# Deer hunting



## cptrayes (4 March 2010)

I was having a brew with a friend yesterday who has had 18 deer in her new plantation.  She spotted them again one morning last week and called in the local gunman. She doesn't want the whole herd destroyed, just the numbers controlled. 

The gunman arrived at 11am and spent until 2pm stalking the deer across her farm and the neighbouring two to identify the relationships between them and which ones to take out. At around 2pm there were three shots, and three dead deer were removed in a pickup to be butchered and eaten. 

This is a genuine enquiry. I really want to understand, not to have a fight. Can anyone explain to me why that method of deer control will not work on Exmoor, which is what has been suggested to me on another thread?


----------



## BigRed (4 March 2010)

When you shoot deer it needs to be done with a rifle  A rifle bullet can go a long way, so whoever is shooting needs to know whether people are around.  I assume this shooting was done on private land, whereas on Exmoor there is public access so shooting is not so feasible/safe ?


----------



## cptrayes (4 March 2010)

Good point, and it was "enclosed" (there are field boundaries) and not moorland at that point,  but the area is riddled with footpaths. It is a National Park just like Exmoor. The land where the deer was shot has at least five footpaths in the surrounding 90 acres. The area close by is also subject to Open Access provisions so people can be anywhere on that land.


----------



## henryhorn (4 March 2010)

The people who hunt on Exmoor will tell you it isn't possible, but they are wrong. The biggest problem really is that if you are in an enclosed area and you don't kill a deer it's possible to get it with the next shot, but in the "wild" it can end up having a slow and very unpleasant death.
We bred deer for some years and watched their behaviour and that of the wild deer that grazed our farm, deer are very much creatures of habit and tend to be in the same place most days so can be culled successfully.
Of all the mammals that get hunted they in my mind suffer the most. They are really nervous animals that live in constant fear, and we found when moving them to be sold they get stressed incredibly quickly from chasing them. 
They end up getting in horses what is tied up and collapse from the effects. 
It took us just 20 mins to reach that stage so goodness knows how they must suffer in the wild when hunted .
I am not a deer lover (we aquired the herd when we bought here) but having lived with them every day for 9 years, they really shouldn't be hunted. A fox I think has a different mind set, deer must suffer horribly when chased.
You won't change the hunters' minds however, they say it's the only way to control them, but a go marksman can easily stalk and kill a deer cleanly most of the time. We sold ours for venison and always had them killed like that. Quick, clean and instant in virtually every case..


----------



## spacefaer (4 March 2010)

cptrayes 
It is as much to do with the heavy undergrowth and thickly wooded areas on Exmoor where the deer lie up.  It would be impossible to track and target a specific stag in thick cover, particularly with a long range rifle.

In the pre ban days, the huntsman would have taken 2-3 couple of tufters (old experienced and trusted hounds) into the thick cover, riding his tufting pony (probably an Exmoor x type) to get the stag to his feet and out of cover.

Once the stag had left cover, and the huntsman was certain he had the right one (when he could see it clearly) then the main pack would be laid on.

Done properly, it is a very accurate and selective way of culling - the hunt staff know a huge amount about the deer and are rigourous in the correct choice of animal. Different age groups are hunted at different times of year.

It is not humane to try to shoot moving deer with a rifle because of the wounding rate. Ultimately, they are shot cleanly at close range with a pistol once they have been brought to bay (and are not moving).


----------



## cptrayes (4 March 2010)

Spacefaer thankyou for your explanation. I can see what you are saying and this was on cultivated farmland, but surely they stalk deer in similar or worse conditions in Scotland?  

The gun the man here uses is extremely powerful and he got three clean kills with three shots. It doesn't get more humane than that. Apparently he prides himself on never wasting a bullet because they are so darned expensive! I'm told that he has a different gun when he does fox. Obviously it must be very dependant on the skill of the gunman, and this one is clearly extremely skillful.


----------



## combat_claire (5 March 2010)

For me stag hunting is the most defensible of all hunting activities: I have borrowed this from Endangered Exmoor's website. 

