# Animal cruelty: Torment of a stag



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

Another publicty coup by the staghounds, reported in the Independent on Sunday:

Animal cruelty: Torment of a stag 

Video shows 'barbaric' hunting of deer with whip, say campaigners 

By Sophie Goodchild, Chief Reporter 

Published: 27 August 2006 

Police are to investigate video footage allegedly showing "barbaric" and "inhumane" treatment of a stag by huntsmen on National Trust land. 

The incident, captured on camera by animal rights campaigners, shows the creature being chased for more than two hours by dogs and a rider, who is seen cracking his whip at the animal which is clearly frightened and exhausted.

The League Against Cruel Sports alleges the Devon and Somerset Staghounds acted illegally in chasing the stag, which was eventually shot, over a long distance at Dunkery Beacon in Somerset on 14 August. It also says these "barbaric" actions show the hunt is not fit to dispatch stags and was contravening National Trust guidelines. These allow a hunt on to Trust land only to dispatch stags which are sick or injured, and state categorically that animals must not be chased.

The hunt denies any wrongdoing and says its members were culling the stag, which it says was old, in accordance with hunting laws.

However, the allegations made by the league are deeply embarrassing for the National Trust which caused uproar earlier this year when it announced it planned to reverse a long-standing ban on hunts on all of its estates. The decision was taken to allow the culling of stags on its land. The trust said this could be an effective and humane way of dealing with deer on its property in the Quantock Hills and Exmoor.

The pro-hunting lobby argues that hunting with hounds is the most humane way of managing deer and foxes, but welfare activists say it legitimises hunting as a sport. The league said that it believed that the Devon and Somerset Staghounds was using dogs to chase the stag. The law states that the hunt is only allowed to use two dogs to flush out animals.

"These pictures show the shocking truth about how the people chosen by the trust to kill ani- mals behave," said a spokesman. "It's like allowing paedophiles to help out with a mother and toddler group. This animal was exhausted, terrified and tormented. This was the pursuit of a deer for fun. It was not a cull, it was slaughter. It was barbaric and inhumane."

The Devon and Somerset Staghounds refuted the league's claims and said it was acting within the law, had permission to be on the land and said the stag was one "suitable for culling" because it was old.

Tom Yandle, chairman of the hunt, said that the horseman had cracked the whip near the animal to turn it back towards the waiting guns. He added that the new restrictions on hunting brought in by the Government were partly to blame for how animals are killed.

"I don't think the Hunting Act produces humanity," said Mr Yandle. "It would be much better for the animals if the Act had not happened but I don't see how chasing the deer and riding alongside it and cracking a whip is any more inhumane than any other form of moving a deer around."

The trust confirmed it had been called to an incident on 14 August. It said it had no power to ban the hunt from this part of Dunkery Beacon and had no control over its activities because the trust did not hold the hunting rights.

However, anyone who controls or manages land where hunting takes place has a responsibility under the Act. 

Police are to investigate video footage allegedly showing "barbaric" and "inhumane" treatment of a stag by huntsmen on National Trust land. 

The incident, captured on camera by animal rights campaigners, shows the creature being chased for more than two hours by dogs and a rider, who is seen cracking his whip at the animal which is clearly frightened and exhausted.

The League Against Cruel Sports alleges the Devon and Somerset Staghounds acted illegally in chasing the stag, which was eventually shot, over a long distance at Dunkery Beacon in Somerset on 14 August. It also says these "barbaric" actions show the hunt is not fit to dispatch stags and was contravening National Trust guidelines. These allow a hunt on to Trust land only to dispatch stags which are sick or injured, and state categorically that animals must not be chased.

The hunt denies any wrongdoing and says its members were culling the stag, which it says was old, in accordance with hunting laws.

However, the allegations made by the league are deeply embarrassing for the National Trust which caused uproar earlier this year when it announced it planned to reverse a long-standing ban on hunts on all of its estates. The decision was taken to allow the culling of stags on its land. The trust said this could be an effective and humane way of dealing with deer on its property in the Quantock Hills and Exmoor.

