BDS Statement on Stag Hunting

[Apthorpe]

I don't feel it is right to condemn peer review because of Wakefield.

Good. Nor do I, and nor have I given even a whisper of an insinuation that my opinion coincides with that statement. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend what possessed you and the other chappy to make such a mountain out of a molehill, when you both knew that what I'd said was perfectly correct.

it shouldn't have been published and I too can think of other papers (not as criminal) that really should not have been published. A down side is that in many journals you can nominate your peers - which is a potential conflict.

I hadn't registered that point, although I am aware that there's something of a revolving door effect. It is worth adding for the benefit of any other readers that for a significant portion of scientists, the number of papers you produce and the citations that result when other people refer to your work, are a measure of prestige and beneficial to your career. In areas of research which are narrow, the consequence is potentially incestuous and apt to magnify biases.

But the point of peer review is that the paper is there to be reviewed - prior to publication by a board and then as the chosen reviewers.
Then it is published and can be criticised by the readers of that journal and potentially withdrawn.
I'm more writing to ensure others reading it understand the process rather than arguing with you. The argument has gone round more houses than an eternal game of monopoly!

It certainly has. Which I find astonishing and entirely incomprehensible. It's been an annoying waste of my time from people who not only should know better, but actually do know better. One wonders at their motives. I made a wholly uncontroversial, unambiguous and accurate statement and then people (not restricted to you) leapt on it and tried to condemn what I've said by implying I said something completely different. It's madness.

For the sake of ensuring others understand the process, I think I can add without controversy:
By the end of the process, although all scientists know that a published peer-reviewed paper, or even a body of peer-reviewed science, may well be wrong; peer-reviewed papers are presented to organisations and public bodies as being authoritative (even "pretty high up on a pyramid of evidence").

Some scientists may even vigorously dispute anyone suggesting that peer-reviewed scientific papers are not absolute fact.

 

[Mungo]

That was the point. Nothing more, nothing less. I have also asked what your agenda was in questioning a perfectly obvious fact and framing it as a completely different question. You have also yet to answer that.

I'm afraid you've constructed yourself something of a digression which wasn't ever there. I made no digression and your obvious conclusion is entirely unmerited, without any supporting basis whatsoever, and a complete fabrication. That is a fair summary of the position, isn't it?

You could. It would be as inconsistent as much of the rest of your rather tedious examination of a perfectly clear and uncontroversial point.

What is the evidence to support that claim? In the rest of human endeavour, it is not the case that people only cheat when the stakes are high, rather the opposite. I would have thought that errors are at least as common where the stakes are low. I'm not sure I share your faith in the quality and thoroughness of the checking. The high profile examples are of such varied character that it is surely highly improbable that they are the only failures, or even a significant (statistically) portion of them.

Is the point that the occasions when scientists do make errors of any type, it is only with important stuff, or that which impinges on public policy? That which slips under the radar cannot be presumed to be perfect.

I think I've afforded your words the full degree of respect they, and the available evidence merit. Certainly, I regard you as having a degree of bias, not least because you have exhibited a prodigious degree of it above. I'm more than happy to re-examine anything I haven't treated with appropriate respect.

I really shouldn’t get sucked into discussions with you. You twist words, shift meaning, selectively interpret and push perverse interpretations in deeply unpleasant ways.

I have seldom encountered someone who argues in such bad faith.

I should have learned. More fool me.

 

[User00053]

This from "Otters and Otter-Hunting", by L.C.R. Cameron, published 1908, see Otters and otter-hunting - Biodiversity Heritage Library

The Carlisle Otter Hounds

Uniform: Blue cap and coat, blue and white striped waist-coat, white breeches, blue stockings and tie, gilt buttons engraved '' C. O. H." (The Master, Huntsman, and Hon. Whipper-in wear red coats.)

Master : Mr. J. W. Graham.
Hon. Secretary : Mr. J. W. Simpson, Victoria Buildings, Carlisle.
Huntsman and kennelman : Johnnie Parker.
Couples of hounds: 11 ; rough 9, smooth 2.
Kennels: Canal Bank, Carlisle.
Days of meeting : Tuesday and Friday.
Water hunted : Eden and its tributaries, Esk, Liddle, Wampool, Waver, Lyne, &c. ; in Cumberland.
Best centres : Carlisle, Silloth.

