a stalking question

chill123

Well-Known Member
I was stalking last night and stalked into a Roe doe with two kids one was a buck ,the other a doe . My question is could i have legally shot the buck kid ?
 
You can shoot it if, and I think the law reads, "If it has been, or is about to be deprived, of its mother". It is a grey area as to whether the buck kid would still be dependant, but you could well argue a defence that you were within the law as it stands.

As to where the ethical cut off point comes, that is up to you to decide. I think it would survive here, so I would leave it.

Simon
 
Last edited:
You can shoot it if, and I think the law reads, "If it has been, or is about to be deprived, of its mother". It is a grey area as to whether the buck kid would still be dependant, but you could well argue a defence that you were within the law as it stands.

As to where the ethical cut off point comes, that is up to you to decide. I think it would survive here, so I would leave it.

Simon

As a General rule of thumb I make myself aware on previous Does that have been shot in the area and if there are no signs of them carrying milk any future buck kids get left , nature itself will tell you if offspring are dependant or not.
 
If you were in England no you could not if you were in scotland yes you can kids are exactly that until the first of april only then do they have a sex.
 
Relying on or requiring the aid of another for support. I think for roe kids, that goes well into late spring, well, right up to the point where the Doe tells it to F off...:eek:
 
This is a real 'can of worms' type of question!
It is now legal to shoot a dependant buck kid if you either have, or are about to orphan it.
That in itself sounds simple enough, but when is it no longer dependant?:confused:
Is it when it no longer relies on its mothers milk?

The simple fact that it is still with her would indicate that it is still dependant in some way would it not?
I think that kids are dependant on their mothers for some time once weaned as they aquire 'life skills' as they grow.
Where and what to eat, how to stay safe and warm etc.
Kids that lose their mother at an early age never seem to do very well even if they are weaned.
It is almost impossible to put a date on this as some kids grow faster than others and may even have been born a month or so apart anyway!
Common sense must therefore prevail, and each individual case taken on merit.
As a rough rule of thumb though, most kids seem to be at an independant age just after Christmas.
I try not to shoot the mother of any family group before Christmas.
A vague answer I know, but probably as good as you will get with such a 'grey area'!
MS:)
 
This is a real 'can of worms' type of question!
It is now legal to shoot a dependant buck kid if you either have, or are about to orphan it.
That in itself sounds simple enough, but when is it no longer dependant?:confused:
Is it when it no longer relies on its mothers milk?

The simple fact that it is still with her would indicate that it is still dependant in some way would it not?
I think that kids are dependant on their mothers for some time once weaned as they aquire 'life skills' as they grow.
Where and what to eat, how to stay safe and warm etc.
Kids that lose their mother at an early age never seem to do very well even if they are weaned.
It is almost impossible to put a date on this as some kids grow faster than others and may even have been born a month or so apart anyway!
Common sense must therefore prevail, and each individual case taken on merit.
As a rough rule of thumb though, most kids seem to be at an independant age just after Christmas.
I try not to shoot the mother of any family group before Christmas.
A vague answer I know, but probably as good as you will get with such a 'grey area'!
MS:)


Correct in the fact that it stands a chance of survival as basic life rudiments are met, other skills may obtained through mistakes it makes but the basic ingredient of the provision of not relying on its mother for food (IE Milk ) has been met
 
Last edited:
I'd say if it's still following it's mother round everywhere she goes, it's still dependant.
 