The pro-hunting lobby argues that hunting with hounds is the most humane way of managing deer and foxes, but welfare activists say it legitimises hunting as a sport. The league said that it believed that the Devon and Somerset Staghounds was using dogs to chase the stag. The law states that the hunt is only allowed to use two dogs to flush out animals.
"These pictures show the shocking truth about how the people chosen by the trust to kill ani- mals behave," said a spokesman. "It's like allowing paedophiles to help out with a mother and toddler group. This animal was exhausted, terrified and tormented. This was the pursuit of a deer for fun. It was not a cull, it was slaughter. It was barbaric and inhumane."

The Devon and Somerset Staghounds refuted the league's claims and said it was acting within the law, had permission to be on the land and said the stag was one "suitable for culling" because it was old.

Tom Yandle, chairman of the hunt, said that the horseman had cracked the whip near the animal to turn it back towards the waiting guns. He added that the new restrictions on hunting brought in by the Government were partly to blame for how animals are killed.

"I don't think the Hunting Act produces humanity," said Mr Yandle. "It would be much better for the animals if the Act had not happened but I don't see how chasing the deer and riding alongside it and cracking a whip is any more inhumane than any other form of moving a deer around."

The trust confirmed it had been called to an incident on 14 August. It said it had no power to ban the hunt from this part of Dunkery Beacon and had no control over its activities because the trust did not hold the hunting rights.

However, anyone who controls or manages land where hunting takes place has a responsibility under the Act.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 August 2006)

A sensible law would regulate such activities on the basis of cruelty.  The Hunting Act makes no attempt whatsoever to do so.

I can't see much correspondance between the probably legal activities described here and the completely illegal ones I describe in the previous post.  

If this is legal why should what I do be illegal?


----------



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

I very much doubt that what is described here is legal under the terms of the Hunting Act, particularly as it doesn't seem as though the stag was shot as soon as possible after being found or flushed out. 

Your colleagues in the pro-hunting campaign just wanted to have some 'fun' before killing it instead.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (29 August 2006)

Karl, quick question for you...

You know how the countryside is... full of bushes, hills, other little inconveniences, and you know how guns are - kinda fatal.

As it would appear that the stag was chased towards waiting guns, even if the chase did last the alleged two hours, how would you feel if it was proven that the whole fiasco was, in fact, to try and stay inside the law?

The hunt needed a stag who was suitable to be culled, and the guns need to be positioned somewhere safe, somewhere they can clearly see the difference between the hounds, the huntsman, the stag and the antis.  Now, how else do we get a stag to happen to find himself in such a position that he can be shot quickly?

I wonder if in this instance the huntsman travelled to find a deer.  Maybe a couple of miles from the guns as the croiw flies.  But Stag don't run like crow fly, so he ran back and forth.  Realising this was a) illegal and b) causing distress, the huntsman rode alongside in order to try and turn the stag in the direction required more affectivly.

And bollocks to him clearly looking scared - I know the LACS idea of clearly scared - I've seen a video that they claim shows a stag clearly distressed with hounds on it's heels, and all I could see was a stag running along quite gayly to the sound of BIRDSONG!  Hounds could not be seen nor heard!

LACS seem to think if an animal is running it is therefore distressed.  They even claim it of the hounds from time to time...


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 August 2006)

They have to take reasonab;e steps to shoot the deer, cracking a whip at it to drive it towards guns is such a step.

In my opinion they should be allowed to let it escape, what do you think Karl?


----------



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

I know how the stag-hunters are - kinda taking the piss. They so obviously care nothing about animal welfare (well, obviously to anyone with half a brain and an ounce of concern for animal welfare) and are only concerned with having their 'bit of fun', whatever the cost.

I'm surprised you continue to argue the toss.


----------



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

In my opinion they shouldn't be out chasing stags in the first place.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 August 2006)

What about what I did at the weekend, should that be illegal?


----------



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

I find it difficult to work out exactly what you do and don't do with your dogs because your accounts seem to change from post to post.

If you were using your dogs to chase deer then yes, I think it should be illegal.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 August 2006)

I do lots of different things with them Karl, I've tried flushing out with out chasing, now I'm getting into using my dogs to pursue the deer.


----------



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

Giles, do you agree with using hounds to chase a stag for over two hours before killing it?