Mr Cameron’s work sounds like a classic on a fascinating subject of its time reminding me once more was born too late yet again in some respects, very hardy sportsmen and women committed to their sport. Otter hunting the queen of summer sports.
Still wondering what became of the c.o.h

 

[nun_hunter]

I really shouldn’t get sucked into discussions with you. You twist words, shift meaning, selectively interpret and push perverse interpretations in deeply unpleasant ways.

I have seldom encountered someone who argues in such bad faith.

I should have learned. More fool me.

That's why they're under the ignore button for me. When they have to lead the argument away from their original point and pick holes in everything else it's because they know they are out of their depth.

Arguing with them is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what you say they'll strut around the board, crap on all the pieces and pretend they've won anyway

 

[Apthorpe]

I really shouldn’t get sucked into discussions with you. You twist words, shift meaning, selectively interpret and push perverse interpretations in deeply unpleasant ways.

Nobody sucked you into anything. You elected to start a stupid dispute about a wholly uncontroversial and correct thing I said and then committed all the devices you're alleging of me.
It is you, not I, who has been twisting words, shifting meanings, selectively interpreting and making unmerited conclusions. Why? I do not know. And rather than conduct yourself in good faith and explain you've decided to launch an unpleasant ad hominem attack which, ironically describes your own conduct more aptly than mine.

I have seldom encountered someone who argues in such bad faith.

What astonishing hypocrisy.

I should have learned. More fool me.

I feel much the same.

 

[Buchan]

Let's bring this thread back on track. I can't see a single valid reason for Stag Hunting with packs of dogs (is it always stags). Can anyone?
It isn't scientific research, it's inhumane, it's inefficient (in terms of control).

 

[AGR]

Let's bring this thread back on track. I can't see a single valid reason for Stag Hunting with packs of dogs (is it always stags). Can anyone?
It isn't scientific research, it's inhumane, it's inefficient (in terms of control).

No, not always stags!
Perhaps you might come down and have a day following them to have a better understanding/knowledge?

 

[User00053]

Not my cup of tea but not against others enjoying their sport or whatever label it is given.

 

[nun_hunter]

Let's bring this thread back on track. I can't see a single valid reason for Stag Hunting with packs of dogs (is it always stags). Can anyone?
It isn't scientific research, it's inhumane, it's inefficient (in terms of control).

It's fun and people enjoy it but they don't want to admit that even though it is true and would give their argument more credibility. Everyone does something for fun that would upset someone else or that someone else would disagree with, that in itself doesn't mean it's inherently wrong.

The issue is because it's fun and enjoyable at the expense of an animal it's hard to justify, but then so is any form of hunting. Anyone who hunts enjoys it no matter how much they say it's about the stalk, or being in the countryside or just the meat etc. Those are all good reasons but you could still do those without doing the kill at the end.

I've never hunted an animal with dogs it I know that if I was part of it I'd probably enjoy it. If I lived in NZ I'd most likely have a couple of pig dogs and enjoy hunting pigs in the woods and killing them with a knife. Is it a "crueller" than using a rifle? Yes I think it is but I'm not ashamed of that and certainly wouldn't gloss over that when trying to argue why I'd do it.

When fox hunting was banned I never once heard them say they enjoyed it and it was just a great community past time to all ride together over an unpredictable and challenging route and never really know how the day would turn out, which was a huge part of the fun. Instead there were all kinds of pseudo arguments about how effective it was, only targeting weaker foxes, safer than night shooting etc which lost them a lot more credibility.

 

[Apthorpe]

Let's bring this thread back on track. I can't see a single valid reason for Stag Hunting with packs of dogs (is it always stags). Can anyone?

Since when must a "valid reason for" something exist in order for it not to banned? The premise is constitutionally objectionable. It's nobody's valid business to ban it.

It isn't scientific research, it's inhumane, it's inefficient (in terms of control).

There are controversial aspects to at least one of these claims. One might as well ban non-procreative sex on the same grounds.

 

[User00053]

It's fun and people enjoy it but they don't want to admit that even though it is true and would give their argument more credibility. Everyone does something for fun that would upset someone else or that someone else would disagree with, that in itself doesn't mean it's inherently wrong.