Shooting by rifle is in most parts of Britain the only practical method of culling deer;  it is effective for this purpose.  The problem with it is the irreducible risk of losing wounded deer;  it is difficult enough killing deer in the wide open spaces of the Scottish Highlands where they are excluded from taking cover in woodland by deer-fencing;  even there a small percentage  even with expert and experienced/professional stalkers  escapes wounded.  On Staghunting ground in the West Country (South West England) shooting deer is much more problematic.  The small size of many landholdings (which makes the follow-up of a wounded deer illegal without permission), the extensive un-deerfenced woodland and the nocturnal nature of the species all make the loss of wounded animals more likely.  Furthermore, deer are only killed instantly if shot in the head  a small target and normally only taken at short range, and strongly disapproved of by the British Deer Society.  Deer may run 50 yards with a heart shot and 100 with a lung shot (the largest lethal and usual target);  such deer are often close to woodland cover in the West Country and  following a misaimed first shot  the deer can quickly be in cover, depriving the rifle of a chance of a second shot, and possibly escape wounded.  Incidentally, all deer that are killed at the end of a hunt are shot with a headshot at close range and can never escape wounded.  (See also Answer 14.)
In addition hunting ensures the survival of the fittest, which is not the case with shooting.  Another point about shooting on Exmoor and the Quantocks is the danger to the general public which has unlimited access. 
It must be borne in mind that the three West Country Staghunts operate a 24 hour call-out service to deal with injured deer reported to them, as well as accounting for a considerable number of sick or injured deer during the course of normal hunting.  

Every landowner on Exmoor (including organisations opposed to hunting) have used the free services of the hunts casualty call-out service.

I have seen a hunted stag and the idea that they are hunted to exhaustion is a complete myth, the ones I have seen were not at all pressed, had barely broken into a slow trot and knew they had the advantage of home turf.


----------



## Xlthlx (5 March 2010)

Dear stalking as a management method works very well on massive Scottish estates the problem in devon is that it is divided into a large number of smaller holdings - average size 100 acres.  Management of such herds just does not make sense on the scale of individual holdings and this is why a co operative system is needed.

The herds of deer on Exmoor are just that herds and they wander over many holdings.  They need to be managed as a herd ie it is the herd that needs to be targeted not individual holdings,

Using coordinated stalking to manage the Red deer herds could no doubt work but it needs organising and that has not been done.  It would very possibly need legislative changes to operate succesfully.

What they have attempted to do is ban the current form of coordinated deer management - stag hunting and replace it with nothing.  Moreover they have taken no steps whatsoever to monitor the effect on the deer population.

I have a small holding and in my opinion it is ridiculous for me to even attempt to manage the red deer herd within the confines of my farm I am also unqualified and unwilling to shoot them.  I resort to flushing the deer from my coppiced woodland with my dogs.

This is illegal unless the deer are then shot.  Not just individuals but the whole herd of one is present in the woods.

With respect to deer management the Hunting Act is very badly thought out.

Exmoor has a fantastic herd of red deer, arguably one of the finest in lowland Europe.  It's management requires a well thought out co ordinated strategy operating over a large area.

Staghunting was/is one such strategy it makes no sense to get rid of it without replacing it with another.


----------



## cptrayes (5 March 2010)

"Staghunting was/is one such strategy it makes no sense to get rid of it without replacing it with another. "

This is surely completely indisputable - it was madness.

Thanks for the rest of the info people, I understand better now.


----------



## soggy (7 March 2010)

I was having a brew with a friend yesterday who has had 18 deer in her new plantation.  She spotted them again one morning last week and called in the local gunman. She doesn't want the whole herd destroyed, just the numbers controlled. 

The gunman arrived at 11am and spent until 2pm stalking the deer across her farm and the neighbouring two to identify the relationships between them and which ones to take out. At around 2pm there were three shots, and three dead deer were removed in a pickup to be butchered and eaten. 

The gun the man here uses is extremely powerful and he got three clean kills with three shots. It doesn't get more humane than that. Apparently he prides himself on never wasting a bullet because they are so darned expensive! I'm told that he has a different gun when he does fox. Obviously it must be very dependant on the skill of the gunman, and this one is clearly extremely skillful.
		
Click to expand...

ROTFPMSL.

Is this not a script to some Marx brothers or Carry On  film?


----------



## henryhorn (7 March 2010)

Xlthlx 
(though I suspect you are in fact a well known member)
Would you agree your deer are invariably in the same areas most days, changing only with the seasons unless disturbed? 
My point is not killing deer but that chasing as a quarry them is wrong because  they appear to suffer far more than a fox, you know yourself from watching them they are on constant alert, live on their nerves etc and I was frankly shocked by how quickly ours virtually collapsed after we attempted to herd them into a smaller area for loading. Until that happened I wasn't particularly anti stag hunting, but seeing several of ours so stressed changed my mind.
When we eventually did move and load them on another day, we made temp fences out of blanket covered ropes, had humans at stategic points in full view and I cantered quietly behind them along a fence line moving them without stress into their enclosed pen.  Nothing was stressed etc and whenever we had any culled here the marksman just sat and waited until they were used to him then killed them whilst grazing with one shot. We were told the enzymes released when chased ruined the quality of the meat anyway..
Having had the opportunity to watch our herd plus the wild deer who chose to live with them but outside their fence, nothing will convince me they couldn't be culled humanely and without being hunted. 
I agree the hunting is fun and the hounds good to watch (I used to hunt three days a week qualifying Pointers once) but please be honest about it, it's partly for social interaction for the people who go, for the fun of riding to hounds, and the economy of Exmoor, it's not because there is no other way of controlling the deer...