----------



## Doreys_Mum (29 August 2006)

So what you really mean is, reguardless of what lengths the huntsman have to go to to hunt within the law, reguardless of the implications to animal welfare if certain animals are not culled, you believe the staghounds to be in the wrong because NO ONE should be hunting deer REGUARDLESS Of the reason.

I am sure the stags are very happy to hear that....


----------



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

This had nothing to do with hunting within the law and it's about time you dropped the futile pretence that it is. The staghunters caused this stag to suffer simply because they wanted some 'fun'.


----------



## Hercules (29 August 2006)

Karl,

We shall wait to see if the police and the courts agree with your guilty verdict.  I think that you will (yet again) be sadly disappointed.


----------



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

It's the pro-hunt lobby which keeps on losing court cases.


----------



## Hercules (29 August 2006)

It's LACS who have had to pay for the case.  It's LACS who have failed to get the police or the CPS to take action on any of their 'evidence'.  It's LACS who are upset about the Act being totally inneffective.

I enjoyed following a trail today.  Only a brace and a half were accounted for.


----------



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

Small price to pay for the guilty verdict.


----------



## Antoninus_Pluck (29 August 2006)

When I was at school one of the lads in my house used to put a squirrel in a squash court with a couple of terriers. Now even I think that's a bit orf. He went on to become a hunt master. Better not say which hunt!


----------



## Hercules (29 August 2006)

I continue to enjoy hunting.  You continue to enjoy living with your head in the sand.  We are therefore both happy.


----------



## Antoninus_Pluck (29 August 2006)

Hunting used to be a lot more fun. I don't mean because of the Hunting Act, which we to a man (I suppose I bet add "woman" for the antis out there) ignore, but due to the dreadfully common people we get. I mean: used car salesmen, accountants, not to mention a whole array of below-stairs types! When I started hunting we'd allow a token number of tenant farmers in to hand round the stirrup cup and that was about it.


----------



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

There will always be anonymous cretins who insist on breaking the law - hardly open resistence to the legislation!


----------



## Hercules (29 August 2006)

Advertising meets in the local newspapers is hardly being anonymous.

Hunting continues.  You prove otherwise.


----------



## AlanE (29 August 2006)

Yes,Karl, it certainly shows the LACS in its true colours doesn't it? Desperate to make something out of nothing, as usual. Again, as usual, it raises questions about LACS motivations, but I'll reserve judgement until I've seen the video. But I guess that might not be possible without it being 'edited' first?


----------



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

Hunts which publicise meets in local papers aren't admitting to breaking the law. They only time we see hunters claiming they're breaking the law is when they're posted anonymously on threads like this.

As I said, cretins.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 August 2006)

I admit to breaking the law, do you want my address so you can report me.


----------



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

No, I'm much more interested in people who set out to be cruel to animals, not harmless eccentrics like you who are out for as much self promotion as they can get.


----------



## brighteyes (29 August 2006)

I can't believe you just said that!  I didn't have you down as an upper class twit....


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 August 2006)

Ad hominem

So you admit what I do is harmless and not cruel, but still think it should be illegal, why?


----------



## Paul T (29 August 2006)

If you use your dogs to chase deer I agree with the law which makes it illegal. However, I'd question what you've described today amounts to chasing - if your dogs were truly chasing deer they wouldn't be by your side.

If I don't get back to you for the next few hours or so it's because I have a home and family to go to.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 August 2006)

A lot of the time they were just in front of me.  Can the staghounds chase a stag if the dogs are just infront of the huntsmen?  Where's that in the law?

You say what I do is harmless, why should it be illegal?


----------



## wurzel (29 August 2006)

How can it be chased for a long distance at Dunkery Beacon?

By definition, it does not make sense !!!


----------



## combat_claire (30 August 2006)

And this also from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/hunt/Story/0,,1860899,00.html

How will reducing the calibre of weapon used for shooting deer enhance the welfare aspect of their management???


----------



## CARREG (30 August 2006)

Then theres this............Carreg

The Times August 30, 2006

Extended deer cull would put orphan fawns in hunters' sights
By Fran Yeoman and Morwenna Coniam

RELAXED rules on deerhunting will bring more marksmen into the countryside as the wild deer population continues to soar.

Proposals to shorten the annual close period, during which deer are protected, and to allow orphaned fawns to be killed are among measures being put out to public consultation, it was announced yesterday.

