tracking wounded deer

mereside

Well-Known Member
right guys i need some questions answering by those that know far more than me.
I headed off to my ground in dumfries yesterday and got onto a new piece of land had a stalk and later on had a missed call and then a few more so knew something was wrong.
i had been asked out to track a leg shot roe in yorkshire and it had gone a good distance and darkness came in, they had marked so much of the trail before stopping and ringing.
i packed up and headed off i got on the ground this morning for 6 am the roe had been shot at 8pm and we had had a massive downpour making things even harder so was really aprehensive indy would be able to work a hard trail with little to no blood over that timescale.
we went to the strike and was assured the roe went off in a semicircle before heading for thick forest on a really steep bank. indy set off indicating the strike and was off like a shot went round in a big arc and stopped for a second at a blood spatter it was still present even after the rain so my hopes built but on indication she glanses back to let me know but is keen to be straight on and i find every track she does she is wanting to move quicker.
should i be slowing her right down? as i am trying to not put her off and you can see when she moves off line she quickly corrects but it is quick i am worried she is going way to fast.
she marked the couch and crawled under a tree were it had been layed up but had moved the track went on for 600 metres before we crossed onto another boundry at what point would you say that legally you can track for under humane dispatch i ended up leaving the rifle and headed off now i took her off as this deer was very mobile and didnt want to go further across someone elses land i know to be a right pain in the arse ,we went back to a point and indy did exactly the same so i am positive indy did everything right. I would also be keen to ask to watch someone work there dog under a real situation if posible i am learning alot from indy but would like to understand more myself.
do dogs work at different paces or do you control the pace all help greatly recieved thanks, wayne
 

User00014

Well-Known Member
you did right , it is a bugger this boundary issue in fact its a pain in the arse !

you little dog done well , you should be proud her .

personally if i were tracking , i would have left the rifle and carried on regardless but thats me and not you .

i once tracked a red calf for 1.5 miles and crossed 3 boundaries before i finally got it and dispatched it with my knife .

i just know some one in a jiff is going to pipe up and tell me i shouldnt have carried on , but hey ho never mind .

just keep calm and carry on tracking :thumb:
 

slack chamber

Well-Known Member
wayne i think no two dogs work the same speed 2 of mine one which is indys mother cover ground quick, sometimes i think too quick but maybe its the nature of the dog in question but to date they always have come up trumps when needed, my third bmh works so slow its untrue just nose to ground and at a snails pace but always gets there in the end . i think its only natural that a dog working fast makes you think they might be missing something but if she is happy tracking let her be, cheers mike
 

cookingfat

Well-Known Member
Wayne, I wouldn't worry to much about the speed if I am right in thinking your hound is a young one, most dogs get slower as they get more experience because the faster they go the more chance of them going off the trail and having to check back to get on again.
it's always hard to call on crossing boundary's and if the rifle is left behind, then I think the law would be ass on the person concerned if they came down on them.
 

Mr. Gain

Well-Known Member
Would it not be reasonable to expect the stalker who wants the deer he has wounded found to provide you with contact numbers for the estates bordering the ground you are being asked to track on so that you can either obtain permission to enter it on your own, or be met by someone who can oversee the despatch and recovery of the deer?
 

6pointer

Well-Known Member
Well done to you and your hound and sad that the english are so up there arse about boundary,s they really do not care about deer welfare may be a letter to the DI and your MP time for a change down there.
Also a very good reason to run a tracking dog register with qualifications. Tings do change but you need to change them and you need to provide proof there is a need.!!!!!
 

mereside

Well-Known Member
thanks for the input , lee i would have carried on if i thaught i could get into a position to be able to dispatch but with it being so mobile i was really worried i kept moving it further away.
Thanks mike that is interesting to know about indys mum.
Mr Gain i know the other land owner and is totally against shooting and if i was found he would cause all sorts of trouble and has tried to in the past.
I dont think i would have stopped if i didnt know how much of a pain this chap is. I will speak to my police force to see what they come up with and hopefully the amount of cameras in the area will pick it up and it will get dispatched ,thanks for all the help, wayne
 

Mr. Gain

Well-Known Member
Mr Gain, I know the other land owner and is totally against shooting and if I was found he would cause all sorts of trouble and has tried to in the past. I dont think I would have stopped if I didnt know how much of a pain this chap is. I will speak to my police force to see what they come up with and hopefully the amount of cameras in the area will pick it up and it will get dispatched

Thanks for the explanation. That's definitely a harder nut to crack that the risk of creating bad relations with neighbouring estates by going onto their ground unannounced - I always prefer to ask permission than to assume it, even when I know the people concerned well. But when you have someone you know will be difficult, then you have a dilemma.

I'm sure I might see things differently if I were in your shoes and had more history on the situation, but in principle I'd still be inclined to call the chap up and explain the situation to him. He may be anti-shooting, and may give you an earful, but if he has any notion of animal welfare he should realise that letting you track and despatch a wounded deer is preferable to allowing it to die a lingering death.