----------



## Fairynuff (7 March 2010)

nice to see you're still your old 'sugary nice' self Soggy! Keep it up long enough and you'll find a 'National Trust' plaque hanging off your balls!!!LOL, M.xx
(Mairi)


----------



## Clodagh (7 March 2010)

I've been stag hunting both on Exmoor and in the Compiegne Forest in France.
The stag is hunted to exhaustion, and if he lies down too early the huntsman has been seen (by me) to get off his horse and kick it until it gets up and runs again. The masses paying their money mustn't be disappointed.
Hounds will occasionally pull down and snack on a stag if possible when he comes to bay.
Seeing such a noble beast bought gasping to his knees is disgusting and indefensible, IMO.
I'm not disputing that the hunt do a good job tracking wounded beasts but that hardly makes the whole daily chase a good thing, does it?
The National Trust made things worse by banning it from their land as if the stag heads that way he now gets ridden off and isn't allowed to choose his own path, which confuses him.
Its a horrible sport, stalking is heaps better.


----------



## Xlthlx (8 March 2010)

I'm Giles.

It depends on the type of deer.  The Red Deer tend to come through as a herd.

I am not saying that they could not be successfully managed by stalking what I am saying is that to do that in an area like North Devon where there are hundreds of small holdings you have to get lots of Landowners working together co operatively.  

This is because the herd of red deer exists on a completely different scale than individual holdings and you need a co ordinated and consistent approach.

It's no good me doing one thing when the deer are on my holding and then someone else adopting a completely different strategy on another holding.

The point I am making is that they should not have banned one method without sorting out its replacement.

As for stalking deer for my purposes it makes no sense.

I want to reduce the presence of deer in my coppiced woodland.  When the red deer are here they spend a lot of time in the coppice and at the wrong time of year they can completely destroy freshly cut sections.

Proper deer management through culling might involve taking out say for the sake of argument 20% of a herd each year.  If I did that to the red deer herd when it comes on to my land it would reduce the damage they do by 20%.

What's the point of that?  I need to reduce it by say 80% so what do I do?  Massacre 80% of the herd?  That would be crazy.  The situation with deer is very different to foxes.  My neighbour kills all the foxes on his land because he has a pheasant shoot but it makes very little difference to the local fox population because they are territorial animals.  Deer wander in herds and use our land as a coridoor hence what I do to them when they are on my land has a much wider impact.

I have a method that works much better for me it simply involves taking my dogs down to the woods when the herd of red deer are around and flushing them without killing them.

If the deer regularly encounter what they consider to be predators in a location they tend to congregate somewhere else.

I am not saying that all deer can or should be managed like this but on my small holding it works for me and I have never killed or harmed a single deer by doing it so I don;t see the problem.

The Hunting Act makes it illegal for me to flush deer out of cover unless I take steps to shoot them.  It's been ruled in court that if I am flushing an entire herd then I have to have enough guns present to kill the entire herd.  That's crazy and would turn a bit of fun and harmless deer management into a blood bath.

Do deer get stressed by being chased by dogs?  Well yes I am sure they do but it is worth remembering that they have evolved for millions of years to be chased and all around the world in ecosystems which are complete wild deer are regularly not only chased but also bought down and killed by canines.

The best form of deer management albeit one that is impractical in lowland Britain would be to have packs of vicious wild canines scouring the countryside for them.  Not stag hounds but wolves.


----------



## Xlthlx (8 March 2010)

Henry Horn you are on Dartmoor I believe?  Forgive me if I am wrong but my understanding is that you do not have a significant red deer herd down there and every time people try top introduce one they are wiped out by poachers and landowners.

If true this kind of proves my point that piecemeal management of a wide ranging herd animal such as Red Deer does not work.  You have to have co-ordinated action.  Stag Hunting is one such method and if people want to ban it they should first institute another.  They have failed to do that.

Stag hunting areas in the west country have approximately 2,000 red deer the selective nature of the stag hunting cull is essential to herd health and also numbers killed can be changed to correctly manage numbers.

If the whole cull were conducted in a piecemeal and uncordinated manner then the health of the herd would suffer and numbers could not be maintained in the same manner.  All you have top do is kill a few hundred more each year and numbers would drop considerably to Dartmoor levels.


----------



## spacefaer (8 March 2010)

Couldn't agree more Giles!

About 2 years before the Hunting Act, Scottish Natural Heritage were trying to do just this. There were plans (which were shelved) to reintroduce the wolf to control the red deer population on the Isle of Rhum as a trial, preparatory to reintroducing them to the mainland as they have done with the European beaver.

