# CRUELTY....The LACS way



## CARREG (29 August 2006)

"On the LACS sanctuary 107 animals died in the year up to April 2002, many from starvation"....I wonder how long it would take a deer to die of starvation, I'd wager its a fair few WEEKS longer than it takes to hunt one............Carreg


----------



## severnmiles (29 August 2006)

Hypocrites!  Starvation is one of the slowest forms of death, cruel b#stards.


----------



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

Classic comment coming from someone who refuses to believe anything bad about hunts unless she witnesses it herself!


----------



## brighteyes (29 August 2006)

Where? How? Why? And what has Karl got to say about it?


----------



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

I wonder where this quote came from. It wasn't the pro-hunting Torygraph by any chance?

On a more general point, the deer on LACS sanctuaries are as wild as the birds in my garden - they're not fenced in. Do you think I'm responsible for the deaths of birds that die in my garden from starvation?


----------



## brighteyes (29 August 2006)

Dunno.  Didn't know LACS even had sanctuaries.  You'd need b****y high fencing to keep deer in..........


----------



## combat_claire (29 August 2006)

The problems were so severe at Baronsdown that the State Veterinary Service were called in to investigate.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030604/text/30604w04.htm

And this is what the British Deer Society had to say on the matter

http://www.britishdeersociety.co.uk/PageL2.asp?PageName=Home&amp;PageNameL2=TBinDeer


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 August 2006)

Starving animals should be put down to stop them suffering.


----------



## Fairynuff (29 August 2006)

Or-A, not allowed to get into that state, or, B, given feed to get them back on their feet. M.


----------



## severnmiles (29 August 2006)

Could you speak up a bit Karl, I can't quite hear you....sorry I'm still sulking


----------



## peakpark (29 August 2006)

That is so shocking. Why did the discussions have to be 'Chandos House Rules - no minuting and no reporting'? Surely that sort of thing should be exposed. Did the RSPCA have anything to say about it, or were they frightened of upsetting LACS?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 August 2006)

"Or-A, not allowed to get into that state, or, B, given feed to get them back on their feet. M. "

Good points Mairi, although with animals as widespread as Deer feeding them is not really an option.


----------



## AlanE (29 August 2006)

A shocking report from a respected organization, the BDS. What a seedy bunch of hypocritical toss-pots LACS are! How dare they accuse hunts of 'abusing animals'.


----------



## Antoninus_Pluck (29 August 2006)

I fully share your anger, AlanE. When the vile anti types say that stag hunting is just animal abuse I reply: "And? They're animals: that's what they're there for - being abused!" Soon shuts them up!


----------



## allijudd (29 August 2006)

You may not be responsible for wild animals in your garden, but then your garden is not a Sanctuary. LACS openly call Baronsdown a sanctuary and fund-raise to pay the salaries of employees there..... either Baronsdown is a sanctuary and they are responsible for the animals in their care, or its not a sanctuary, in which case they should not be fundraising.


----------



## combat_claire (29 August 2006)

And here are the other sordid details from a member of their own staff no less:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...5.xml&amp;sSheet=/news/2004/02/15/ixhome.html


----------



## brighteyes (29 August 2006)

Apparently, bTB was rife both inside and outside the 'sanctuary'.  On game reserves they have keepers monitoring the animals for poaching and so on.  Wonder if the sanctuary was more of a prison?


----------



## brighteyes (29 August 2006)

Hmmmmmm


----------



## wurzel (29 August 2006)

No, TB was not rife inside and outside the sanctuary.

The sanctuary is not a prison, animals can come snd go.... the problem is the fact that the morons from LACs like unnaturally high densities of deer. To do this they fed large amounts of hay and concentrates.

In their townie minds they are being kind.

But it is very cruel.

This is where Paul McCartneys money goes. 

Animal torture.


----------



## Antoninus_Pluck (29 August 2006)

Well said Tom! If the deer can be fed "large amounts of hay and concentrates" and STILL manage to die of starvation that's their own bloody fault!!!


----------



## brighteyes (29 August 2006)

Well SOMETHING must be going on


----------



## AlanE (30 August 2006)

Oh come off it,Karl, you can't dismiss things like the LACS people do!

They claim to provide a 'sanctuary' where the deer can come and go. They then feed them so they can have some 'bambis' to show the great British public and Paul Macartney when he visits, and extract more money from them. You know it, and the inhabitants of Exmoor know it. They also know this leads to artificially high deer populations being maintained in one area, to the detriment of the deer and adjacent landowners.