The scheme is an attempt to reduce road accidents and damage to the countryside, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). But it has angered some animal rights campaigners, who argued that the plans will lead to a huge surge in people hunting wild deer simply for sport.

A spokesman for the RSPCA gave a cautious welcome to the measures where there is clear evidence of a need to cull deer and it is done by humane methods. A healthy, sustainable deer population must also be maintained, the RSPCA said. It is very important that deer are not simply portrayed or regarded as pests. There is more to deer management than culling.

It is essential that where exceptional circumstances are cited to support a particular course of action, the circumstances are truly exceptional. From an animal welfare perspective, the second principle of the Deer Initiative Accord is paramount  a humane, responsible and sensitive approach to management.

Barry Gardiner, the Biodiversity Minister, said that wild deer populations were growing rapidly in parts of the country despite annual culls, and as a result the animals are causing millions of pounds worth of damage to agriculture.

He said: They are damaging some of our most threatened woodland habitats. In addition, they are presenting an increasing hazard on our roads, with more than 300 people injured each year in deer-related road accidents.

If the proposals become law, the close season will be shortened by a fortnight and licensed killing of deer will be permitted even during protected periods to prevent the deterioration of natural heritage or to preserve public health and safety.

Any reasonable and humane means to destroy deer suffering from injury or disease will be permitted, and dependent young could be killed if their mother has died.

Mr Gardiner added: The current laws were framed when deer numbers were smaller and no longer promote effective, sustainable deer management. These proposed changes will ensure that we strike the right balance between conserving deer and effectively addressing the problems they cause.

A spokesman for the Defra-funded deer initiative said: Changing farming patterns and the Governments policy of increasing forest cover have increased the available food and habitat. Climate change has meant we havent had a severe winter since about 1963, so everythings going their way.

Andrew Tyler, director of Animal Aid, the animal rights organisation, questioned whether the deer population was soaring. He said: Scotland has been talking about burgeoning numbers for some years now and as a result quite a lucrative stalking has built up. You cant trust figures on deer populations from pro-hunting lobbies.

If these proposals go ahead it looks like it will be a field day for those who want to kill deer. Whos going to check that the deer are shot humanely? Robert Gray, campaigns director for the Countryside Alliance, denied that hunting could become too widespread: Its so well regulated that youre not going to get any Tom, Dick or Harry just turning up  there are a lot of lengthy procedures to getting a licence.

The announcement by Defra comes after publication of the Deer Action Plan in December 2004.


----------



## Antoninus_Pluck (30 August 2006)

Can we have a neat précis rather than having to trawl through huge articles? It's most tiresome.


----------



## Hercules (30 August 2006)

Your sort always find the truth tiresome.  Prick.


----------



## Antoninus_Pluck (30 August 2006)

Having found a window in my busy schedule to read this, I'm absolutely fuming! What the bloody hell is someone from the CA doing talking about "lengthy procedures to getting a licence" to be a marksman? Anyone reading this will think there are perfectly well-qualified chaps around to bump off the deer - without an eight hour chase!!! Has the CA gone mad???


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 August 2006)

Why do you pretend to be a farmer from Simonsbath and write letters to the western daily press?


----------



## Hercules (30 August 2006)

Because, just like his 'understanding' of wildlife is based on Walt Disney, his life is also a fantasy and is full of games of make believe.

We should take pity on the poor misguided creature.


----------



## Antoninus_Pluck (30 August 2006)

I find these personal attacks very un-English. I increasingly worry about what's happening to the Motherland. Has she really become so brash and so common?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 August 2006)

To repeat my question.

Why do you pretend to be a farmer from Simonsbath and write letters to the western daily press?


----------



## Antoninus_Pluck (30 August 2006)

Why do I pretend to write letters to the western daily press? I don't.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 August 2006)

Do you think it would be right to disobey the law by refusing to kill an animal?


----------



## Antoninus_Pluck (30 August 2006)

No, the role of animals is to be killed. The method of killing should be determined solely in terms of how much pleasure it brings humans, irrespective of how cruel it is. This is why you and I both support staghunting even though we both know it's cruel.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 August 2006)

I'm afraid I disagree with you there Tony.  I think it would be quite wrong for me to kill deer.  I've never killed a deer in my life.