This obviously had the Government's backing and just shows the transparency of the Hunting Act - about it not being about welfare at all as it would have been considered acceptable for wolves to hunt and bring down deer - but not for staghounds to bring them to bay and for them to be shot humanely.


----------



## Xlthlx (8 March 2010)

This is one point where the animal welfare argument falls down.  I have spoken to several sabs who hate hunting but love the idea of us setting loose packs of wild canines to hunt and bring down deer and kill them not with bullets but with their teeth.


----------



## Xlthlx (8 March 2010)

But then the logic suddenly changes to being not about animal welfare at all but the immorality of people getting pleasure from the process and suddenly an outcome that actually involves far more suffering becomes the preferable one because no one is having fun.

There's a great blog from LACS where Douglas Batchelor states that wildlife management results in a stronger wildlife population and then goes on to say that wildlife should be managed by letting it's numbers grow, fencing it out of places where it can feed and then letting it starve to death.

This is supposedly 'nature's way' and no one enjoys it so it is 'more moral'.

http://cruelsports.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/countryside-mismanagement/


----------



## soggy (19 March 2010)

Mairi said:



			nice to see you're still your old 'sugary nice' self Soggy! Keep it up long enough and you'll find a 'National Trust' plaque hanging off your balls!!!LOL, M.xx
(Mairi)
		
Click to expand...

Hello me ol' duck.

Yep, still as  sweet and as adorable as ever. Glad to see you're still alive and incorrigible as ever. )


----------



## Fairynuff (19 March 2010)

they do say that opposites attract. Would put up a great big smiling smillie but sadly the HHO ones have become utter ****....sooooooooo, Im not going to bother. Take care Sogs, Mairi.xx


----------



## oakash (21 March 2010)

Hmm..an interesting display of opinion!
As someone who actually lives on Exmoor, I would only point out the following. Henryhorns comments about his domestic deer are curious. Were they red deer,Henry, or Fallow? Since the deer is the quarry animal par excellence, I am curious as to the 'stress' Henry claims. Were they being fed properly - in terms of minerals etc? My experience of red deer is that they are ANYTHING except stressed. Hunted animals will graze as soon as they think hounds have left them, or they can't hear them. They will often stand at bay long before they are exhausted, and I have many times seen the odd stag ignore a single dog completely - they will often just face them down, and most dogs will respect those scary antlers! Prof Bateson's report on 'stress' has been widely criticized by the scientists concerned with exercise physiology- long distance runners have similar blood chemistry, apparently. And at the end of the day even Henry Williamson- he of 'Ring of Bright Water' etc- admitted that hunting was the only reason for the existence and protection of the Exmoor deer herd!


----------



## cptrayes (21 March 2010)

"admitted that hunting was the only reason for the existence and protection of the Exmoor deer herd! "

So what is the reason for the Peak Park red deer herd, which are not hunted?


----------



## oakash (23 March 2010)

cptrayes said:



			"admitted that hunting was the only reason for the existence and protection of the Exmoor deer herd! "

So what is the reason for the Peak Park red deer herd, which are not hunted?
		
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about the Peak deer herd. I am simply quoting what Williamson wrote a hundred some years ago, when agricultural interests would have certainly wiped out the herd on Exmoor. In the 19th century, when deer hunting ceased for some 25 years, farmers and poachers slaughtered deer on a widespread scale, both for meat and because they destroyed crops - all acceptable, you might argue, in what was a subsistence agriculture. When hunting was restarted - hey, the farmers began to conserve the deer.

It is also likely, I might add, that the Peak herd was not in existence a hundred years ago, but no doubt someone can tell us more.


----------



## Tom-Faggus (23 March 2010)

oakash said:



			Hmm..an interesting display of opinion!
As someone who actually lives on Exmoor, I would only point out the following. Henryhorns comments about his domestic deer are curious. Were they red deer,Henry, or Fallow? Since the deer is the quarry animal par excellence, I am curious as to the 'stress' Henry claims. Were they being fed properly - in terms of minerals etc? My experience of red deer is that they are ANYTHING except stressed. Hunted animals will graze as soon as they think hounds have left them, or they can't hear them. They will often stand at bay long before they are exhausted, and I have many times seen the odd stag ignore a single dog completely - they will often just face them down, and most dogs will respect those scary antlers! Prof Bateson's report on 'stress' has been widely criticized by the scientists concerned with exercise physiology- long distance runners have similar blood chemistry, apparently. And at the end of the day even Henry Williamson- he of 'Ring of Bright Water' etc- admitted that hunting was the only reason for the existence and protection of the Exmoor deer herd!
		
Click to expand...

