SGA campaign for female deer season succeeds.

I remember when March was added to the female season in England and I remember some people moaning about it. Now it's no mentioned . The funny thing is I can remember the ones that kicked up a fuss and I know most of them continue into March.
The ones that kicked up a fuss wouldn't admit it but most were more concerned that it would effect their sport, money or business.
 
I think this has probably got more to do with a few influential estate owners being worried that if "their" hinds cross the march (see what I did there?) and get shot at a time when they would not have chosen to shoot them themselves it may reduce their cull (and hence their revenue) in the following season.
So all about keeping deer numbers up for the few, not welfare overall.
And if that is the case what's wrong with their reasoning? That is their business - how they make (some of) their money!
 
Can guarantee the foetus in a hind that gets shot suffers less than, say, a driven pheasant, a snared rabbit, a call bird in a trap or animals in any number of contexts most people on here aren’t crying about…
Not that it’s legal to snare rabbits in scotland any more
 
And if that is the case what's wrong with their reasoning? That is their business - how they make (some of) their money!
Nothing is wrong with their reasoning.
It would have been a perfectly valid reason for any estate or individual to object to the proposal.
And if they'd objected on those grounds then at least they would have been being honest.

But they wouldn't have got what they wanted. Hard financial facts - particularly if people earn their money from taking clients out to kill deer - doesn't earn any sympathy these days.
Manipulation of peoples' emotions using a totally false narrative (ie, that red hinds are heavily pregnant and close to giving birth in March) clearly does. And now the damage is done, and an opportunity has been thrown away.
 
Most people that get hit by a bus don’t “suffer” really, as they don’t know about it - but it doesn’t make it happening a good thing.

One thing that isn’t mentioned here is how all of a sudden the government is all for deer being shot, and they paint it under the guise of “welfare”….absolute nonsense in that regards and if anyone believes that they are idiots, the only reason they want deer shot is the tree agenda, and it’s not about environmental impact issues - we know that by the fact they plant trees in mosses and bogs which are better carbon sinks than the trees they plant that ruin these - the only reason the government is happy for deer to be shot is it gets them money by helping support the tree planting scam - someone is getting rich out of it.

The knife to the foetus point - yes, I have done this, regardless of what people say, no one can confirm what the foetus feels with any certainty, and they absolutely do not die at the same time as the doe in all instances, and are moving when the gralloch is extracted, granted, it likely won’t be for long but if I can reduce at all for humane reasons I will, and most people will perform are the gralloch to help it decompose faster anyway.

There seems to be some sarcasm and humour being pointed at stalkers mental well-being…some will be effected by this, I think it’s only natural and the day I stop caring about the welfare of the target species is the day I’m done, nothing at all the matter with trying to be humane and considerate when getting a task done, if you think you are “well’ard” because you don’t….carry on, my god how tough you look…😂
By opening the uterus and exposing the foetus, you are almost certainly inflicting more discomfort than leaving it to die. The foetus has protective mechanisms to cope with low oxygen which the paper discusses. Having done a lot of "slash caesars" the calf/lamb never moved until it was exposed to the air and the umbilical cord severed.
 
Nothing is wrong with their reasoning.
It would have been a perfectly valid reason for any estate or individual to object to the proposal.
And if they'd objected on those grounds then at least they would have been being honest.

But they wouldn't have got what they wanted. Hard financial facts - particularly if people earn their money from taking clients out to kill deer - doesn't earn any sympathy these days.
Manipulation of peoples' emotions using a totally false narrative (ie, that red hinds are heavily pregnant and close to giving birth in March) clearly does. And now the damage is done, and an opportunity has been thrown away.
Many estates and land owners would of objected on those grounds, but it's up to the SGA what they decide to run with that will get the result they want.
Well it's not exactly false that red hinds are heavily pregnant in March (agreed that close to giving birth is nonsense).
Not really an opportunity... If it's required then apply for it, the highland estates are not over populated despite what people think, the deer problem is now in the lowlands and suburban areas where huge numbers of roe deer are exploding so the extension of the hind season season wouldnt make a difference, and where it would (commercial forestry plantations) the oos is applied for and granted for the start of Oct to end of March no problem usually so again no loss (all though it would save nature Scot alot of admin to just change the season for hinds in the way they have for stags)
 
