BDS Statement on Stag Hunting

[Apthorpe]

There's no point arguing with this member. They're more than likely a troll as they only contribute to contentious threads in Off Topic and won't stop until you get bored and move on from pointlessly arguing with them. I don't think it's possible for someone to be so obtuse unintentionally.

The liberty to pursue field sports ought not to be a contentious thread on a stalking site. I am frequently left baffled by how obtuse people are. Depends whether you're starting from a reasonable perspective. In this case, Buchan was starting from the incorrect premise that if something can be described as "unjustifiable" then it should be illegal.

 

[finnbear270]

Hunting might seem an obvious way of obtaining food, but in practice augmenting diet in this way was not necessarily straightforward. This chapter examines the archaeological evidence for consumption of foodstuffs that came from this source, relating it to hunting practices and instructional texts of the later Middle Ages. Chapter 12 considers the historical evidence for the management of hunting preserves and their contribution to diet, particularly in the period from 1250 onwards, which allows us to examine some of the dynamics of supply and demand. Together the chapters provide an overview of the role that hunting wild mammals played in food supply. Of all the changes attributed to the Norman Conquest, those associated with hunting are probably the best known, with few school-books neglecting to mention the Normans’ love of the chase. After 1066 the Norman kings applied forest law to vast areas of land, most famously creating the New Forest. Under forest law, rights to take animals were restricted and unlicensed use of forest resources was punishable by imprisonment or maiming. The conquered popu- lation appears to have viewed forest law with contempt; indeed, the authors of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle devoted approximately one third of William the Conqueror’s obituary to complaining about it.
An interesting read on this, Medieval hunting in Wiki
Lots of breeds of dogs mentioned with lots of different hunting jobs within the chase.

 

[Camelfarm]

I wonder how the public perception of the meat, dairy and egg industries would be shaped if they had greater knowledge of the process.

I have been on and witnessed many hunts with hounds, firearms (obviously) and also ferreting, long-netting etc. In my experience any "cruelty" in these methods (this goes for all of them) is a small fraction of the whole-life issues visited on animals providing food on industrial levels.

It seems out of touch in the extreme for a non-vegan to lecture anyone on the rights and wrongs of killing or causing suffering to animals.

The majority of the vitriol I have received over the years in connection with field sports seems to have been directed at my choice of clothing, perceived social standing, type of education and for being different to the spouter of said vitriol.

Obviously a cleanly shot wild deer taken from an area where it needed to be removed from is the most ethically sound meat I can think of but it doesn't stop the urban majority from disliking it and by extension us. Even whilst they chow down on factory farmed goodies with added chemicals to make them dependent and fat(ter)!

 

[Charles S-J]

With respect, that is a semantic argument. They put forward that evidence and the BDS declined to accept it because it is not "peer-reviewed scientific work". What evidence does exist on that topic is that hounds are claimed to have that ability. In the absence of peer-reviewed science disproving it, then it is proper to reply on the evidence available from witnesses, whatever the origin. They are not scientists in that peer-group, so the BDS position effectively refutes the input of the hunts.
You have it the wrong way round. If the argument is to be used to support a legal activity, then it is very much up to those who wish to take away liberties to come up with the evidence. This country, traditionally, at least is not the Soviet Union. People should be at liberty except when a good reason exists, not the opposite.

Once again with respect, we will have to agree to disagree. In this instance only proven fact can constitute evidence, rather than the opinions or beliefs of those involved in an activity. Likewise my reading of the BDS paper tells me just that they find themselves unable to support hunting with hounds as an appropriate method of controlling deer numbers. That is a far cry from calling to ban it and semantics do not come into the matter.

 

[Selous]

It is well established that dogs can detect disease in humans which is undetectable to experienced medics by examination. It is unsound to presume that this skill does not extend to deer, merely because nobody has spent a tonne of money investigating it. If the BDS contests this, they really ought to commission the necessary body of research to settle the question.

On the contrary. If this were the case then the hounds should NOT track and chase healthy deer. At the very least the incidence of disease in deer hunted with hounds should be far greater than in the free living population. If this were the case is it not reasonable to assume that this should already have been noted. Whilst there are some dogs that appear to be able to detect disease in people, it is rare and not a universal ability.

 

[Apthorpe]

Once again with respect, we will have to agree to disagree. In this instance only proven fact can constitute evidence, rather than the opinions or beliefs of those involved in an activity.

The problem is that peer-reviewed scientific studies are not equivalent to proven fact. Any scientist will tell you that. On a wider basis, evidence admissible in court is not required to be proven fact. Evidence means something significantly different. It is that significant difference which lies behind much of our difference of opinion.