Exactly!! And as someone else who lives and farms on Exmoor........the amount of times I have seen Foxhounds on a line right past a deer who just drops their head down.........well its a lot anyway. This stress thing is a load of old rubbish! 

No one I know has ever said it is impossible to shoot deer on Exmoor. It is just not the best way. And hunting is definitely fun. So no hunting no deer in a few years. Its not a Zoo!


----------



## Tom-Faggus (23 March 2010)

Clodagh said:



			I've been stag hunting both on Exmoor and in the Compiegne Forest in France.
The stag is hunted to exhaustion, and if he lies down too early the huntsman has been seen (by me) to get off his horse and kick it until it gets up and runs again. The masses paying their money mustn't be disappointed.
Hounds will occasionally pull down and snack on a stag if possible when he comes to bay.
Seeing such a noble beast bought gasping to his knees is disgusting and indefensible, IMO.
I'm not disputing that the hunt do a good job tracking wounded beasts but that hardly makes the whole daily chase a good thing, does it?
The National Trust made things worse by banning it from their land as if the stag heads that way he now gets ridden off and isn't allowed to choose his own path, which confuses him.
Its a horrible sport, stalking is heaps better.
		
Click to expand...

Where did you see the huntsman (and his name would be interesting) kick the Stag to get up again? Just interested!


----------



## cptrayes (23 March 2010)

"So no hunting no deer in a few years. Its not a Zoo! "

What absolute tosh. There is no hunting with hounds of deer in the Peak Park and they are everywhere around here and positively thriving. Most of my farming friends love them and will not give permission for them to be shot on their land because they like to see them. Deer on Exmoor will not disappear just because no-one is allowed to chase them with hounds before they shoot them.

Oakash thanks for the clarification. I take it that you are not then using the quote you gave in order to  claim that the only reason red deer herds exist on Exmoor today is because they have until recently been hunted with hounds? If it only applied 100 years ago and not today, then it's a pretty a useless quote in terms of clarifying the pros and cons of deer hunting with hounds today, isn't it?


----------



## henryhorn (23 March 2010)

The deer were in a 20 acre park with many others grazing outside who lived in the woods nearby, and I had to laugh at your assertion that deer don't suffer stress, the Deer Manager was a BSC who was writing a thesis on stress in red deer..!
Apparently she is now a world expert in the subject.  As for food my God did she monitor their intake. They had specialised feed made to her specification and no way could they have been lacking for anything. (I know for a fact as the bu**er billed me ridiculous bills for my share of the feed for my deer..)
I spent years walking through our deer park and was surprised to see just what nervous creatures they were, so no, I'm not an anti making this up, I can show you the photos and location for proof. 
All I can tell you is that when we attempted to very calmly round them up they became so distressed they lay down eyes bulging panting within minutes, if that's not stress what the hell was it?
I don't like deer hunting as a result, but feel foxes are far more suited to being chased, they at least seem to be able to think and not run in a blind panic.
You carry on spouting the rubbish about how deer dont suffer stress when chased, the majority of sensible people will realise who is telling the truth, I have no reason to lie or pretend, we sold our deer as I couldn't stand the things  !


----------



## jhoward (23 March 2010)

deer do suffer. 

this artical, written by DR j henshaw the man used to have his own heard of deer, and whilst to live with they were not nervous, but then they knew us and would come and have a fuss. if a stranger walked on to the land however they would not come near.. 

http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/evidence/devonsomerset.htm#4


----------



## oakash (24 March 2010)

Well, all I can say is that it seems very unlikely to me that deer who stop and graze when they can no longer hear hounds are stressed. Deer on Exmoor, because in many areas there is little or no shooting, tend to be unafraid of humans. I frequently walk past deer watching me from 25 yards away. Sure, they are ready to run if necessary, but rarely actually do. In the Scottish highlands they will run when they see you at a mile away.
At the moment, the staghounds on Exmoor are still operating within the law and managing the deer herd as best they can. As someone who lives on the moor I and many others are most concerned that if hunting were stopped completely the deer would be shot out of existence. Peak park farmers must be VERY wealthy to disregard predations from animals which eat 3 times as much as sheep!


----------



## oakash (24 March 2010)

Just a quick one ref the 'evidence' to the Burns Inquiry: scientifically, it seems rather tenuous with lots of assertions and interpretations. Perhaps thats why Burns didn't take it all on board very much.And are any of these so-called 'experts' interested when animals are shot and wounded and lie out on the moor to die a slow and painful death? - no, of course they arent!


----------



## Xlthlx (24 March 2010)

cptrayes said:



			"So no hunting no deer in a few years. Its not a Zoo! "

What absolute tosh. There is no hunting with hounds of deer in the Peak Park and they are everywhere around here and positively thriving. Most of my farming friends love them and will not give permission for them to be shot on their land because they like to see them. Deer on Exmoor will not disappear just because no-one is allowed to chase them with hounds before they shoot them.