The issue is because it's fun and enjoyable at the expense of an animal it's hard to justify, but then so is any form of hunting. Anyone who hunts enjoys it no matter how much they say it's about the stalk, or being in the countryside or just the meat etc. Those are all good reasons but you could still do those without doing the kill at the end.

I've never hunted an animal with dogs it I know that if I was part of it I'd probably enjoy it. If I lived in NZ I'd most likely have a couple of pig dogs and enjoy hunting pigs in the woods and killing them with a knife. Is it a "crueller" than using a rifle? Yes I think it is but I'm not ashamed of that and certainly wouldn't gloss over that when trying to argue why I'd do it.

When fox hunting was banned I never once heard them say they enjoyed it and it was just a great community past time to all ride together over an unpredictable and challenging route and never really know how the day would turn out, which was a huge part of the fun. Instead there were all kinds of pseudo arguments about how effective it was, only targeting weaker foxes, safer than night shooting etc which lost them a lot more credibility.

Agreed would add its a basic instinct for some without the frills, to others the horrors, stronger in some than others.

 

[timbrayford]

Thanks for that.

I am sure we all have our own opinion re NT.

Nothing for PETA or the RSPCA then?

Deer haters are the words that come to mind re the NT

 

[Keith Edmunds]

It's fun and people enjoy it but they don't want to admit that even though it is true and would give their argument more credibility. Everyone does something for fun that would upset someone else or that someone else would disagree with, that in itself doesn't mean it's inherently wrong.

The issue is because it's fun and enjoyable at the expense of an animal it's hard to justify, but then so is any form of hunting. Anyone who hunts enjoys it no matter how much they say it's about the stalk, or being in the countryside or just the meat etc. Those are all good reasons but you could still do those without doing the kill at the end.

I've never hunted an animal with dogs it I know that if I was part of it I'd probably enjoy it. If I lived in NZ I'd most likely have a couple of pig dogs and enjoy hunting pigs in the woods and killing them with a knife. Is it a "crueller" than using a rifle? Yes I think it is but I'm not ashamed of that and certainly wouldn't gloss over that when trying to argue why I'd do it.

When fox hunting was banned I never once heard them say they enjoyed it and it was just a great community past time to all ride together over an unpredictable and challenging route and never really know how the day would turn out, which was a huge part of the fun. Instead there were all kinds of pseudo arguments about how effective it was, only targeting weaker foxes, safer than night shooting etc which lost them a lot more credibility.

The big problem that the BDS and many others have with stag hunting is this....

If....the harbourer has selected a deer that needs to be removed from the herd based on - perhaps an injury, an illness, poor quality head - maybe simply mature age (all valid reasons) then why don't they just shoot it efficiently with a rifle. Their point is......Where is the justification in hunting it to the point of exhaustion, over many hours, until it can physically run no more, and is brought to bay and then shot - why not just shoot it when it was first detected and selected?

I fully understand why a deer charity cannot justify the above.

 

[nun_hunter]

The big problem that the BDS and many others have with stag hunting is this....

If....the harbourer has selected a deer that needs to be removed from the herd based on - perhaps an injury, an illness, poor quality head - maybe simply mature age (all valid reasons) then why don't they just shoot it efficiently with a rifle. Their point is......Where is the justification in hunting it to the point of exhaustion, over many hours, until it can physically run no more, and is brought to bay and then shot - why not just shoot it when it was first detected and selected?

I fully understand why a deer charity cannot justify the above.

I totally agree with the stance of the BDS as they are a charity that's purpose is deer research and welfare so I would be very surprised if they could support hunting with hounds.

Unless there were proven benefits to the herd as a whole that only come from hunting with hounds then it's virtually impossible to justify from a welfare perspective.

 

[Apthorpe]

I totally agree with the stance of the BDS as they are a charity that's purpose is deer research and welfare so I would be very surprised if they could support hunting with hounds.

Unless there were proven benefits to the herd as a whole that only come from hunting with hounds then it's virtually impossible to justify from a welfare perspective.

Which returns to the question of why anyone thinks it is necessary for something to be justified in order to not ban it. That is fundamentally opposed to the basic concepts of freedom in this country and any others with a common law system. The attitude is simply unconstitutional. It's impossible to justify the keeping of domestic cats from a welfare perspective, but guess what, none of the people who would be happy to see hunting with hounds banned think the welfare perspective is of the slightest relevance to whether people ought to be allowed to keep pets, or livestock for that matter.

