Dangers

ladystalker

Well-Known Member
#1
In this weeks ST mag there is a letter about a fallow buck caught up in a rope hanging from a tree the article starts with the word “recently” it goes on to say that the ranger shot the rope to liberate the beast as it was ok to have the rope still attached because it would cast its antlers within a few days, now correct me if l am wrong but have the fallow just gone through their antler growing period and they will not cast for a good few months yet.
So this brings into question the welfare of the deer, if this incident did happen recently as the article suggests then a whole manner of things could happen to the beast like maybe tangle ling with another buck during the rut then another deer will be involved with even less chance of finding the unfortunate animals or maybe getting caught on a fence or similar.
Now l can understand the reader wanting to publicise the good Samaritan work done by the ranger or to let us know of an unusual incident and it does publicise one of the dangers that our wildlife faces, but if it was a recent incident then maybe ST should think more of what they publish and when they publish it.(or am l just ranting :) )
 

devilishdave

Well-Known Member
#2
Samaritan

I read the article. I would have shot the buck to be honest rather than let it run off to get tangeld up again. Or walked up to it and cut it free dependant on its reaction to the aproach.

Dave
 

EMcC

Well-Known Member
#3
I read the article but did not do a post mortem on it, just made a note of the point that was being put across.
I come across this quite often on Salisbury Plain because of the telephone/missile wire left behind by troops, most times the only answer, if I find them in time, is a bullet, unfortunately.
 

Beowulf

Well-Known Member
#4
I don't see why he didn't shoot the Buck. It may have recieved injuries from being tangled up that would affect the deer's standard of life and may lead to it suffering needlessly.

Wouldn't a bullet in the deer be a safer option, rather than 'Trick' shots at bits of rope?
 
#5
Agree with Beowulf, I thought the rope shooting thing a bit unlikely !
One of the keepers near me had a fallow with its back legs caught between the top two strands of wire earlier this year. It was still alive when he shot it.
 

Duncs

Well-Known Member
#8
Sorry, I honestly didn't think it might offend people. I was called out by a local farmer, found these two in a wheat field. It took me an age to belly crawl close enough to actually see what i was doing. I guess my brain would not accept it. 30 meter out, then you get confronted with....which to shoot first. Lets just say, once you shoot the first, the second does not just stand still. The moral, ....don't leace rubbish, and anything tangled should be shot on sight. That way one dies, having lived a normal life, rather than two dieing slowly. Again sorry if the picture shocked. It just seemed appropriate.
 

apollo

Well-Known Member
#9
nowt wrong with the pic mate you done them a fine favour, you could of come over all crocodile dundee and tryed to cut them free but you would of been injured in the process and theres no telling what injuries they are carrying, good job............
 

Beowulf

Well-Known Member
#10
Sorry Duncs, I'm not offended, you misunderstood me. Its a good picture and your actions in dealing with the situation are commendable.
As you so rightly say, these unfortunate animals met a terrible end due to litter!
I'd like to get hold of pictures like this to show people who go on about hunters being 'blood thirsty' and killing for the sake of it. How many deer die each year due to peoples ignorance? Fly tipped rubbish, car accidents? Pet dogs killing and injuring deer and their fawns is another thing that really gets my 'pip'. I wouldn't think twice about shooting a dog that was chasing deer. Sorry thats just the way i feel about it! :(

Good work Duncs!
 
T

Turqu

Guest
#11
Beowulf said:
. I wouldn't think twice about shooting a dog that was chasing deer. Sorry thats just the way i feel about it! :(
You could well be shooting away your FAC if you did. :eek:

Deer are not considered to be live stock. Given the big brother, PC world in which we now live in in the UK. I think you'd police firearm licensing department would only be to happy to take your FAC from you. Should they receive an official complaint.
 

Beowulf

Well-Known Member
#12
Hi Turqu,
Yep point taken, but I would hope that the part of my FAC that states:-'(iv) the shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans.' That and the fact that on the land I hunt there are signs asking dog owners to keep their dogs under control, plus its private land.