Likewise my reading of the BDS paper tells me just that they find themselves unable to support hunting with hounds as an appropriate method of controlling deer numbers. That is a far cry from calling to ban it and semantics do not come into the matter.

 

[Apthorpe]

On the contrary. If this were the case then the hounds should NOT track and chase healthy deer. At the very least the incidence of disease in deer hunted with hounds should be far greater than in the free living population.

That would rely on at least one unsound presumption:
1. That the animals are autopsied and checked for non-apparent diseases as well as the obvious.
2. That a herd which has had diseased animals preferentially hunted out of it for generations will not have different health characteristics as a result.
3. What control populations do you compare to? Exmoor is a rare habitat type.

If this were the case is it not reasonable to assume that this should already have been noted. Whilst there are some dogs that appear to be able to detect disease in people, it is rare and not a universal ability.

Incidentally, and I don't want to bring it into this, it is a trainable ability.

 

[Selous]

That would rely on at least one unsound presumption:
1. That the animals are autopsied and checked for non-apparent diseases as well as the obvious.
2. That a herd which has had diseased animals preferentially hunted out of it for generations will not have different health characteristics as a result.
3. What control populations do you compare to? Exmoor is a rare habitat type.

Incidentally, and I don't want to bring it into this, it is a trainable ability.

Let’s be honest, the presumption that the hounds seek out only diseased deer must have been derived after a good few puffs on the wacky baccy in order to suit a particular narrative! If anyone wants to rely on this premise as fact they need to gather data and present it appropriately in order to be taken seriously.
Your control population could be stalked deer on Exmoor.
All deer hunted should be subject to post mortem examination

 

[Apthorpe]

Let’s be honest, the presumption that the hounds seek out only diseased deer must have been derived after a good few puffs on the wacky baccy in order to suit a particular narrative!

That may be the case. Or not.

If anyone wants to rely on this premise as fact they need to gather data and present it appropriately in order to be taken seriously.

Again, there is a fundamental error with the premise leading to a totally incorrect perspective. It is for those who wish to ban things to prove things. In common law countries, like the UK, the citizen is free to act as they wish except if prohibited; and it is constitutionally necessary not to ban things without having established good evidence.
In any case, if the BDS has determined a policy of rejecting data from hunts because of a requirement which effectively disqualifies the supporters of stag-hunting from presenting a case, it is a moot point. If one wants to establish the truth of this, then it is incumbent on bodies like the BDS to fund the research. Why not?

Your control population could be stalked deer on Exmoor.

It couldn't, because that would be the treatment population. This seems like you misunderstand what a control group is, and perhaps very elementary aspects of how scientific studies are conducted?

All deer hunted should be subject to post mortem examination

Examination, as usually performed prior to sending it into the food chain, or freezer, is not adequate to establish the presence of all disease. What lab do you send yours to?

 

[Selous]

That may be the case. Or not.

Again, there is a fundamental error with the premise leading to a totally incorrect perspective. It is for those who wish to ban things to prove things. In common law countries, like the UK, the citizen is free to act as they wish except if prohibited; and it is constitutionally necessary not to ban things without having established good evidence.
In any case, if the BDS has determined a policy of rejecting data from hunts because of a requirement which effectively disqualifies the supporters of stag-hunting from presenting a case, it is a moot point. If one wants to establish the truth of this, then it is incumbent on bodies like the BDS to fund the research. Why not?

It couldn't, because that would be the treatment population. This seems like you misunderstand what a control group is, and perhaps very elementary aspects of how scientific studies are conducted?

Examination, as usually performed prior to sending it into the food chain, or freezer, is not adequate to establish the presence of all disease. What lab do you send yours to?

What evidence has been presented to support the supposition that only sick deer are targeted by dogs that has been suppressed? I haven’t looked for any or seen any and am genuinely interested. If there is evidence out there then it should be considered but it needs to be of a reasonable quality to make any difference, particularly where there is clear evidence that shows that hunted deer (with dogs) are subjected to greater stress and therefore this is interpreted as causing unecessary suffering.
If you are making the case that Exmoor deer are distinctly different to other populations, which may be the case as the SW of England has long been a TB hot spot then a control population can only come from that environment. It would be pointless comparing the detection of disease on Exmoor using hounds with the detection of disease in Scotland by shooting or from a fallow herd in the midlands. As such the null hypothesis could be that the hounds hunted by hounds on Exmoor would not show any difference in gross findings of disease compared to those hunted using firearms on Exmoor. Thereby comparing one single variable, that being the ability of the dog to detect disease…. What control population would you suggest and what added value would it bring? Clearly every animal would have to be subjected to a professional PM but only gross pathology could be reliably detected. Presumably the organisations supporting hunting with dogs will be happy to fund such research via an independent research body if it is a real factor to consider or do they tacitly agree that it is a load of rubbish too?

