Dog taking deer down

Keith Edmunds

Well-Known Member
I and UKSHA members are lacking in manners because we see methods being used incorrectly and exactly as you and this thread has shown those stating they know what they are doing then want to know the correct way of doing things and within a couple of months-again,they say that they knew what they were doing all along.
All that is happening is that dogs are being ruined and a dog will get injured or possibly a handler hurt,yet it is us that is always in the wrong even after we have been proven correct time and time again in the past.
Animals deserve to be despatched quickly,efficiently and safely......when teams do not know what they are doing they should not be tracking animals.

Does anyone actually think that video is an acceptable way of behaving around an injured or ill animal ?

Is that animal welfare ?

Not any dog or breed can do this job,dogs and teams that are not properly trained are causing animal suffering......in time they will get hurt,some have been already......
Could you just answer the question?.......Please........Pretty Please............
 

Keith Edmunds

Well-Known Member
I think Keith is owed a public legal video rather a long winded evasive explanation.

Could make it in 1080 HD and 60fps please?
A video would be great Charles. For me it's purely academic - just a general interest - but others are obviously wanting to know how to train in such a manner. I could guess the answer and apply a little common sense...But why guess when an expert could simply share knowledge?
 

jamross65

Well-Known Member
Animals deserve to be despatched quickly,efficiently and safely......when teams do not know what they are doing they should not be tracking animals.

Does anyone actually think that video is an acceptable way of behaving around an injured or ill animal ?

Is that animal welfare ?
You seriously have a short memory and the hypocrisy is palpable.....how things change.
 

Wolverine

Well-Known Member
You seriously have a short memory and the hypocrisy is palpable.....how things change.
As stated previously......unacceptable behaviour around an ill or wounded animal,then actually videoing it is sickening and nothing to do with animal welfare.

Back to the point,that dog was creating suffering,not ending it and no tracker or handler should be creating suffering-tracking is all about ending suffering.
This is why when people don’t know what they are doing they cause suffering as per the video evidence.

When a dog/team are not trained properly this is what happens.
 

jamross65

Well-Known Member
Gentlemen,

Whilst watching this thread with interest, I would like to know as to which Act is being referred to with the statement of “section 25”.

If this is supposed to be referring to part of the Firearmd Act 1968, then one is referring to supplying a firearm to someone who is drunk or insane, surely this is not relevant? Or are you referring to section 20 and that of trespass with a firearm?
They keep referring to Sect 25 of the Deer Act as the legislation that apparently allows them (only them they claim now because they are the UKSHA and wear their pants outside their tights) to enter land in Scotland with a firearm to dispatch a wounded animal to end suffering. Incorrect. The legislation is very clear and does not refer to any method in carrying out this act of mercy killing. What the legislation allows for as an example, is to use a means that would be deemed more appropriate than the animal expiring and suffering over a lengthy period of time. Examples that really could be viewed in other circumstances as less acceptable or even themselves illegal, a .22RF or shotgun being two methods that otherwise on a healthy deer would be illegal but in the case of a suffering animal be appropriate as opposed to the alternative of a slow and painful death if left. Even striking the animal to the head with a hammer may be a more suitable method than simply being left. The use of a knife to kill the injured animal would be the obvious method without a firearm. Nowhere however, does the legislation say that this Act (The Deer Act) allows them to enter land with a firearm for this purpose without permission from the landowner nor does it cross refer to the Firearms Act that is in fact the legislation that makes entering land with a firearm without permission an offence. It is this act, not the Deer Act that would in essence be where they would fall foul of the law if taken to court following a complaint.

Under the Firearms Act you MUST have permission to enter land with a firearm, doing so without lawful authority (permission) or reasonable excuse is an offence. What they are hedging their bets on is that pursuit of an injured deer will carte blanche be the reasonable excuse required. It has never been tested and there is no case law.

They (UKSHA) seem to think that where an animal is suffering then ALL other reasons that caused the legislation to be passed in the first place is now irrelevant based on the overwhelming need to end an animals suffering. So, estate business and operations, movement of people, other legal shooting activities already underway on said ground, health and safety all become irrelevant in the UKSHA's pursuit of being German and trampling unhindered across any land they see fit. At the meeting they referred to earlier an agreement was reached that NOTHING would appear on social media to remove the constant bickering over this. That agreement lasted until the same evening when UKSHA members claimed everyone was in agreement with them over this matter. Wrong....

SNH were contacted directly and asked if they supported this belief. They didn't. A lawyer contacted by them said he would support them and defend them if charged with offences referred to above. They got a letter from him to that effect and constantly claim that means they are right. Well, in my experience in any judicial proceedings there are two sides, both of whom are there because they each think they are right......yet one always loses......

