to blame deer for every ill. Using deer - by some - as a tool to strike against the old establishment, (and you'd be surprised at the number of hostile faces encountered carrying backpacks, some of whom have been converted by kind actions and explanations on the parts of stalking staff).

As for these so-called 'sanctuaries' They sound more like concentration camp areas. The deer do not even have the much-vaunted natural predators to thin out the old, weak and the ill, but they suffer until even the ignorant cannot ingore them any more.
 
its people like you that have fooked our country up.Do me a favour and stay on your own website as we don't publish on yours

Mick - I think you'll find that it's more likely to be people who don't read, digest and fully understand the entire message before passing derogatory comments who may have caused some trouble with the nation in the past!

PS: - I'm a Chartered Environmentalist (as well as Chartered Environment Manager and Chartered Engineer) and do my bit to ensure I pass on to my future generations that which my ancestors passed on to me, should I leave with Tom & Willie too?

Oly

Right with you on your first comment.

As far as the opposition wishing to remain ignorant of the true facts and running away from an open and informed debate on the subject. I see no reason for we should do the same.

The lads who have had the measure of the LACS for years now are the west country deer hunts. I have read many a good debate on the subject of the LACS activities and attitudes in regards to deer over on the Horse and Hound hunting forum. From a deer welfare and management point of view the hunts exposer of the LACS makes for some interesting reading.

Hypocrisy, hyperbole, lies and the reliance on pseudo scientific biased research have been a standard operating procedure at the LACS from their earliest days back in the 1920's. I doubt if that will ever change. Jim Barrington and his predecessor (who's name escapes me at present) have both come out and spoken publically about the LACS deliberate and long standing policy of deceiving the general public.
 
The lads who have had the measure of the LACS for years now are the west country deer hunts. I have read many a good debate on the subject of the LACS activities and attitudes in regards to deer over on the Horse and Hound hunting forum. From a deer welfare and management point of view the hunts exposer of the LACS makes for some interesting reading.

Unfortunately, many of their supporters also appear to be intent on alienating themselves from the shooting/stalking fraternity along the way.

It is continually brought up to somehow try and justify the hunting with hounds position, as to how rifle shooting leaves wounded animals that slink off to die in agony, danger to the public etc. etc. - it happened during the debate prior to the hunting ban and more recently it's been espoused by James Barrington (formerly Director of LACS) on behalf the CA.

My youngest daughte, her husband and her in-laws ride with one of the Staghound packs, (he also shoots), and on some grounds I'll support them, but I suspect many stalkers are getting a bit fed up by the sniping at other methods of deer control/management. We should all be pulling in the same direction, not trying to drive a wedge between different country pursuits.
 
its people like you that have fooked our country up.Do me a favour and stay on your own website as we don't publish on yours

:dummy:Cheers Mick. I've had a good bit of abuse over the years but I don't think I've ever managed to convinve anyone I was an Anti before... Hope your fooking goes well.
 
Last edited:
Aye Orion - it always interests me to see how these fellows like John Barrington seem to change horses in mid-gallop - and go from one top-rung position to the next. It makes you wonder - - - - .

I too was very disappointed - amongst the other beastly and inhumane shooting stalkers I know - by the backstabbing swerve taken by some of the staghound people. It seemed pretty damnable to us that they would stoop to unseat others in the deer world in their determination to try and justify themselves as being THE way to control deer whilst claiming that others like us were sending them away wounded etc.. Well, it might surprise them to know that there are plenty riflemen in the South-west counties who have an extremely different opinion - but they keep THAT info under their bonnets and don't parade it on the open market !

I have it on good authority from a died-in-the-wool Devon countryman who is an octogenarian and who still stalks with two replacement hips that many of the farmers are supporters of the staghounds - in a practical way and without playing at politics, unlike some of the others. They own the fields and some of the woodlands upon which the deer graze, and if their sport was removed they might not tolerate the grazing of their fields - and in some cases - crops.
Remove the reason for the farmers to harbour deer and they would have no reason to lose cropping income, thus the deer population might suddenly crash. It does not take a wizard to fathom that one out and it's one of the reasons why the thinkers in the shooting fraternity bite their tongues.
 
Everybody other than Mick B - thanks for the interesting responses and the support!

Orion, I was hoping you'd join in as I've read a few of your posts on the subject and you seem to be the site subject expert (no **** taking intended!). I've hunted with the Devon and Somerset a lot over the years (to a lesser extent with the Tiverton) and know the area in question well - like you, I've seen the enormous concentration of deer on Baronsdown (although I believe its got a bit less in recen years?).

I agree with your points re the need to be united in the face of opposition - although I suppose I'm coming at it from the opposite side of the fence to yourself. Its unfortunate when, in the defence of one fieldsport another gets slagged off. Having said that, given the pressure that the staghound packs have operated under in recent years, I guess its understandable, if not excusable. (And I guess on Exmoor itself, there just isn't the history of legal stalking to foster any sort of understanding / co-operation). Maybe if people tried to use your text as adapted below, that might be better?

It is continually brought up to somehow try and justify the hunting with hounds position, as to how poaching leaves wounded animals that slink off to die in agony, danger to the public etc. etc. - it happened during the debate prior to the hunting ban and more recently it's been espoused by James Barrington (formerly Director of LACS) on behalf the CA.

Re the wider question of deer management on Exmoor / Quantocks / Tiverton area, are there not deer management groups that can act as a forum for communication between the Staghound packs and stalkers?

Tom

PS - Ecoman - interesting last post - you posted at the same time as me.
 
Last edited:
Aye Orion - it always interests me to see how these fellows like John Barrington seem to change horses in mid-gallop - and go from one top-rung position to the next. It makes you wonder - - - - .

JB is not the only senior managemnet member of the LACS to abandon ship once they manage to dig down behind the propaganda machine and see them for what they really are.
Although he is certainly the most high profile one from recent years.

I have it on good authority from a died-in-the-wool Devon countryman who is an octogenarian and who still stalks with two replacement hips that many of the farmers are supporters of the staghounds - in a practical way and without playing at politics, unlike some of the others. They own the fields and some of the woodlands upon which the deer graze, and if their sport was removed they might not tolerate the grazing of their fields - and in some cases - crops.
Remove the reason for the farmers to harbour deer and they would have no reason to lose cropping income, thus the deer population might suddenly crash. It does not take a wizard to fathom that one out and it's one of the reasons why the thinkers in the shooting fraternity bite their tongues.

What you have been told is very true. There is a well known incident that occurred where over 100 deer were culled on 2 property's when the NT decided to rescind their permission on access to the the hunts. The 2 landowners simple choose to wipe the local deer population out as there was no incentive to continue to suffer the financial looses they caused.
 
Back
Top