As I see it, if he understood the importance of managing deer -or that by "protecting" them he's not actually helping them- he wouldn't be so hard to deal with, but even though this is evidently lost on him, getting him to understand the importance of alleviating suffering ought not to be so hard, even if he blames you or "your sort" for causing it in the first place.
 

mereside

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the explanation. That's definitely a harder nut to crack that the risk of creating bad relations with neighbouring estates by going onto their ground unannounced - I always prefer to ask permission than to assume it, even when I know the people concerned well. But when you have someone you know will be difficult, then you have a dilemma.

I'm sure I might see things differently if I were in your shoes and had more history on the situation, but in principle I'd still be inclined to call the chap up and explain the situation to him. He may be anti-shooting, and may give you an earful, but if he has any notion of animal welfare he should realise that letting you track and despatch a wounded deer is preferable to allowing it to die a lingering death.

As I see it, if he understood the importance of managing deer -or that by "protecting" them he's not actually helping them- he wouldn't be so hard to deal with, but even though this is evidently lost on him, getting him to understand the importance of alleviating suffering ought not to be so hard, even if he blames you or "your sort" for causing it in the first place.

Thanks for the responce but he has no interest in anything but causing trouble and does not get on with anybody in the area, I think my best way forward is to talk to the police about this issue about boundry and maybe in the future be able to ring it through to be able to proceed ,if the deer had gone in the other direction it was a different outcome being other ground and not this chaps. my reluctance was also due to the fact i have a variation issue coming to a head this next week and really dont want any issues arising before this time.
after going back over niels sondergaards book on roe i feel i did the right thing ,as it should stay in this area and hopefully it will get dispatched. I have some positives if not all ,from indys point of view i was very pleased how she worked the trail as this is a heavy worked area with roe and could really see the difference with her on track and then coming off to go back and work from that point she is really coming on and after reflecting on how she worked i saw a clear difference at a point of the couch that we probably pushed the deer forward and seeing her step up a gear was an indication of fresh scent this is a massive learning curve for me and trying to read the dog is very new to me I will be back out working from a book again to lay better trails so i can understand her more. atb wayne
 

TankGunner

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the responce but he has no interest in anything but causing trouble and does not get on with anybody in the area, I think my best way forward is to talk to the police about this issue about boundry and maybe in the future be able to ring it through to be able to proceed

The police can not help you in this as they can not issue you with the legal permission to cross the boundary and enter the said gentleman's land. Regardless of how much you would like them to be able to do so. Only the landowner or their agent can grant you the necessary permission. A fact that those who attend RTC's in England and Wales would do well to remember. Before scampering off with Fido in hot pursuit of some lightly clipped deer in the early hours of the morning.
 

pierred

Well-Known Member
Wayne might be worth getting to know your local RSPCA officer mine have opened doors as such for me in the past, get in touch if you like mate and I will talk you through it.
 

TankGunner

Well-Known Member
Wayne might be worth getting to know your local RSPCA officer
PMSL. Sorry, I can't but help laughing at that one....

Don't be fooled by the uniform and the bs rhetoric they spout on TV. They have absolutely no powers.

Personally I'd rather eat my lunch sat butt naked in the middle of a nest of vipers than have any involvement with anyone from the RSPCA, the RSPB, or the local wildlife rescue squirrel huggers.
 

jamross65

Well-Known Member
Hi Wayne

I am not sure at all of the law in England with regards to access under these circumstances, but if I was you I think I would be pointing out to this landowner that should a similar incident occur again and the permission you need to enter that land is denied, by refusing you access to dispatch the beast, it may be argued he is causing unnecessary suffering and cruelty to that animal by prolonging its finding and safe dispatch...

Just a thought....

​It's sooo much easier up here mate!!!
 

mereside

Well-Known Member
Thanks Brian will keep that in mind for next time and
thanks to all who offered advice, wayne
 

TankGunner

Well-Known Member
An empty threat. You're assuming that the beast has remained on the said landowners property. You're also assuming that its still alive. Things that you can not prove and have no power to do so.
 

jamross65

Well-Known Member
An empty threat. You're assuming that the beast has remained on the said landowners property. You're also assuming that its still alive. Things that you can not prove and have no power to do so.

It's not an empty threat at all. I said to point out it could be argued he may be causing unnecessary suffering...

Whether it is still on his land or not remains to be seen, an outcome assisted by him allowing that access, by refusing he is prolonging that outcome...

I know of a local retired keeper who shot a cat in his garden with the .22RF, that jumped the wall into its own garden next door and dropped dead there. Because it made it over the wall and was not killed instantly he was charged with causing unnecessary suffering and cruelty, vandalism (damaging the cat, as its someones property) and reckless discharge...

At the end of the day it's about this landowners perception of what may happen that could change the access situation.
 

howy308

Well-Known Member
Getting back to the dog question of speed they all work at different speeds unless they work regularly with other dogs from being young, and never underestimate the dogs sense of smell and start to trust it more as it proves itself.
 

TankGunner

Well-Known Member
It's not an empty threat at all. I said to point out it could be argued he may be causing unnecessary suffering...

Whether it is still on his land or not remains to be seen, an outcome assisted by him allowing that access, by refusing he is prolonging that outcome...