I know it sounds bad, but I have five dogs- three Lurchers and two Jack Russells. I have hunted with them on land I know deer to be on. My dogs are good hunters, but they know that deer is off the menu, unless I shoot it.
Its all down to responsible ownership as I told the 'twot' who watched his dog clear my 5ft brick wall, run a'mock in my garden and kill my best Light Sussex Cock!

Too many people shrug their shoulders and say 'Bad Dog'! Its not my fault!
 
T

Turqu

Guest
#13
Sorry mate condition (iv) only applies to live stock and deer are not live stock. You can put up as many warning signs as you like. It wouldn't make any difference at all. You would have committed an illegal act.

You'll find that the Countryside Code is not worth the paper its written on.
 

Beowulf

Well-Known Member
#14
Maybe but if I have put up signage stating that the land is private and that under no circumstances will dogs chasing animals on that land, live stock or wild, be tolerated and I have maintained the fence line between the private and any publicly accessable land. I have shown by my actions that I have taken all reasonable action to exclude dogs and therefore my actions would be justified. It is then up to the law and the claimant ( Mr F.Wit) to explain why I have done wrong, not for me to prove my innocence.

At the end of the day clause (iv) states "animals" not "livestock" so is not restrictive to livestock.

Lucky old me the wife is a legal eagle! :D

I will of course run this past my FA officer. :D
 
T

Turqu

Guest
#15
Seems to be a lot of unnecessary work just to test the water as it were if the situation ever arose. Justification is often in such circumstances a very personal judgement call. Until the judge makes his ruling that is.:cry:

I think you'd need the service of you missus and her boss if it ever happened in order to keep your FAC. It would definitely go to Crown Court if you disputed it. How much do QC's charge these days? I don't think you'd get much help from the likes of BASC either.

I don't think you FAO will be much use to you as they are not qualified to offer a professional opinion. Certainly not if your ever decided to do the foul deed based upon his or her advise and ended up with the rug being firmly pulled from underneath you along with your FAC.

Let us know how you get on and of course let us know when you ever pull the trigger on a canine.

I've been there and done that. Not something I'd want to repeat in a hurry. And it was a livestock worrying incident.
 

Beowulf

Well-Known Member
#16
Its a hypothetical situation. Should it ever happen my actions would be appropriate (in my mind) to the situation as it unfolds.
So if Mr F.Wit and his 'hypothetical' deer worrying dog are out there, 'Beware'!!!!! :eek: :lol:
 
T

Turqu

Guest
#17
Theres the rub, its not whats "appropriate (in my mind) to the situation as it unfolds" that counts at the end of the day. :(
 

devilishdave

Well-Known Member
#18
Dogs

Beowulf said:
Maybe but if I have put up signage stating that the land is private and that under no circumstances will dogs chasing animals on that land, live stock or wild, be tolerated and I have maintained the fence line between the private and any publicly accessable land. I have shown by my actions that I have taken all reasonable action to exclude dogs and therefore my actions would be justified. It is then up to the law and the claimant ( Mr F.Wit) to explain why I have done wrong, not for me to prove my innocence.

At the end of the day clause (iv) states "animals" not "livestock" so is not restrictive to livestock.

Lucky old me the wife is a legal eagle! :D

I will of course run this past my FA officer. :D
Personaly I beleive dogs should be under control at all times. Having said that I wouldn't entertain shoting some ones dog.

You are on very shackey ground killing some ones dog for chasing deer. most dogs couldnt catch a deer for a start.

Many people treat their dogs like members of the family and if you were to shoot the dog you might have reprecutions you hadn't thought of on your hands. for instance they might then go out of their way to kill somthing that is close to you!!


Think before you pull the trigger your actions reflect on all decent honest hunters who come after you.

Dave
 

Duncs

Well-Known Member
#19
Hi everyone. Lets not bicker on threads that were started on a different topic. All it seves to do is drive people away from a very informative website......If you have nothing constructive to say, don't bother, or try starting a new post. \That way we don't all have to read through pages of bickering.
 

Beowulf

Well-Known Member
#20
Sorry I didn't realise that I was bickering, I thought it was a conversation on a hypothetical incident.
I have seen 'travellers' lurchers bring down a deer I'll spare you the details not very pretty. Thats all I have to say on the matter.
 

Top