But LACS doesn't care, because they are only bothered about taking hunting people to court, and they don't give a toss about animal welfare.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 August 2006)

Feeding wild deer silage is a very bad practice.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (30 August 2006)

Legally, lacs need to fence in baronsdown and tag the deer, registering them as a proper herd of livestock, OR they stop bleeding feeding them!

Who's breaking the law now?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 August 2006)

Then they could be subject to proper TB controls.

It is an un-managed but semi domesticated herd of TB infested deer

Death through TB makes a chase and then shooting pale into insignificance.  Of course LACS aren't responsible for the welfare of their deer.  So it's all fine.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (30 August 2006)

They're half managed half unmanaged.

LACS have the cosey townie view that feeding wild animals excessive amounts is natural to them, won't make them sick, won't booster numbers, isn't deficiant in their natural dietry needs, won't encourage too many of them into one area, won't cause disease to spread rapidly, won't cause inbreeding, won't affect the genetic structure of the animals and won't cause suffering...

the foxes in my garden got bread crusts and fat - sometimes - if they were lucky and we'd had some sort of meat with removable fat (ie bacon).  Nothing more.  The only time we gave them something more tempting was when they started dying of mange, it was a ham sandwhich with medicine in it.  It went uneaten 

But until Mange hit, we had some gorgeous foxes who would come up to recieve their bread every night - but were never tame - just tolerant.

Now its the norm to leave them dog food isn't it?


----------



## brighteyes (31 August 2006)

Hang on a minute, Tom said there was no TB


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

There was TB but testing of the deer could not be enforced even though they are feed like livestock because the are classified as wild.


If the government gave a damn about deer they would act5 to ensure there are proper controls.  As it is they are talking about lifting the close season which will cause fawns to starve.

If there was a proper law against cruelty to wild mammals then LACS would have fallen foul of it.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

Are you sure the 'severe problems' prompted the State Veterinary Service to take a look, and not petty-minded hunt supporters out to get at LACS for their successful campaigns to highlight hunt cruelty? (You know, in the same way as the failed freepost scam.)


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

Sorry, yes I spent a bit too much time having a life with my family than is usually permitted on this forum. I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

What exactly would you like me to speak up about? Anyway I thought you'd thrown your teddy out of your pram and weren't debating with me.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

How about LACS illegally hunting deer on their sanctuary.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

My understanding is that LACS does put down animals that are too weak or injured to survive. I wouldn't believe everything written by your pro-hunting friends in the Torygraph if I were you.


----------



## Hercules (31 August 2006)

''Sorry, yes I spent a bit too much time having a life with my family than is usually permitted on this forum.''


I bet that they were chuffed!!


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

Ah yes, then there's AlanE, the font of all knowledge (not!). Comments about the welfare of animals from someone who supports the hounding to death of them for sport doesn't cut much ice, I'm afraid.

Stick to sheep-sh*gging, there's a good chap.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

Yes, there are many BTB hotspots around the South West, many nowhere near a LACS sanctuary. Still, I'm sure you will ignore that fact in your quest for revenge on a successful campaigning group. Or perhaps you'll try and argue LACS is the source of all bTB around the country?


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

Yes, SOMETHING must because you don't want to believe any different.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

How are they semi-domesticated?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

But the guy who videoed them illegally driving deer with a land drover and illegally shooting them from it was an anti hunt activist.

Do you think it's ok for LACS to break the law in this way?

Douglas Batchelor says the law is 'nonsense' does that mean he can ignore it?


----------



## Hercules (31 August 2006)

Karl,

Why do you consider LACS to be a successful campaigning group?

Despite the fantasies that you believe, hunting continues with greater numbers participating and supporting, more foxes die each season and you are skint.

Your definition of 'success' appears to be somewhat different to the rest of the English speaking population


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

Rather more chuffed than Farmer Giles's long-suffering family I should imagine. Perhaps they actually encourage him to spend time on his obsessive crusade, because the alternative doesn't bear thinking about.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

Don't be daft. Are we all responsible for diseases picked up by birds in our gardens. I'm sure you're getting sillier.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

Leave out the personal attacks karl they just make you look like a twat.

And would you mind leaving my family out of it as well.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

Can I drive my 4X4 at deer on my farm and take potshots at them from the window then or is it just LACS who can break the law in this way?


----------



## wurzel (31 August 2006)

"Hang on a minute, Tom said there was no TB"

Did I ?

What I said was.. 


"No, TB was not rife inside and outside the sanctuary."

I think you are a bit thick.


----------



## wurzel (31 August 2006)

"My understanding is that LACS does put down animals that are too weak or injured to survive. I wouldn't believe everything written by your pro-hunting friends in the Torygraph if I were you."