 

[Apthorpe]

What evidence has been presented to support the supposition that only sick deer are targeted by dogs that has been suppressed? I haven’t looked for any or seen any and am genuinely interested. If there is evidence out there then it should be considered but it needs to be of a reasonable quality to make any difference, particularly where there is clear evidence that shows that hunted deer (with dogs) are subjected to greater stress and therefore this is interpreted as causing unecessary suffering.
If you are making the case that Exmoor deer are distinctly different to other populations, which may be the case as the SW of England has long been a TB hot spot then a control population can only come from that environment.

That is impossible. There is one population there. it cannot be both a treatment group and a control group. Either you split it into separate sections somehow (fence the national park into sections?) and run a multi-decade study, or you accept that you're demanding a type of evidence which is simply not reasonable to provide, even if it turned out to be possible to convert the entire moor into an outdoor lab.

It would be pointless comparing the detection of disease on Exmoor using hounds with the detection of disease in Scotland by shooting or from a fallow herd in the midlands.

Exactly.

As such the null hypothesis could be that the hounds hunted by hounds on Exmoor would not show any difference in gross findings of disease compared to those hunted using firearms on Exmoor.

That is not a valid experiment. (Even allowing for your typo suggesting hunting hounds with hounds.) The hunts effects interfere with the shooting effects and vice versa. It's fundamentally wrong and would produce invalid results. There is no control group, and both treatments are operating on the same population.

Thereby comparing one single variable, that being the ability of the dog to detect disease…. What control population would you suggest and what added value would it bring? Clearly every animal would have to be subjected to a professional PM but only gross pathology could be reliably detected. Presumably the organisations supporting hunting with dogs will be happy to fund such research via an independent research body if it is a real factor to consider or do they tacitly agree that it is a load of rubbish too?

There are three hunts. Why should they pay for it? The impetus to meddle with the long-established practice is not theirs. You're demanding that a small group pays for expensive research, which in any case is impossible, in order to attempt to satisfy others who have taken a bias against them. It's not reasonable.

 

[Apthorpe]

What evidence has been presented to support the supposition that only sick deer are targeted by dogs that has been suppressed? I haven’t looked for any or seen any and am genuinely interested. If there is evidence out there then it should be considered but it needs to be of a reasonable quality to make any difference, particularly where there is clear evidence that shows that hunted deer (with dogs) are subjected to greater stress and therefore this is interpreted as causing unecessary suffering.
If you are making the case that Exmoor deer are distinctly different to other populations, which may be the case as the SW of England has long been a TB hot spot then a control population can only come from that environment. It would be pointless comparing the detection of disease on Exmoor using hounds with the detection of disease in Scotland by shooting or from a fallow herd in the midlands. As such the null hypothesis could be that the hounds hunted by hounds on Exmoor would not show any difference in gross findings of disease compared to those hunted using firearms on Exmoor. Thereby comparing one single variable, that being the ability of the dog to detect disease…. What control population would you suggest and what added value would it bring? Clearly every animal would have to be subjected to a professional PM but only gross pathology could be reliably detected. Presumably the organisations supporting hunting with dogs will be happy to fund such research via an independent research body if it is a real factor to consider or do they tacitly agree that it is a load of rubbish too?

Actually, I haven't thought this through. It would be possible to test this. You'd go somewhere where you could get two decent sized populations - like Scotland. Fence them both off in county sized areas. Control one population by shooting and create new staghound hunts in Scotland to hunt the other population. I still don't believe that is within the realms of a reasonable requirement though. I wouldn't hold my breath that various organisations would accept any study funded by a hunt or field sports organisation anyway. They usually don't.

 

[Keith Edmunds]

You'll be glad to know I didn't read Smith-Pye's book. If one is to conduct hunting better, then what is the suggestion for improvement? Something eccentric like print-hounds? A sort of cross between a rottweiler and a lurcher, which I have seen before for use on foxes? Catches the beast and nails it within 100m? Or is it to stop stag-hunting, which sounds somewhat indistinguishable from being "anti-hunting".
"Fieldsports community"?? I've heard of it, but Look at the comment above. There is no fieldsports community - that group of people contains many, including their own organisations who have progressively damned many forms of fieldsport and continue to do so. With friends like these...

Why would I be glad to know that you didn't read the book?