The only way anyone can claim this action is 'legal' when saying they have a 'reasonable excuse' is by referring to case law and there isn't any.....yet.

Personally I would be amazed if a Sheriff sitting on any future case would open the gates and say that in the pursuit of an injured deer the Firearms Act offence of entering land without permission is wavered or an amendment to said legislation is made referring to this as a reason. My belief is that somehow the UKSHA want to try and get the recognition they crave in being the ONLY official body given special dispensation in doing so. But that would mean saying to EVERY landowner in Scotland they could potentially at some point have unknown people on their land with a firearm without their permission using the excuse of recovering wounded deer.....

I may well be proven wrong in the future regarding my thoughts on this. But at this present moment in time believe I have as much chance of being correct as they do....
 

jamross65

Well-Known Member
As stated previously......unacceptable behaviour around an ill or wounded animal,then actually videoing it is sickening and nothing to do with animal welfare.

Back to the point,that dog was creating suffering,not ending it and no tracker or handler should be creating suffering-tracking is all about ending suffering.
This is why when people don’t know what they are doing they cause suffering as per the video evidence.

When a dog/team are not trained properly this is what happens.
Aye, whatever......short, short memory regarding training methods
 

Keith Edmunds

Well-Known Member
Ok I am out. Back to the clarity of the 'real world'. I seem unable to edit my post with the HS video, I had not realised it was linked with any members, otherwise I would not have posted it, and did not mean to cause any offense.
 

jamross65

Well-Known Member
Keith,
You are 100% correct.
The above HS is a UKDTR’s handlers dog.
Honestly,I find the video abhorrent.
That is not about animal welfare at all.
The dog does not know what it is doing and neither does the handler.
Any dog/team trained to do the job properly would not have videoed a dog struggling to do anything other than sit with a dead animal at its feet having killed it.
This video is proof positive of exactly what I have said all the way through this thread.
Jamross also knows the handler and knew the dog above-the whole issue here is the dog and handler don’t know what they are doing.
Rob and Origo.......
I did not post this video as I would not be negative towards others like some are negative towards UKSHA and it’s members.
As said this video is all that is required to be shown as it shows the gulf in experience and knowledge.
Arrogant perhaps Keith but as you’ve said,the HS is struggling and instead of taking videos of a dog struggling with a live animal,the handler should have concentrated on killing the animal.
In this instance what happened here with that animal was way way more suffering being created.
That animal is stressed and the dog and handler do not know what they are doing and as stated creating more animal suffering.
Really this video if given to some authorities should actually end in a prosecution for creating animal suffering.
All the best
George
This video is years old and this is the first time I have seen it, in fact taken BEFORE the UKDTR or the UKSHA were formed or even considered. A lot has been learned since then. I would suggest at that time even you George didn't have a clue regarding hounds, training them and how to work them. The hound in the video came from the same source yours did, Rudi. You didn't have the backing of the VH, ISHV or anyone else for that matter to refer to. That came later. Yet you still went out and worked the dogs you had.....without a clue.....
 

jer

Well-Known Member
George/all to show my genuine interest and perhaps lighten the mood I would appreciate thoughts on this video. Different people have different opinions as to how these dogs should have responded to this situation.

Read this thread through and obviously a lot of history here which I will not comment on but Keith that vid in my opinion was awesome and puts into context what sort, not type, breed or standard you need when dealing with a wild animal. That Teckel like nearly all terriers thought he was about 100 kg heavier than he actually is and just got into it. A very good friend who has lived and breathed deer stalking for over 40 years had a black lab that had the terrier attitude and just got on the line of a wounded deer and dealt with it like a terrier does, it was bloody fearless and killed stags without hesitation, for me that is about as efficient and humane as it gets.
 
Last edited:

rem284

Well-Known Member
2.) What IS the correct way to train a dog to 'pull down' and not simply 'hold at bay'?
We are waiting George. Obvs, no one else in the world knows the correct way so why dont you put us all right on this one particular topic. Please dont talk in riddles

Whilst we are waiting: imho and with the little experience that I have gained by do this kind of work daily for a few decades. Some dogs within the same chosen breed are more adept at bring a deer down and killing it quickly and some breds are also more adept. When I look to select a dog I look for one with a bold nature because I think this is what helps. I currently have 3 gwp's all of which will kill(well, the old bitch is now retired). The old bitch has been the best at this and did not need any input from me from start to retirement. My current 2 gwp's that are still working will kill most of the time but depending on the circumstances will also bring stags to bay. These circumstances are usually when a stag is pretty much lively. Either way it's better than what I can do without having these dogs. I also would like to make it clear at this particular time that the amount of follow ups that I need to do is not many in relation to the number of deer I shoot. So I dont really feel the need to hone my shooting skills as suggested earlier.