Oakash thanks for the clarification. I take it that you are not then using the quote you gave in order to  claim that the only reason red deer herds exist on Exmoor today is because they have until recently been hunted with hounds? If it only applied 100 years ago and not today, then it's a pretty a useless quote in terms of clarifying the pros and cons of deer hunting with hounds today, isn't it?
		
Click to expand...

It isn't necessarily tosh.  The survival of the deer herd depends on how it is managed.  If organised hunting completely disappeared on Exmoor and the Quantocks then it is highly likely that more would be shot.  The problem is that at the moment there is no way of centrally controlling the numbers shot nor the gender age profile of the shooting.

The Peak District is not Exmoor and just because there is a herd there does not mean that one would survive in its current form in North Devon and West Somerset.

It's worth noting as well that the herd on Exmoor is truly wild and apart from the lakes and arguably the New Forest (where an organised system of stalking based on the commoner system exists).  The Red Deer in the Peak District are feral and have escaped from deer parks.

Both Dartmoor and Exmoor had healthy wild red deer populations until the war until hunting stopped and the deer population was decimated (partly due to food scarcity).  Only on Exmoor has it recovered.  A large part of the reason for this is that a lot of landowners see the red deer as the property of the hunt.


----------



## Xlthlx (24 March 2010)

Also @cpTrayes please be aware that stag hunting on Exmoor has not stopped at all it has merely been modified by the ban.

Exactly the same system whereby Landowners conserve red deer on their land and leave them to be managed communally by the hunt still exists today.  I can assure you of that because I live  just below the national park.


----------



## ester (24 March 2010)

Been reading this with interest, 

firstly henryhorn, yes, stressed meat is rubbish, it makes it have a high pH which means it is tough (known as dark firm dry meat) and changes the microbiology meaning it spoils quicker. 

Secondly, from a purely biological/ecological point of view if the red deer cannot survive on the quantocks and exmoor without management then there is clearly not a niche for their survival. Therefore they no longer belong in that environment, given the damage they cause I can only assume we keep them there because they look nice.  fill me in if I am missing something

I often think we fiddle too much and nature would do just fine without us.... but maybe not in the way we want it to/to look etc.


----------



## oakash (24 March 2010)

Yes Ester, you are missing something, I think! If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if there isn't a 'niche' for deer on Exmoor and the Quantocks, then they shouldn't be there, and that we allow them to be there because they 'look nice'? We allow them to be there because of the hunting, actually. But since these islands now have a landscape that, whether you like it or not, is managed entirely by humans, then every species exists because we 'allow it to be there'.


----------



## ester (24 March 2010)

Oh yes, I am aware that these landscapes are completely managed by humans, as we want them to be. They would otherwise mostly return to forest I am guessing, which I wouldnt have a problem with but many would.  

so ok, they look nice, a part of 'tradition' and hence the landscape we have created and manage and we can hunt them. So 2 reasons. human reasons not ecological ones. If we left it they would either evolve to survive or not.  Thats the differnce really I suppose then, all other species we 'allow' to be there because we manage the environment, deer we are more inclined to allow to be there so we can hunt them as we dont hunt everything else!


----------



## Xlthlx (25 March 2010)

ester said:



			Oh yes, I am aware that these landscapes are completely managed by humans, as we want them to be. They would otherwise mostly return to forest I am guessing, which I wouldnt have a problem with but many would.  

so ok, they look nice, a part of 'tradition' and hence the landscape we have created and manage and we can hunt them. So 2 reasons. human reasons not ecological ones. If we left it they would either evolve to survive or not.  Thats the differnce really I suppose then, all other species we 'allow' to be there because we manage the environment, deer we are more inclined to allow to be there so we can hunt them as we dont hunt everything else!
		
Click to expand...

It's not necessarily true that land would just revert to forest.  A lot of our land area is uplands and they have been undergoing a natural progression from forest to peat bog.  This progression has been accelerated by man's interference.  However if we stopped managing our uplands it is unlikely that they would revert to some kind of primordial virgin forest.  One consequence might well be a massive loss of carbon both into our water supply and  the atmosphere.  Peat bogs store far more carbon than woodland.


----------



## Xlthlx (25 March 2010)

ester said:



			fill me in if I am missing something
		
Click to expand...

Yes you are missing something.  If we stopped managing Red Deer completely then they would survive indeed they would become far more numerous however that would have a massive impact on the rest of the ecology and on our ability to grow food and wood because they would multiply to the point where they started exhausting their food supply.  Moreover they would suffer much higher levels of disease and other welfare problems.

Red Deer herds would naturally have been managed - by wolves.  Wolves took out weaker animals and also dispersed them.  Wolves and deer existed in balance.  

