Let's build a coherent philosophical and ethical case for hunting.

[Tulloch]

I told people what I feel and its thrown straight back at me . For me its a job and I have no land that I can give or sub contract to . To me its the job and I love the job in a whole I will never deny that and thats why I do it .

I tell you what the antis like and am going to be brutally honest . The antis love seeing jumped up pompous shooters who brag about the beast they shot and the money they have spent doing so. The antis love the class division that many shooters put themselves in because they have a firearms certificate . The antis love the constant buckering within the shooting fraternity with I am holier than thou attitude . What the antis truly love is how the shooting world literally shoot themselves in the foot.

I dont pay for my shooting so to me doing what I do is a job and a privilage and I work dam hard and harder than any of you know. I struggle to afford a new pair of decent boots, I use a rifle that is almost as old as I am and have the most in expensive equipment you can get. To even get the taste of the world half of you live in I do reviews for companies because I like doing it.

I tell you one thing and again am being honest not many on this site can honestly say they can be a poster boy for the industry as the industry is full of jealousy. No wonder its a dying industry.

I have watched so many people over the years blatantly and openly coming out making statements against contracting etc . Well let me say this . A young keeper starts life being offered the world and treated like crap for 3 to 4 years as free labour for estates then after that time left high and dry so they become contractors and ridiculed and hated by those they are trained by and left out in the world jobless by with no chance of ever getting back on an estate.

You guys that sit back on your chairs and pay to shoot every so often for your jollies may have earned or paid for those rights but you have no right to sit there and put down someone for doing a job that they love.

I stand by what I say, killing an animal is not the best bit of what I do, there is far more benefits to what I do other than the kill and I tell you one thing for free as its not the bloody money because I get paid less than some apprentice keeper or stalker. I do this for me.

 

[Gzl]

To answer your point on why we manage deer, requires only one answer, money. Which includes forestry ,estate income and all other connected revenue generations. Take your other point on deer welfare, I guess no one would like to see any animal suffer. However if for example you examined the most seasoned wildlife cameraman who is dedicated arguably to the welfare of his targeted species, I can't think of one filmed incident where they have intervened to cut short an animals life for its own benefit. And therefore I can only presume they have taken the decision that this was an act of nature. And let's face it they have the moral high ground in that they have decided not to kill a wild animal. Nature will always find its own balance and to use the excuse that we are somehow benefiting the deer by controlling them to a certain density is only to try and justify loosely the fact that we have killed a wild animal for our own pleasure and economic gain.

 

[willie_gunn]

If this is truly the case why don't you subcontract out the shooting or sell your rifles and take someone with you on the jobs where you have to be present and just buy a camera so you can still go out and be one with nature? By not admitting to the excitement and thrill obtained by a well placed shot on live prey brining about its swift and humane demise you're not going to convince anyone about your moral right to shoot animals for conservation.

Don't judge everyone by your own standards

I'm with Tulloch on this.

Not everyone gets a thrill from killing deer. Satisfaction, yes. Regret, undoubtedly. But a thrill, not necessarily.

In fact I get far more pleasure from pressing the shutter release on the camera than squeezing the trigger on the rifle. The results, too, give me pleasure for longer, as I can always go back and look at the photo. Compare that to the transient feeling of killing something.

I've been out with those for whom killing is the goal - once a deer is dead they want to move on to the next one. That's not what makes me tick.

Dropping a high pheasant or pigeon, landing a salmon, taking a sea trout on a dry fly - now that's pleasure.

Our deer population has to be controlled, and using a rifle is the most effective way. So for me, killing a deer is the satisfactory conclusion of a necessary job. Whether it's me squeezing the trigger, or a client, the result is hopefully the same - a quick and clean kill. Each of us might feel different about it, and that's a good thing, as in reality the only people we need to justify our actions to are ourselves.

But when it comes to stalking I've had far more pleasure from the places I've been, the people I've met and the nature I've seen than the deer I've killed. Oh, and the venison has been pretty tasty too.

 

[bogtrotter]

Don't judge everyone by your own standards

I'm with Tulloch on this.

Not everyone gets a thrill from killing deer. Satisfaction, yes. Regret, undoubtedly. But a thrill, not necessarily.



Our deer population has to be controlled, and using a rifle is the most effective way. So for me, killing a deer is the satisfactory conclusion of a necessary job. Whether it's me squeezing the trigger, or a client, the result is hopefully the same - a quick and clean kill. Each of us might feel different about it, and that's a good thing, as in reality the only people we need to justify our actions to are ourselves.