I do believe in the fact that people who shoot animal or birds shoot be encouraged to keep a dog that is fit for purpose. I know that this is sometimes difficult due to some circumstances. This is where the UKDTR and the UKSHA should be able to help with the service that they can offer. I would say that some of the comments and/or the way they have been made during this thread has not done the UKSHA any favours
 

Hanechdene

Well-Known Member
They keep referring to Sect 25 of the Deer Act as the legislation that apparently allows them (only them they claim now because they are the UKSHA and wear their pants outside their tights) to enter land in Scotland with a firearm to dispatch a wounded animal to end suffering. Incorrect. The legislation is very clear and does not refer to any method in carrying out this act of mercy killing. What the legislation allows for as an example, is to use a means that would be deemed more appropriate than the animal expiring and suffering over a lengthy period of time. Examples that really could be viewed in other circumstances as less acceptable or even themselves illegal, a .22RF or shotgun being two methods that otherwise on a healthy deer would be illegal but in the case of a suffering animal be appropriate as opposed to the alternative of a slow and painful death if left. Even striking the animal to the head with a hammer may be a more suitable method than simply being left. The use of a knife to kill the injured animal would be the obvious method without a firearm. Nowhere however, does the legislation say that this Act (The Deer Act) allows them to enter land with a firearm for this purpose without permission from the landowner nor does it cross refer to the Firearms Act that is in fact the legislation that makes entering land with a firearm without permission an offence. It is this act, not the Deer Act that would in essence be where they would fall foul of the law if taken to court following a complaint.

Under the Firearms Act you MUST have permission to enter land with a firearm, doing so without lawful authority (permission) or reasonable excuse is an offence. What they are hedging their bets on is that pursuit of an injured deer will carte blanche be the reasonable excuse required. It has never been tested and there is no case law.

They (UKSHA) seem to think that where an animal is suffering then ALL other reasons that caused the legislation to be passed in the first place is now irrelevant based on the overwhelming need to end an animals suffering. So, estate business and operations, movement of people, other legal shooting activities already underway on said ground, health and safety all become irrelevant in the UKSHA's pursuit of being German and trampling unhindered across any land they see fit. At the meeting they referred to earlier an agreement was reached that NOTHING would appear on social media to remove the constant bickering over this. That agreement lasted until the same evening when UKSHA members claimed everyone was in agreement with them over this matter. Wrong....

SNH were contacted directly and asked if they supported this belief. They didn't. A lawyer contacted by them said he would support them and defend them if charged with offences referred to above. They got a letter from him to that effect and constantly claim that means they are right. Well, in my experience in any judicial proceedings there are two sides, both of whom are there because they each think they are right......yet one always loses......

The only way anyone can claim this action is 'legal' when saying they have a 'reasonable excuse' is by referring to case law and there isn't any.....yet.

Personally I would be amazed if a Sheriff sitting on any future case would open the gates and say that in the pursuit of an injured deer the Firearms Act offence of entering land without permission is wavered or an amendment to said legislation is made referring to this as a reason. My belief is that somehow the UKSHA want to try and get the recognition they crave in being the ONLY official body given special dispensation in doing so. But that would mean saying to EVERY landowner in Scotland they could potentially at some point have unknown people on their land with a firearm without their permission using the excuse of recovering wounded deer.....

I may well be proven wrong in the future regarding my thoughts on this. But at this present moment in time believe I have as much chance of being correct as they do....
Thank you for your explanation.

And my understanding too is that reasonable excuse would be required however following up an injured animal is unlikely to constitute this. If it did then one would could enter land to retrieve any injured animal but of course this would likely contravene other criminal laws.

I would hope that no one would be foolish enough to enter land with a firearm without the express permission of the land owner or their representative.
 

James0586

Well-Known Member
I have read this thread with interest. I train dogs for a living for different disciplines protection and detection.

One thing that has always stuck with me was when a trainer that I respect a great deal once said to me.

“If you have three dog trainers in a room together, the only thing two of them will agree on is what the third is doing wrong!”

I believe this is the case here with this thread.

All threads have good reasoning behind their arguments/methods. It is true you can train different dogs to do different jobs, any dog will do it if it’s taught to do it or has it’s natural abilities to help it, some have been bred purely for purpose also. AGREE

All handlers should use their dogs to end suffering fast. AGREE

In my line of work I have stopped answering the question :

“what do you think of my dog?” With a simple “it doesn’t matter what I think of your dog, if you are happy with what you have then it doesn’t matter what I think!”