I live right next to Baronsdown.

Luckily I can believe my own eyes.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

Not half as much of a twat as you've made of yourself over the months.

I feel for your family, I really do.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

It's the transition between what you see and how your brain processes that information which worries me.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

If you can't win the argument Karl you should not resort to personal abuse.  Please stop insulting me.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

I thought you said you didn't want to kill any deer.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

I've never killed a deer in my life.  Would it be Ok for me to do what LACS do?  It's illegal, would it be OK.  Is it OK for them to do it?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

Do you support people driving vehicles at deer and shooting them from the window?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

You say that LACS are not responsible for the deer on their sanctuary, how about for the way they kill them.  Should the at least do this legally?


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

So it's okay for you to insult people when it suits you but not for others to insult you?

I guess that's very much in line with your 'logic' displayed to date.


----------



## Hercules (31 August 2006)

Karl,

Stop avoiding AA's questions.  A clear, succinct answer would be a welcome change.  Over to you.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

No, I said LACS are as responsible for the deer on their land as I am for the birds in my garden. I do my best to help wild birds in bad winters but don't think it's reasonable to held accountable for every sniffle they pick up while visiting my garden.

I agree LACS should kill any sick or injured deer on their land legally.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

I strongly object to your bringing up the subject of my family.

Do not do that.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

No.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

No, is it Ok to drive cars at deer and then shoot them from the window?


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

Do not tell me what and what not to do.


----------



## Hercules (31 August 2006)

''I agree LACS should kill any sick or injured deer on their land legally.''

But they aren't.  They are shooting from a moving motor vehicle.  That is illegal.  Why don't you take issue with this behaviour?

Maybe LACS also enjoy chasing deer, but are too poor to afford horses and hounds?


----------



## Hercules (31 August 2006)

''Do not tell me what and what not to do.''

Stop crying, you insignificant little bottom feeder.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

No need to repeatr yourself, this has already been answered.


----------



## Hercules (31 August 2006)

Do you support LACS illegal method of deer control, the one where they chase deer in a vehicle before shooting it from that moving vehicle.

Yes, or no?

Simple really.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

So would you say that driving cars at animals and then shooting them is worse than flushing animals out with dogs and not shooting them?


----------



## wurzel (31 August 2006)

Is this the best you can do?


Do you mean I cannot tell the difference between a healthy animal and a sick one?

Tell you what.

Where do you live?

I'll meet you at Machine Cross this evening and show you the difference.

Interested?


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

If the vehicle was used to 'herd' the deer as the article states I condemn such action. However, if it was moving to get into a good position so that a shot could be taken at sick or injured deer, I haven't got a problem with that. I also haven't got a problem with whether the shots were taken from inside or outside the vehicle (which, by the way, was still, not moving as you state) - the main thing is that a shot was taken as soon as possible to alleviate suffering.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

Certainly not. It's far more humane to put sick or injured deer out of their misery than leave them to suffer.

You have a very strange idea of animal welfare, which isn't surprising coming from someone who supports the hounding of deer for hour upon hour just for the sheer hell of it.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

I've got far better things to do than meet with screwballs like you. Judging by your comments on this forum I have every good reason to doubt your integrity.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

But my deer are't suffering, in my case would it be more cruel to drive a car at a deer and then shoot it or flush it out with dogs, kept under control to prevent an extended chase?


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

I thought you were referring to the Torygraph's account of LACS shooting sick and injured deer. 

How can you say 'your' deer aren't suffering - do they never get ill or injured? If they are all in perfect order I don't see the need to kill them at all but try telling that to your pro-hunting pals.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

I've never come across a sick or injured deer on my land, that's why I don't kill any.  If there was one I'd call someone in to kill it.

I just flush them out and chase them a bit.  I don't kill them.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

Chase them with your dogs by the side of you. 

If you say so.


----------



## severnmiles (31 August 2006)

Sorry, yes I spent a bit too much time having a life with my family than is usually permitted on this forum. I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

What exactly would you like me to speak up about? Anyway I thought you'd thrown your teddy out of your pram and weren't debating with me.
		
Click to expand...

Can't you multi-task?  

I had thrown my toys out of the pram but I am no longer ignoring you, you should feel special, I usually sulk for longer


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

No, I don't think being sat in front of a computer is all that compatible with spending time with my family. I'm sure there are others on this site who will disagree (mentioning no names).


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

I only do this when I'm working.  It releives the boredom.