If we stop managing Red Deer populations completely then in the absence of their natural predators they would manage themselves.  This would entail numbers escalating until the ecology can no longer support them causing large scale damage and loss of bio diversity and then crashing as  diseases break out and large numbers of animals start to starve to death.


----------



## ester (25 March 2010)

thanks xlthlx 

I was guessing on the forest front, I wasnt sure given the height of the moor whether that was enough to limit growth. 

I assume that you mean re the food (I get the wood bit  ) that the deer would become more numerous and hence spread out over a wider area which would include food growing regions? As the only 'food' on exmoor are the sheep and hill farmed sheep is not the best (economically) way of raising food so that I would guess we could probably do without them but atm they also assist in keeping the moor as it is. 

I often just wonder if we are preserving biodiversity for biodiversities sake, or through some guilt. Even before we arrived to the level at which we now exist many many species have been lost, it changed over time, time and time again it would continue to do so if we let it, we just choose not to. Everything does exist in balance, the wolves have been removed, nature would fine a new balance if we let it, it might not be ideal for us but it would. I dont really have an issue with welfare problems/starvation in wild animals that is how it works, naturally.


----------



## Faithkat (25 March 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			Yes you are missing something.  If we stopped managing Red Deer completely then they would survive indeed they would become far more numerous however that would have a massive impact on the rest of the ecology and on our ability to grow food and wood because they would multiply to the point where they started exhausting their food supply.  Moreover they would suffer much higher levels of disease and other welfare problems.

Red Deer herds would naturally have been managed - by wolves.  Wolves took out weaker animals and also dispersed them.  Wolves and deer existed in balance.  

If we stop managing Red Deer populations completely then in the absence of their natural predators they would manage themselves.  This would entail numbers escalating until the ecology can no longer support them causing large scale damage and loss of bio diversity and then crashing as  diseases break out and large numbers of animals start to starve to death.
		
Click to expand...

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point out that deer now have no natural predator in this country.  I live on the edge of the New Forest where the keepers have had to cull the deer for years.  I saw a report a couple of years ago which stated that there are more deer in Britain now than there have been for more than a thousand years because they are no longer hunted for food and there are no predators.  There are serious welfare issues in parts of the country as the land cannot not sustain their numbers (I saw a distressing report from Scotland during the snow) but perhaps this is nature's way of controlling the numbers.  However unpalatable, their numbers must be culled - perhaps the reintroduction of wolves would be better (cool thought!)


----------



## combat_claire (25 March 2010)

ester said:



			thanks xlthlx 

I was guessing on the forest front, I wasnt sure given the height of the moor whether that was enough to limit growth. 

I assume that you mean re the food (I get the wood bit  ) that the deer would become more numerous and hence spread out over a wider area which would include food growing regions? As the only 'food' on exmoor are the sheep and hill farmed sheep is not the best (economically) way of raising food so that I would guess we could probably do without them but atm they also assist in keeping the moor as it is. 

I often just wonder if we are preserving biodiversity for biodiversities sake, or through some guilt. Even before we arrived to the level at which we now exist many many species have been lost, it changed over time, time and time again it would continue to do so if we let it, we just choose not to. Everything does exist in balance, the wolves have been removed, nature would fine a new balance if we let it, it might not be ideal for us but it would. I dont really have an issue with welfare problems/starvation in wild animals that is how it works, naturally.
		
Click to expand...

Although there is a large area of moorland known as Exmoor in Somerset, it borders directly onto farm land where there are acres of arable and root crops. With farm incomes still struggling following years of historically low incomes, to suggest that we can afford to absorb deer damage to crops in the South West is both short sighted and completely wrong. 

You then go on to say that biodiversity has changed over time and will go on to change again. That is only partly accurate. The UK rural environment is held in a state of suspension - if we were to allow things to evolve naturally as you support then our entire countryside would revert to it's climax state and become carr woodland. It doesn't take an economist to realise that this could not happen without having severe impacts - not only on our ability to feed the nation, but also huge economic impacts as far as tourism income and other rural activity is concerned.


----------



## Xlthlx (25 March 2010)

ester said:



			I often just wonder if we are preserving biodiversity for biodiversities sake, or through some guilt. Even before we arrived to the level at which we now exist many many species have been lost, it changed over time, time and time again it would continue to do so if we let it, we just choose not to. Everything does exist in balance, the wolves have been removed, nature would fine a new balance if we let it, it might not be ideal for us but it would. I dont really have an issue with welfare problems/starvation in wild animals that is how it works, naturally.
		
Click to expand...