(Believe me I have ****ed some people off with my replies. I’m not better than them by any means but I do let my dogs do the talking now).

The long and the short of this is that if you are happy with your dog then carry on, if your not then seek help from an organisation like UKSHA or UKDTR.

Some of the threads have come across a little awkward in the reading. AGREE

If I’m passionate about something I will defend it also, wouldn’t you? a little tact is needed mind!

I don’t have an opinion on this thread really, I know how to get a dog to bite and hold people so it wouldn’t be difficult to change it to deer IMHO .... some people have dogs that are good at it (taking deer down) and others not so good but get the same end result?

What’s the real argument when the end goal is the same? Animal welfare /deer recovered /deers suffering ended?

I had a Malinois that would track (criminals) anywhere and everywhere. He would bite hold and drag anyone from anywhere (your shape size of no issue to him) that would with no doubt have excelled at pulling deer down. He was not a hunting dog or bred for such purpose but had the correct minerals needed to do this job through his breeding.

If i still had him I would use him for deer follow up/ recovery no problem! It wouldn’t be difficult to change his mind set from people to deer!

Horses for courses perhaps or using what you have to best suit you?

It’s an individuals choice surely?

(I did like that Teckle video mind, he certainly has the minerals.)

Cheers James
 

rem284

Well-Known Member
I have read this thread with interest. I train dogs for a living for different disciplines protection and detection.

One thing that has always stuck with me was when a trainer that I respect a great deal once said to me.

“If you have three dog trainers in a room together, the only thing two of them will agree on is what the third is doing wrong!”

I believe this is the case here with this thread.

All threads have good reasoning behind their arguments/methods. It is true you can train different dogs to do different jobs, any dog will do it if it’s taught to do it or has it’s natural abilities to help it, some have been bred purely for purpose also. AGREE

All handlers should use their dogs to end suffering fast. AGREE

In my line of work I have stopped answering the question :

“what do you think of my dog?” With a simple “it doesn’t matter what I think of your dog, if you are happy with what you have then it doesn’t matter what I think!”

(Believe me I have ****ed some people off with my replies. I’m not better than them by any means but I do let my dogs do the talking now).

The long and the short of this is that if you are happy with your dog then carry on, if your not then seek help from an organisation like UKSHA or UKDTR.

Some of the threads have come across a little awkward in the reading. AGREE

If I’m passionate about something I will defend it also, wouldn’t you? a little tact is needed mind!

I don’t have an opinion on this thread really, I know how to get a dog to bite and hold people so it wouldn’t be difficult to change it to deer IMHO .... some people have dogs that are good at it (taking deer down) and others not so good but get the same end result?

What’s the real argument when the end goal is the same? Animal welfare /deer recovered /deers suffering ended?

I had a Malinois that would track (criminals) anywhere and everywhere. He would bite hold and drag anyone from anywhere (your shape size of no issue to him) that would with no doubt have excelled at pulling deer down. He was not a hunting dog or bred for such purpose but had the correct minerals needed to do this job through his breeding.

If i still had him I would use him for deer follow up/ recovery no problem! It wouldn’t be difficult to change his mind set from people to deer!

Horses for courses perhaps or using what you have to best suit you?

It’s an individuals choice surely?

(I did like that Teckle video mind, he certainly has the minerals.)

Cheers James
This speaks of experience. Well said
 

mchughcb

Well-Known Member
As stated previously......unacceptable behaviour around an ill or wounded animal,then actually videoing it is sickening and nothing to do with animal welfare.

Back to the point,that dog was creating suffering,not ending it and no tracker or handler should be creating suffering-tracking is all about ending suffering.
This is why when people don’t know what they are doing they cause suffering as per the video evidence.

When a dog/team are not trained properly this is what happens.
Hmmm maybe but i self film every hunt. I can see what went right and wrong and learn from it. There is a plethora of armchair youtube hunting experts also keen to leave advice in the comment section as well yet they have not one second of themselves hunting or working posted

Please do not fall into this category. Film all your work and publish it on social media. That way all the other experts can advise you on your ethics, your skill, your dogs performance and the legality of what they see.

Bit like commenting on this forum but to a much larger audience.
 