But when it comes to stalking I've had far more pleasure from the places I've been, the people I've met and the nature I've seen than the deer I've killed. Oh, and the venison has been pretty tasty too.

Pretty much in agreement with that, enjoy the stalk, and get satisfaction from a job well done, a thrill from killing something, no I don't.

 

[User00047]

I have never enjoyed killing anything. Except wasps after they have stung me. It is the "thrill of the chase" which gets my adrenaline going

 

[willie_gunn]

Nature will always find its own balance and to use the excuse that we are somehow benefiting the deer by controlling them to a certain density is only to try and justify loosely the fact that we have killed a wild animal for our own pleasure and economic gain.

The flaw in your argument is that there is nowhere in the UK where nature is, or can be, truly left to find its own balance.

We are not talking here about the outback of Australia, the deserts of Africa, the tundra of Siberia or even the forested expanses of the Nordics - we're talking about the UK, where England has a population density of 413/sq km, Wales has 149, Northern Ireland has 135 and Scotland has 68. We simply don't have enough "nature" left. Like it or not, there is nowhere in the UK where nature is not managed, whether for farming, forestry, amenity, energy, housing, industry, etc.

So if we accept that all the stakeholders are constantly interfering with the environment then we have a duty to try to keep things in check, and yes, this extends to deer. Deer are a prey species, but with no predators in the UK other than man. Their population is expanding because our managed environment provides them with everything they need and we simply aren't reducing the resulting numbers sufficiently. If you took away man's control of deer what do you think the result would be? LACS tried to let nature find its own balance at Baronsdown, as did the Dutch did at Oostvaardersplassen. Neither was a pretty sight.

Deer live in a managed environment. Deer need to be managed to meet the balanced needs and capabilities of that environment. That's why we manage deer.

 

[Greymaster]

Pretty much a coherent philosophical and ethical case for deer management:

League Against Cruel Sports accused of starving deer on its own sanctuary - Telegraph

 

[Gzl]

The flaw in your argument is that there is nowhere in the UK where nature is, or can be, truly left to find its own balance.

We are not talking here about the outback of Australia, the deserts of Africa, the tundra of Siberia or even the forested expanses of the Nordics - we're talking about the UK, where England has a population density of 413/sq km, Wales has 149, Northern Ireland has 135 and Scotland has 68. We simply don't have enough "nature" left. Like it or not, there is nowhere in the UK where nature is not managed, whether for farming, forestry, amenity, energy, housing, industry, etc.

So if we accept that all the stakeholders are constantly interfering with the environment then we have a duty to try to keep things in check, and yes, this extends to deer. Deer are a prey species, but with no predators in the UK other than man. Their population is expanding because our managed environment provides them with everything they need and we simply aren't reducing the resulting numbers sufficiently. If you took away man's control of deer what do you think the result would be? LACS tried to let nature find its own balance at Baronsdown, as did the Dutch did at Oostvaardersplassen. Neither was a pretty sight.

Deer live in a managed environment. Deer need to be managed to meet the balanced needs and capabilities of that environment. That's why we manage deer.

Talking of flaws, you have scored a spectacular own goal!
its not a case of lack of predation that's essential for nature to take its own course, it's all about survival of the fittest. In the case of the deer if they are grazing themselves out and the end result is emmaciation and death then that is nature, why do you feel the necessity to be involved in the name of management and humanity?

 

[Orion]

Pretty much a coherent philosophical and ethical case for deer management:

League Against Cruel Sports accused of starving deer on its own sanctuary - Telegraph

Just goes to show that you can't take the newspapers at face value! Do you imagine that stalkers on the estates and farms surrounding Baronsdown were not culling deer in relatively high numbers throughout that period?

Batchelor, and earlier James Barrington, were obviously parroting the party line at the time, (I believe the latter has changed his tune nowadays ), but it wasn't all doom and gloom and was obviously in the interests of some parties at the time to play up the humane aspects deer 'management' prior to the ban on hunting with hounds.

 

[Greymaster]

Just goes to show that you can't take the newspapers at face value! Do you imagine that stalkers on the estates and farms surrounding Baronsdown were not culling deer in relatively high numbers throughout that period?

Batchelor, and earlier James Barrington, were obviously parroting the party line at the time, (I believe the latter has changed his tune nowadays ), but it wasn't all doom and gloom and was obviously in the interests of some parties at the time to play up the humane aspects deer 'management' prior to the ban on hunting with hounds.