Species loss is currently running 1000's of times higher than even a few centuries ago.  It's one of the biggest single issue affecting our survival chances on the planet.  I'm not saying that deer affects all of this of course 

"welfare problems/starvation in wild animals that is how it works, naturally."  What makes you say that?  Throughout their natural range Deer have predators and this is true for almost all herbivores.  What's "natural" about deer not being hunted but being allowed to expand until the population starts starving?

If I locked an animal in a room and let it starve to death I could claim it's 'natural' for it to starve but that doesn't really absolve me of any moral culpability for the result.  You could also argue that releasing the animal would be un natural human interference.

Through human action we have produced an un natural situation


----------



## Xlthlx (25 March 2010)

@Combat_Claire

being a little facaetious but if we were to stop farming, country sports and other activities which help maintain the countryside in it's current state a lot of it would not revert to Carr wooodland but would become suburban sprawl


----------



## combat_claire (25 March 2010)

Sad but true Xlthlx. As a well known folk song in these parts says 'they will only end up breaking what they do not understand'


----------



## ester (25 March 2010)

Oh yes, I am fully aware of all those implications, I'm not that far away  I wasn't so much as suggesting farms could afford to absorb the damage done..... more that on a grander countrywide scale they are therefore then not the best places to have arable farms (we probably have built on most of those). Unfortunately I can't see wolves working great for the sheep 

I just thought I would stick something in purely ecologically  taking humans and our current needs out of the equation..... not that it is something that I necessarily 'support' as you say. But if we all (as in humans) upped and left tommorrow I suspect most of the world would carry on fine and things would balance out again. 

I only started thinking of this borne out of discussions where people say deer need to be managed (in support of hunting them) or (like after WWII) there numbers will vastly reduce.... I always wondered why this was a bad thing when they cause so much 'damage' (to us) which just got me thinking....... always a dangerous activity   

I do get that this is completely hypothetical and theoretical in the extreme and pretty much no relevance to the current real world situation


----------



## ester (25 March 2010)

xlthx

locking an animal in a room wouldnt be natural though. 

I wonder (if we all upped and left!) how long it would be before a predator took our place for the deer. Conversely I suppose if they have no predators left does that mean they no longer have a place there.... unless we keep one for them. 

(poor brain doing overtime now!)

Interesting that you say about 'human intervention' watching something recently about breeding in captivity and then releasing into the wild to try and maintain the species. Havent decided what I think about that, I do think that we have some responsibilities I am just not sure what they are. 

I always feel for the insects, we have probably lost loads of those that we never knew existed and noone will feel bad about it!   anyway I digress!


----------



## Xlthlx (25 March 2010)

If we upped and left deer would no doubt be hunted by feral dogs and large cats.

As to why we should conserve deer, you can ask that about any individual species but if we don't manage to conserve them we are in serious trouble.

As well as doing damage deer also can do a lot of good to woodland.


----------



## Tom-Faggus (30 March 2010)

cptrayes said:



			"So no hunting no deer in a few years. Its not a Zoo! "

What absolute tosh. There is no hunting with hounds of deer in the Peak Park and they are everywhere around here and positively thriving. Most of my farming friends love them and will not give permission for them to be shot on their land because they like to see them. Deer on Exmoor will not disappear just because no-one is allowed to chase them with hounds before they shoot them.

Oakash thanks for the clarification. I take it that you are not then using the quote you gave in order to  claim that the only reason red deer herds exist on Exmoor today is because they have until recently been hunted with hounds? If it only applied 100 years ago and not today, then it's a pretty a useless quote in terms of clarifying the pros and cons of deer hunting with hounds today, isn't it?
		
Click to expand...

Well it might be "tosh" to you mate whatever that is, but I can clear it up for you.

At the moment they are thriving around here too. Have you any idea how much grass is around? Maybe lots in the Peak Park ! But not much on Exmoor after this winter. If I have 25 deer eating what is left there is not much for the sheep and lambs I am currently trying to put out in the current downpour. So...it follows if the hunt does not kill them I, and many others will. I cant understand why all groups both for and aginst hunting use Exmoor as an example now maybe they should use the "peak park"!


----------



## oakash (30 March 2010)

Absolutely, Tom-Faggus! I have always maintained that deer hunting on Exmoor has always been probably the easiest field sport to 'defend'.(why should we have to do that?) For anyone with an open mind, and taking a factually-based view rather than relying on an emotional reaction, then a balanced study of the facts shows the truth of 'no hunting no deer'. I would only emphasize your comment that you and many others would naturally shoot the deer when they predate on your grass. That means that there is no control over how many are killed. You shoot 10 on your land and a dozen move to my land and I shoot 10...and so on...until..no deer..oh dear! (sorry, couldn't resist)


----------



## Xlthlx (30 March 2010)

That's exactly it.  Deer are fundamentally different to foxes in that they range far and wide and hence have to be managed as a whole population across many farms.


----------