I know of a local retired keeper who shot a cat in his garden with the .22RF, that jumped the wall into its own garden next door and dropped dead there. Because it made it over the wall and was not killed instantly he was charged with causing unnecessary suffering and cruelty, vandalism (damaging the cat, as its someones property) and reckless discharge...

At the end of the day it's about this landowners perception of what may happen that could change the access situation.

Ah! Perception..... Like the landowner wouldn't perceive your mentioning, in order to try and force their hand. That he or she may be sustaining the beast suffering. (He or she can't be accused of causing unnecessary suffering to the beast as he or she was not the perpetrator of the original action that caused the injury) and there by possibly leaving themselves open to prosecution by some pseudo official body, as a threat. Get real Brian..........:rolleyes:

Prolonging? Again you're presuming that the beast remains on their land and or is not dead. A presumption that you have no way of proving...

As for you local cat killing keeper. He was charged because he fired the shot. Not because he denied some unknown access to his land in order to go search for it. If you're going to use an example at least try and make it relevant.
 

jamross65

Well-Known Member
Ah! Perception..... Like the landowner wouldn't perceive your mentioning, in order to try and force their hand. That he or she may be sustaining the beast suffering. (He or she can't be accused of causing unnecessary suffering to the beast as he or she was not the perpetrator of the original action that caused the injury) and there by possibly leaving themselves open to prosecution by some pseudo official body, as a threat. Get real Brian..........:rolleyes:

Prolonging? Again you're presuming that the beast remains on their land and or is not dead. A presumption that you have no way of proving...

As for you local cat killing keeper. He was charged because he fired the shot. Not because he denied some unknown access to his land in order to go search for it. If you're going to use an example at least try and make it relevant.

This is getting waaay off post now.

No-one said the landowner caused the injury. But he can assist in a speedy dispatch. He can also refuse to allow Wayne access. Therefore he has it within his power to prevent it suffering any longer than necessary.

here is one for you to consider while getting real but...

You stand back and watch someone getting a kicking resulting is severe injury or worse. You do nothing to prevent it, either directly or by at least phoning the police. They turn up and discover you stood by and watched. You think you are blameless and not guilty of committing an offence????? (before being accused of it not being relevant, not deer stalking related but shows liability and responsibility)

Where does the pseudo official body come into it? It's the police that charge you with such an offence. The RSPCA cannot charge you with anything and in my experience are not even necessary for such a prosecution???? They can make a complaint to the police who do the charging. The Crown Prosecution Service (England), Procurator Fiscal Service (Scotland) do the prosecuting. Not sure where you are coming from with the Pseudo official bit at all here as in my mind Police, CPS and the PF's service are all pretty official...???

And as for the gamekeeper who fired the shot. If indeed he had gone over the wall to recover it and ensure it was dead where is the unnecessary cruelty in that action? The other charges aside obviously would still stand...

A bit like recovering a deer to be honest. The issue with the cat was the type of animal shot, not the actions of him or the reaction from the cat. By the way, all charges were dropped by the PF's office as the animal had died so quickly after being shot, confirmed by its owner. I have no doubt if it had been recovered the next day still alive and the person who shot it had made no effort to dispatch it then the charge would have stood. It's absolutely relevant as it is about someones actions after the fact and in the knowledge an animal is injured.

I can only guess that when you shoot a beast and it runs off you don't presume it's hit and still alive and instead would rather assume you don't have any chance of finding it, and not to worry because there is as much chance of it being dead anyway???? First principle in a deer running off, always assume it's hit until you can prove otherwise... So, whether it's on this neighbors land or not, or still alive or not is irrelevant. It was the last place it was seen so is the first place you begin your search (after tracking from the shot site obviously) whether that outcome leads to the deer or you showing it is a control search!

Point still remains....
 
Last edited:

Wolverine

Well-Known Member
Hmmmm.....
Englands law is an ass...although it is the law.
Wayne has tracked an animal next door to the boundary which he knows to be injured(well done Wayne)
As the landowner next door is an anti/idiot no permission granted to cross boundary.
It is ethically/morally Wayne's responsibility to track that animal legally.Which he has done.
Now if the landowner does not allow permission to cross boundary when that animal is known to be wounded......I would be contacting the RSPCA and saying that landowner is denying access to end suffering.Therefore landowner permitting animal cruelty.
Tankgunner is correct they have no power(RSPCA),however,the police do.
Tell the RSPCA during the phone call the police have to be present.
Landowner must then let tracker on as if he doesn't he is permitting animal to suffer.....
This is where England's law is an ass.....
This could well happen at some point.
Therefore the complaint would be made by the RSPCA.
Upheld by the police who would uphold the law about no crossing boundaries-This law in England is an ass/joke......the police could be liable for animal suffering.
Ethically and morally this is not what this sport of deer stalking/tracking needs.
That animal can be proved to be wounded by a trained dog/handler......it can be proved to be on whatever ground by that team-this can not happen when access is denied/law is a joke.
Therefore the police who uphold the law-as it is in England could very well obstruct the RSPCA from ending an animals suffering.
​This is a farce.
 
Stoney Creek - Purpose Built Shooting Clothing
Top