I've only skimmed this thread so if it's been mentioned I've not picked it up, I would rather eat a Highland Hind while she was in reasonable condition than one that has had a winter on its back.
Ethically am neither up nor down, I have been involved in out of season culling, while it's not a great joy to see fully developed fetus it's part and parcel of the task in hand.
The season is fine as it is because getting out of season licences isn't really difficult if damage is being done.
 
Many estates and land owners would of objected on those grounds, but it's up to the SGA what they decide to run with that will get the result they want.
Well it's not exactly false that red hinds are heavily pregnant in March (agreed that close to giving birth is nonsense).
Not really an opportunity... If it's required then apply for it, the highland estates are not over populated despite what people think, the deer problem is now in the lowlands and suburban areas where huge numbers of roe deer are exploding so the extension of the hind season season wouldnt make a difference, and where it would (commercial forestry plantations) the oos is applied for and granted for the start of Oct to end of March no problem usually so again no loss (all though it would save nature Scot alot of admin to just change the season for hinds in the way they have for stags)
It was a missed opportunity, in so far as it would have taken away some unnecessary legislation (something that shooters are always complaining we're overburdened with) and placed the decision making process firmly in the hands of the people who actually manage deer. Something we all want, surely?

And it sets a dangerous precedent. From saying that it is unacceptable to shoot deer that are within 2-3 months of giving birth, it is but a small step to saying that it is unacceptable to shoot any pregnant deer. But, as you will know, all female deer (with the exception of fawns/calves/kids and yearlings) are pregnant when we shoot them. So where would that leave us, from a management perspective? It opens the door to those loonies who think that the most appropriate way to control deer numbers would be to feed them on contraceptive medication. So, lacing our environment, and food chains, with hormones. Is that what you'd like to see? And what effect might that have on the public's perception of venison as a healthy meat? Or even taking things a step further, how about gene editing? Gene edited stags could be released on the hill that would sire offspring that were genetically infertile, and in just one generation the birth rates of wild deer would fall dramatically. Is that really the future of deer management?

I know from experience that organisations are dominated by a few influential individuals who always get their way, and clearly the SGA is no different. But in this instance they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for turning their backs on common sense and good deer management and pandering to those few individuals by putting out a false story for manipulative purposes.
 
I've only skimmed this thread so if it's been mentioned I've not picked it up, I would rather eat a Highland Hind while she was in reasonable condition than one that has had a winter on its back.
Ethically am neither up nor down, I have been involved in out of season culling, while it's not a great joy to see fully developed fetus it's part and parcel of the task in hand.
The season is fine as it is because getting out of season licences isn't really difficult if damage is being done.
Dad always asked me to keep milky does back to eat come ferreting in the spring.
 
By opening the uterus and exposing the foetus, you are almost certainly inflicting more discomfort than leaving it to die. The foetus has protective mechanisms to cope with low oxygen which the paper discusses. Having done a lot of "slash caesars" the calf/lamb never moved until it was exposed to the air and the umbilical cord severed.
It’a coming out of there regardless…no one is doing an autopsy, just clearing up a gralloch.
 
It’a coming out of there regardless…no one is doing an autopsy, just clearing up a gralloch.
If you're just doing a gralloch then there's no need to open the uterus.
And, as @Buchan rightly points out, if you're concerned about the welfare of the unborn foetus, it's best not to.
 
So, maybe a question more for the vets etc on here:
How long before a fetus inside a dead Hind/Doe expires from lack of oxygen?

I’d have thought this would happen within a few minutes of the death of the pregnant deer?

Therefore unless the stalker runs in straight after the shot and grallochs immediately then surely the fetus would be dead?
 
Back
Top