I would not anticipate that stag hunting with hounds took many stags out. Perhaps the farms were culling for crop and woodland protection though...

 

[willie_gunn]

Talking of flaws, you have scored a spectacular own goal!
its not a case of lack of predation that's essential for nature to take its own course, it's all about survival of the fittest. In the case of the deer if they are grazing themselves out and the end result is emmaciation and death then that is nature, why do you feel the necessity to be involved in the name of management and humanity?

Fair enough, you win, I'm wrong.

Feeling better now?

 

[Pine Marten]

GZL, please refer back to earlier arguments around nature and quantities of suffering. See the point of trying to build this up from first principles now?

 

[Orion]

I would not anticipate that stag hunting with hounds took many stags out. Perhaps the farms were culling for crop and woodland protection though...

No disrespect to you, as you are obviously not from the locale and were not involved at the time, but deer were a deeply ingrained political issue in the area in the run-up to the hunting ban - even more than they usually are! Point scoring on both sides was paramount!

BTW. the three Staghound packs don't just hunt stags. And those of us involved in culling on local estates and farms had our work cut out.

 

[Gzl]

Fair enough, you win, I'm wrong.

Feeling better now?

Sorry Willie I take your point.
I guess from my perspective I enjoy all the aspects of country sports and find it difficult in my own head at times to substantiate the destruction of a beautiful creature. And there is a lot of true substance in previous posts as to the thrill of the chase and being at one with nature when stalking, however if that was the predominant reason then there would be no need to pull the trigger, just take a photo...
In recent times there have been many examples of hunters turned conservationist, such as sir Peter Scott. Maybe it's a getting older dilemma?..
suffice to say I guess none of us would do it if we did not enjoy it.

 

[Gzl]

GZL, please refer back to earlier arguments around nature and quantities of suffering. See the point of trying to build this up from first principles now?

Sorry have missed that pleas point me in the right direction.

 

[User00047]

And there is a lot of true substance in previous posts as to the thrill of the chase and being at one with nature when stalking, however if that was the predominant reason then there would be no need to pull the trigger, just take a photo

It just wouldn't be the same if the lion sprung from the bushes, tackled the zebra to the ground and then produced a Canon eos 5d saying "sorry mate, I just wanted to take your picture "

 

[moonstone gsp]

Sounds to me that Gzl is an anti. Don't think it's worth wasting time arguing with this person!

 

[Taff]

Talking of flaws, you have scored a spectacular own goal!
its not a case of lack of predation that's essential for nature to take its own course, it's all about survival of the fittest. In the case of the deer if they are grazing themselves out and the end result is emmaciation and death then that is nature, why do you feel the necessity to be involved in the name of management and humanity?

This is the argument used by the LACS in there opposition to all forms of hunting, natural peaks and troughs in predators and prey, suffering is a natural phenomenon.

 

[Pine Marten]

its not a case of lack of predation that's essential for nature to take its own course, it's all about survival of the fittest.

It's probably worth reminding ourselves at this point that the phrase "survival of the fittest" applies to a species, not the individuals within that species. So if you allow a population of deer to become weak, emaciated, ill, you're harming the whole population as well as the individuals within it. It's also why many animals develop cooperative behaviour.

In recent times there have been many examples of hunters turned conservationist, such as sir Peter Scott.

It's not a particularly recent phenomenon, as evidenced for example by the creation of national parks like Yellowstone in the US by Teddy Roosevelt or the Gran Paradiso in the Alps by Victor Emmanuel II. It makes sense because if you're a hunter, then you have a vested interest in having something to hunt. More generally, being a hunter and a conservationist are in no way mutually exclusive things and quite frankly should go hand in hand. If as a hunter, you're not being a conservationist, you're doing it wrong and undermining your position.

 

[Gzl]

This is the argument used by the LACS in there opposition to all forms of hunting, natural peaks and troughs in predators and prey, suffering is a natural phenomenon.

And they would be correct, and contrary to what moonstone thinks at am not an anti! It does not require an IQ of greater than 5 to realise the best way to fight the enemy is to think like they do.... As long as you argue the why I do it is " for the benefit of the deer" the more fuel you give them. As I am sure I said previously and forgive me if I am not making myself clear, there would appear to be many on this forum who will not acknowledge that they get pleasure from all aspects of the hunt and kill. Excuses just sound like excuses, if you tell the truth as I have done the conversation ends without an argument!