 

[Keith Edmunds]

What evidence has been presented to support the supposition that only sick deer are targeted by dogs that has been suppressed? I haven’t looked for any or seen any and am genuinely interested. If there is evidence out there then it should be considered but it needs to be of a reasonable quality to make any difference, particularly where there is clear evidence that shows that hunted deer (with dogs) are subjected to greater stress and therefore this is interpreted as causing unecessary suffering.
If you are making the case that Exmoor deer are distinctly different to other populations, which may be the case as the SW of England has long been a TB hot spot then a control population can only come from that environment. It would be pointless comparing the detection of disease on Exmoor using hounds with the detection of disease in Scotland by shooting or from a fallow herd in the midlands. As such the null hypothesis could be that the hounds hunted by hounds on Exmoor would not show any difference in gross findings of disease compared to those hunted using firearms on Exmoor. Thereby comparing one single variable, that being the ability of the dog to detect disease…. What control population would you suggest and what added value would it bring? Clearly every animal would have to be subjected to a professional PM but only gross pathology could be reliably detected. Presumably the organisations supporting hunting with dogs will be happy to fund such research via an independent research body if it is a real factor to consider or do they tacitly agree that it is a load of rubbish too?

There is no evidence to suggest that staghounds only hunt sick deer. The point is simply that the harbourer selects the warrantable stag and, in some cases, that might be one that has seen to be sick or injured. Of course, this is a valid argument that hunting with hounds can be a selective form of wildlife management. Sadly, what has been quoted pushes the theory that hunting (deer) with hounds is 'more' selective than stalking. The BDS, quite rightly IMHO, state that if the harbourer has detected and selected a sick or wounded deer - then why isn't it quickly shot as opposed to hunted with hounds.

 

[Nimrod1960]

Much of this debate circles back to the work of Prof Bateson in the run up to the hunting with dogs act. Which of course we all know in our hearts was not about love of wild life but about the left’s loathing of the people they perceived as pink clad toffs.

Mark my words if Sir Slippery gets in there will be more of the same. With little room to tax and spend they will have to find something to throw to the baying left.

Perhaps some of the Bateson cheer team on here can enlighten us as to which organisations sponsored much of his work.

 

[nun_hunter]

On the contrary. If this were the case then the hounds should NOT track and chase healthy deer. At the very least the incidence of disease in deer hunted with hounds should be far greater than in the free living population. If this were the case is it not reasonable to assume that this should already have been noted. Whilst there are some dogs that appear to be able to detect disease in people, it is rare and not a universal ability.

If the hounds were only (or even encouraged) to pursue sick/weak/injured deer then the videos and images of Stag Hound hunts wouldn't be solely of stags with 14 point+ antlers. Not to mention the hunt would last about 3 minutes once the weaker deer were brought down very quickly rather than the good fun of an unpredictable ride over a few miles after a stag in top condition.

 

[Mungo]

Something like ....to deliberately cause a high degree of pain or suffering which is greater than that which is a normally accepted level of discomfort.

Ok - so we agree that cruelty involves greater than normal discomfort.

However, I think we may differ on whether self inflicted discomfort is cruelty or not.

I think there is an important difference between when an individual chooses to inflict or endure the discomfort on themselves versus when they have it inflicted upon them.

Would you agree that forcing someone to run a marathon against their will is unacceptable?

And do you think there is ever a compelling reason to restrict what we do to animals? Or should we be free to inflict whatever discomfort or harm we want?

Re. State induced cruelty (warfare, official persecution etc). I think that’s where we have decided (rightly or wrongly) that the societal benefits outweigh the individual costs. The threshold for what it is acceptable for a state to do its citizens has certainly dropped over time.

 

[Mungo]

Much of this debate circles back to the work of Prof Bateson in the run up to the hunting with dogs act. Which of course we all know in our hearts was not about love of wild life but about the left’s loathing of the people they perceived as pink clad toffs.

Mark my words if Sir Slippery gets in there will be more of the same. With little room to tax and spend they will have to find something to throw to the baying left.

Perhaps some of the Bateson cheer team on here can enlighten us as to which organisations sponsored much of his work.

What part of Bateson’s findings do you think are wrong?

Not the interpretation of them - merely the raw scientific findings?

 

[Mungo]

I’m enjoying the argument about how to determine whether the hounds are selective.

I think you could test it within a single pack, fairly easily. Full PM of all deer killed after hound hunts. And then shoot an equal number of randomly chosen deer from the same area, and PM those. Compare. All variables controlled for bar method of killing. Sample size would not need to be big if there were genuine differences. 10 of each would probably do it. Might even get away with 6.

 

[Klenchblaize]

Correct, the BDS is not a branch of hunting, quick question, do you think the antis view them (the BDS) as a hunting (broad spectrum) sympathetic organisation, or merely a bunch of old gentlemen concerned merely with deer welfare?

I can only refer the Honourable Member to my original comment.

That said, I do understand what Hornet is attempting to communicate and indeed align with the BDS wider position that involves deer hunting management with a rifle but it’s just note going to happen.

K