----------



## brighteyes (31 August 2006)

I'm not on any quest other than trying to fathom who's right and wrong in this debate.  ARE there any sick, dying and dead deer in the sanctuary?  Anyway, I haven't yet decided who or what I believe, because as far as I can see none of the LACS lot will admit to anything except that they are the ones speaking the truth and the pro's won't back down either!


----------



## Hercules (31 August 2006)

The fact of the matter is that the antis live outside reality.
A-A is making a nonsense of the Law in his own way.
LACS and its self appointed monitors are not willing to further the issue because they are spineless and skint.
The police don't prosecute because they aren't interested in the Hunting Act.

The law is ineffective. Hunting continues.
The antis are very upset about that.  The hunting community are laughing at them.  

Karl, LACS et al  if you don't like the facts, bore off and cry on your family's shoulder.  They are probably used to your blubbing.  Weaklings to a man.


----------



## wurzel (31 August 2006)

Why do you doubt my integrity?

We can meet in the George at Brompton Regis and I will show you the deer.

Have you ever actually seen them?


----------



## brighteyes (31 August 2006)

End of?  Doubtful.


----------



## CARREG (31 August 2006)

Tom
I think Karl knows exactly what goes on at Baronsdown, his "I doubt your integrity" is just an excuse to distance himself from what he knows is the truth............Carreg


----------



## brighteyes (31 August 2006)

See!  Off to bed, nighty night.


----------



## Paul T (1 September 2006)

As pros are quick to lecture us all about how cruel nature can be, I'm surprised that there's sudden concern amongst them on this forum about wild deer that are free to come and go on LACS land. Like any other wild animals, some will inevitably die from illness and disease, and I've not seen any evidence to show this happens much more frequently on LACS land than anywhere else in the wild.

If you need futher information the following may help you:

http://www.extra.rdg.ac.uk/news/details.asp?ID=537

It's the pro-hunters who seem to have a disneyfied view of nature when it comes to the deer on LACS land.


----------



## Paul T (1 September 2006)

Moving? Who says? If it was illegal, why wasn't LACS prosecuted? 

Questions, questions, questions.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (1 September 2006)

As pros are quick to lecture us all about how cruel nature can be, I'm surprised that there's sudden concern amongst them on this forum about wild deer that are free to come and go on LACS land. Like any other wild animals, some will inevitably die from illness and disease, and I've not seen any evidence to show this happens much more frequently on LACS land than anywhere else in the wild.

If you need futher information the following may help you:

http://www.extra.rdg.ac.uk/news/details.asp?ID=537

It's the pro-hunters who seem to have a disneyfied view of nature when it comes to the deer on LACS land.
		
Click to expand...

Wild animals don't stand in a field waiting for a land rover to deliver then hay.

LACS deer are not wild, the unnaturally high numbers in one place is not wild.  The spread of disease quickly, which you can deny till you're blue in the face but is scientific knowledge amoungst high populations of animals in one area and even taught in the biology a-level syllabus (apparently LACS supporters don't have a-levels...) is not wild.  Protecting them from predators, which in this country is man and his gun/hounds - is not wild.

LACS deer are pets, and I wish someone would hurry up and prosecute them for illegally keeping livestock unfences, unregistered, untagged and untreated for disease.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (1 September 2006)

"If it was illegal, why wasn't LACS prosecuted? "

Because the police couldn't give a damn and there's no private vigilante organisation backed by bleeding heart celebs who are willing to spend tens of thousands of pounds doing so.


----------



## Paul T (1 September 2006)

Don't be so silly, of course they're wild. They're as wild as the birds in my garden which I feed from time to time.

Are you sure you're not Dorey's little girl?


----------



## Paul T (1 September 2006)

"Because the police couldn't give a damn"

Insufficient evidence that anything illegal had happened more like.

I'm still waiting for answers to the other questions: where's the evidence the vehicle was moving; and who said it was?


----------



## Doreys_Mum (2 September 2006)

If a bird in your garden broke a leg, what would you do?

LACS leave them for two weeks rather than let expert marksmen come and kill them.

No, it's not the same.

Your songbirds don't suffer from disease, your song birds have a natural predator.  TBH, I'd fricking encourage you to feed them cos they need every help they can get now the RSPCA have decided magpies are their next victim...

LACS deer are no longer wild. Their behaviour patterns have altered significantly due to human interferance.  Disease levels have rocketed due to human interferance.

But LACS refuse to admit this and will then say that they cannot interfer futher cos they're wild.

Bullshit.

Either they take responsibility, tag and register them, and start treating them for disease, or they stop feeding them.

I think I've said that three times now... I wonder if DEFRA would be interested in them breaking the law on keeping pet deer untagged?


----------