Correct in the fact that it stands a chance of survival as basic life rudiments are met, other skills may obtained through mistakes it makes but the basic ingredient of the provision of not relying on its mother for food (IE Milk ) has been met

But how can you quantify when that is exactly?
Weaning from milk to solids is a gradual process that takes time. Just because you see a kid nibbling at the odd leaf doesn't necessarily mean it is independant!
It might just be copying its mother for the very first time whilst developing yet another life skill. Fallow in particular will draw milk for long after they actually need to. It's just not that simple in reality!
MS
 
But how can you quantify when that is exactly?
Weaning from milk to solids is a gradual process that takes time. Just because you see a kid nibbling at the odd leaf doesn't necessarily mean it is independant!
It might just be copying its mother for the very first time whilst developing yet another life skill. Fallow in particular will draw milk for long after they actually need to. It's just not that simple in reality!
MS

I have already stated in a prior post that monitoring the does that have been shot in a particular area would depict when as a yard stick rule of thumb that the milks gone back , If this is monitored it can be safe to presume the younf have become independant of there mother in respect to food reliance then it can be safely assumed that the kids stand a greater percentage of survival ,There are eceptions to the rule and mistakes can be made but if 10 day time elapses from evidence of does in the area not producing milk then its a safe presumption they will survive.

Any decision made is relevant to individual areas though as some areas have a better food habitat than others.
Thats the yardstick I work to mother nature tells me when its safe to leave the buck kids
 
Last edited:
if 10 day time elapses from evidence of does in the area not producing milk then its a safe presumption they will survive.

I think it also depends on what you are trying to achieve Stu. I've found that animals orphaned that young will rarely develop into healthy fully grown adults.
If you are desperate to reduce numbers, then you might have no option, but if you want to promote a healthy population for the future, they are better either culled or left at the mothers heel at such an early age.
The law may well allow it, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is 'best practice'!
That's my humble opinion anyway.
MS:)
 
I think it also depends on what you are trying to achieve Stu. I've found that animals orphaned that young will rarely develop into healthy fully grown adults.
If you are desperate to reduce numbers, then you might have no option, but if you want to promote a healthy population for the future, they are better either culled or left at the mothers heel at such an early age.
The law may well allow it, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is 'best practice'!
That's my humble opinion anyway.
MS:)


Agreed:)
 
If I was faced with the situation where I had a mature doe, with buck and doe kids, I would probably take the young doe. If you shot the mature doe the chances for a 2nd shot may not present itself, so net result - two young deer orfaned.
If I was presented with a mature doe and doe kid, then I would probably go for a one,two and take both animals. In that case I would shoot the mature doe first, ideally with a neck shot to drop her on the spot, then a swift 2nd shot on the youngster.
I have always been taught to leave doe's with young bucks at heel. I never think orfaned bucks turn out to be good animals in the long run.
 
Legaly you could have shot the buck kid in England If you had just deprived him of or were about to deprive him of his mother but remember you can only shoot deer once!!

Dave
 
If I was faced with the situation where I had a mature doe, with buck and doe kids, I would probably take the young doe. If you shot the mature doe the chances for a 2nd shot may not present itself, so net result - two young deer orfaned.
If I was presented with a mature doe and doe kid, then I would probably go for a one,two and take both animals. In that case I would shoot the mature doe first, ideally with a neck shot to drop her on the spot, then a swift 2nd shot on the youngster.
I have always been taught to leave doe's with young bucks at heel. I never think orfaned bucks turn out to be good animals in the long run.

Interesting view and one we all seem to have different views on.
When I was a unpaid ranger at Eskdalemuir prior to the middle of December we was instructed to shoot the matriatic doe first with her usually still in milk the yearling kids always stood milling around as they depended on her and then they was taken out as well.
This theory put into practice was exceedingdly productive and rarely failed in taking all the family out.

It was obviously a different situation at the back end of January when the milk was going back and the kids were less dependant on mum, we had to be aware of this and a reverse of procedure took place where the doe kid was shot and buck kid left then the matriatic doe if we got the chance culling became more difficult due to this.

Not everyone adopts these methods and best practice suggests taking out the kids first prior to the doe but we had to remove beasts of the ground and protect the forest taking everything into consideration i still find that the method adopted worked the best in control and wildlife management.
Kind Regards
Stuart
 
I think I'm right in saying that the law simply doesn't define when dependency ceases. I guess if it went to court a reasonable definition would be whether or not the follower would suffer as a consequence of the mother being culled. If the mother is still in milk then it's pretty clear cut, but after that...... grey area!
 
Back
Top