Keith Edmunds

Well-Known Member
Read this thread through and obviously a lot of history here which I will not comment on but Keith that vid in my opinion was awesome and puts into context what sort, not type, breed or standard you need when dealing with a wild animal. That Teckel like nearly all terriers thought he was about 100 kg heavier than he actually is and just got into it. A very good friend who has lived and breathed deer stalking for over 40 years had a black lab that had the terrier attitude and just got on the line of a wounded deer and dealt with it like a terrier does, it was bloody fearless and killed stags without hesitation, for me that is about as efficient and humane as it gets.
Thanks jer. I am done with the politics and the attitude, let's get back to some interesting comments about dog behaviour. You certainly cannot talk about a 'breed' without taking into account 'individual variation'. We have had six dachshunds over the past 11 years and they are all different, our two litter sisters are like chalk and cheese. Even when breeders develop strains via line breeding you still cannot fully predict the outcome.

Here is a clip of my Serbian friends dog that is quite interesting and amusing. The breeder of this dog is a font of knowledge, started off with English pointers in 1968 but has been breeding working dachshunds since 1980, true gent and always happy to give great advice to all.

 

Dan Newcombe

Well-Known Member
I cant quite see the issue with this. There is an exemption to the law for retrieving game - hence the posts that you always see of lads trying to be clever with honking great big, marked up bull crosses and foxes with the caption 'shot and retrieved'.

A dog taking down a deer is no different to a gundog bringing back a runner, they have chased and stopped it to end the suffering and there is allowance in the law for that. It is totally different to coursing deer with dogs.

Dogs will figure out the best way to do it which might not be the most clean thing in the world the first time but they have to learn and then if they get the knack they are away. If you have a very mobile deer shot in the leg or the jaw how would you propose to get on terms with it? My thought would be that a suitably sized, fast dog will sort the situation out a lot faster if it is turned loose at the appropriate time than if it was on a lead - the dog will decide if it should bay or take hold and that will vary for each dog and situation.

I think that the issue is that people are trying to dictate the correct way to follow up a deer. There are plenty of guys up here contracting at night with a dog that will find many, many deer. They wont be in kevlar trousers and a visor and the dog is unlikely to be on a long lead but they will find the deer in question. There are also people that do it the 'right' way with lines and the trousers and the visor etc - point being that for the purposes of the role they fulfill, both ways work.

The continent will always have better tracking dogs and therefore a better system than we do - they do it much more because they shoot driven deer and boar. They look at out terriers and gundogs for the same reason - we tend to do it more and therefore better than them.

A dog that will take a deer down is invaluable IMO for someone who shoots a lot of deer, i would like to understand the other options to turning a good dog loose (genuinely) to end a track if the deer is very mobile.

On the issue of accessing land with no permission, the way i understand the law - it is a defense not an allowance. Similar to the farmers defense in shooting deer with a shotgun. It is not legal but if challenged you can argue your point with this legislation dependent on a number of variables.
 

CarlW

Well-Known Member
I cant quite see the issue with this. There is an exemption to the law for retrieving game - hence the posts that you always see of lads trying to be clever with honking great big, marked up bull crosses and foxes with the caption 'shot and retrieved'.

A dog taking down a deer is no different to a gundog bringing back a runner, they have chased and stopped it to end the suffering and there is allowance in the law for that. It is totally different to coursing deer with dogs.

Dogs will figure out the best way to do it which might not be the most clean thing in the world the first time but they have to learn and then if they get the knack they are away. If you have a very mobile deer shot in the leg or the jaw how would you propose to get on terms with it? My thought would be that a suitably sized, fast dog will sort the situation out a lot faster if it is turned loose at the appropriate time than if it was on a lead - the dog will decide if it should bay or take hold and that will vary for each dog and situation.

I think that the issue is that people are trying to dictate the correct way to follow up a deer. There are plenty of guys up here contracting at night with a dog that will find many, many deer. They wont be in kevlar trousers and a visor and the dog is unlikely to be on a long lead but they will find the deer in question. There are also people that do it the 'right' way with lines and the trousers and the visor etc - point being that for the purposes of the role they fulfill, both ways work.

The continent will always have better tracking dogs and therefore a better system than we do - they do it much more because they shoot driven deer and boar. They look at out terriers and gundogs for the same reason - we tend to do it more and therefore better than them.

A dog that will take a deer down is invaluable IMO for someone who shoots a lot of deer, i would like to understand the other options to turning a good dog loose (genuinely) to end a track if the deer is very mobile.

On the issue of accessing land with no permission, the way i understand the law - it is a defense not an allowance. Similar to the farmers defense in shooting deer with a shotgun. It is not legal but if challenged you can argue your point with this legislation dependent on a number of variables.
Good post.

PS I think people look really cool in visors, particularly if their vehicle also has a sticker in the window saying "tracking dogs on board" or something similar. It makes me admire them a lot...:)
 

Top