May I take it that you support banning the keeping of cats and other pets, or is a degree of double standard at play?

 

[VSS]

Which returns to the question of why anyone thinks it is necessary for something to be justified in order to not ban it. That is fundamentally opposed to the basic concepts of freedom in this country and any others with a common law system. The attitude is simply unconstitutional. It's impossible to justify the keeping of domestic cats from a welfare perspective, but guess what, none of the people who would be happy to see hunting with hounds banned think the welfare perspective is of the slightest relevance to whether people ought to be allowed to keep pets, or livestock for that matter.

May I take it that you support banning the keeping of cats and other pets, or is a degree of double standard at play?

Nowhere in the BDS statement does it say that hunting deer with hounds should be banned. It only says that they (the BDS) cannot support it as a humane method of deer control. Which is absolutely fair enough. As a member of the BDS, I'd be pretty disappointed if that wasn't their stance.
I'm sure there are other organisations that are able to support and promote hunting with hounds. The BDS is not a hunting organisation.

 

[Apthorpe]

Nowhere in the BDS statement does it say that hunting deer with hounds should be banned. It only says that they (the BDS) cannot support it as a humane method of deer control. Which is absolutely fair enough. As a member of the BDS, I'd be pretty disappointed if that wasn't their stance.
I'm sure there are other organisations that are able to support and promote hunting with hounds. The BDS is not a hunting organisation.

Indeed. Yet, in the absence of saying they cannot support banning it, the statement takes a position. One could say they support something, that they are neutral on the matter or that they don't support it. There is a valid case that the people involved in managing that herd haven't done a bad job over the years, with regard to the overall welfare of the herd, and that might be worthy of at least a modicum of support. The statement is not a standalone event, there is a movement to ban hunting completely.

From a welfare perspective shooting deer in the head or neck is arguably not justifiable. However, most of us tend to the view that people who want to do that ought to be allowed to decide if and when to do it on their own conscience. Is that a disappointing way to look at it? Should I either decide the welfare issue is not significant, that it would be disproportionate to act or that it ought to be banned? Would it be good if the BDS and BASC published statements saying they don't support the practice of trying to shoot derr in the head or neck?

 

[VSS]

From a welfare perspective shooting deer in the head or neck is arguably not justifiable. However, most of us tend to the view that people who want to do that ought to be allowed to decide if and when to do it on their own conscience. Is that a disappointing way to look at it? Should I either decide the welfare issue is not significant, that it would be disproportionate to act or that it ought to be banned? Would it be good if the BDS and BASC published statements saying they don't support the practice of trying to shoot derr in the head or neck?

That's a very poor analogy.
Shooting deer in the head is 100% justifiable on welfare grounds, in situations where it is appropriate to do so. For example, one of the reasons I head shoot park deer is because it causes less stress to the rest of the herd.

 

[Keith Edmunds]

I totally agree with the stance of the BDS as they are a charity that's purpose is deer research and welfare so I would be very surprised if they could support hunting with hounds.

Unless there were proven benefits to the herd as a whole that only come from hunting with hounds then it's virtually impossible to justify from a welfare perspective.

There are benefits to the herd as a whole, or as I understand it, there are benefits to the local habitat and farmland, in that the hunts do break up the deer herds and disperse them.

As Exmoor has a long history of stag-hunting and thus a relatively short history of 'deer stalking' - and what history of deer-stalking it has is on a restricted basis - it is hard to define the theoretical health and distribution of the deer if they had been managed by deer stalking for the last 50 years.

 

[Ratel]

I have shot quite a few deer with bad neck wounds and broken jaws from adjacent stalkers trying to capitalise on financial returns. So I'm afraid if staghunting and hind hunting is a welfare issue then so is neck and head shooting, ban one welfare issue ban these practices as well, except in parks where the animal can be despatched quickly. Even using a dog in the field to try and despatch these animals doesn't always work unless it can effectively catch it and hold it on your ground. Stalking and hunting can highlight bad welfare issues as we all know so be careful as our enemies will take any advantage to ban all sports which we enjoy. It certainly is not fun trying to catch up with a deer that a client or guest has cocked up and though we all enjoy shooting deer public opinion will dictate the future of it. Hunting may not be something you would do but better not to voice too many opinions (including mine).