What makes you think I support stag hunting?


----------



## Antoninus_Pluck (30 August 2006)

Do you support staghunting?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 August 2006)

What do you think Tony Pluck?

Why do you think I've been trying to get them to stop shooting deer?


----------



## Antoninus_Pluck (30 August 2006)

I think you support staghunting, yes, at least in public, even though you think it's cruel. I suspect you don't want to fall out with your pals Tom, Hercules and Nigel.

What's the "four" equivalent of a triumvirate?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 August 2006)

Don't be so absurd, I haven't even got a clue who they are.

I want a law against cruelty.

Which of my posts or letters are pro stag hunting?


----------



## Antoninus_Pluck (30 August 2006)

Do you support stag hunting or not?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 August 2006)

Not particularily,

have you ever heard of Richard Course?

Do you support Arsenal or Chelsea?

Mind you I've just bought a horse and I might well go out with the stag hounds, to see what they do.  Just like a monitor.


----------



## Antoninus_Pluck (30 August 2006)

You're a charlatan. Your "message" is basically cant masquerading as deeply-felt moral outrage.


----------



## wurzel (30 August 2006)

You seem frustrated !!

I love stag hunting.

But I also support the right to chase deer without killing them.

I know this is difficult for you.


----------



## brighteyes (31 August 2006)

quadumvirate


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

Rubbish, I want an effective law against cruelty, you are happy with an innefective law against hunting.

I can and do break the law with out being cruel and I object to my activities being made illegal.

You are only prepared to think in black and white.  There are more than two sides to the argument.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

Do you think the law should ban things that are not cruel?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

Maybe I annoy you a little because I don't fit into one of the nice comfortable little pigeon holes that are all your narrow minded blinkered prejudiced little mind contains.

Just an idea.

You never told me which football team you support is it Arseneal or Chelsea?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

I don't kill animals.  Are you for, against or indifferent to what I do with ,my dogs.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

If they were 'just in front of you' I doubt they were chasing the deer, even if they were three-legged muts trying their best.

Correct me if I'm wrong but a huntsman is actually on a horse, which can gallop considerably faster than you can run. Unless, of course, the horse is three-legged as well. Anything's possible in your topsy-turvey world.

BTW, which part of 'I'm not sure what you do is illegal' don't you understand. I don't think you're thick but I am beginning to wonder.


----------



## Hercules (31 August 2006)

The distance between huntsman/hounds or dogs/handler is irrelevant.

I can control my spaniel using voice and whistle from 200m+.

The law doesn't stipulate distances either.

Karl, once again you are tying yourself up in knots.

2 dogs to guns is good.  4 dogs to no guns is bad.  What is it you don't understand?


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

"The distance between huntsman/hounds or dogs/handler is irrelevant."

Of course it's relevant. If Giles's dogs were just in front of him they couldn't be running very fast in which case it's highly unlikely they were chasing the deer. When dogs chase deer they run much quicker than humans.

By Giles's own admission, once his dogs are much more than 100 metres ahead of him they very difficult to control.

BTW I didn't state that the law stipulated distances. I think you need to stop tying yourself in knots with silly messages which betray your ignorance.


----------



## Hercules (31 August 2006)

How fast does a dog need to be moving in order for deer to be in distress?

Out of control dogs whilst flushing means illegal act.  Why don't they prosecute?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

Rubbish, my dogs were chasing the deer and so was I.  I could chase an animal with the dogs on a lead as well if I so chose to.  

The distance between Tony Wright and his hounds was never considered.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

How fast do your dogs run when they're chasing something, Giles? 

"The distance between Tony Wright and his hounds was never considered."

Why do you make things up as you go along? From Judge Farmer's verdict on the Wright case:

"Mr Wright acknowledges that there were times when the hounds were some distance from him and in respect of the 2nd fox, so far ahead he did not appreciate that a fox had been flushed and was, whether by scent or sight being chased."


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

Giles is adament his dogs are always in his control. 

Unless a dog has three legs it moves much quicker than a human when it's chasing something. Giles's varying accounts of his exploits just don't add up.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

"Giles is adament his dogs are always in his control."

No I'm not adamant of any such thing.

They were always in control last weekend while I chased deer.  Sometimes they are off for hours.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

"How fast do your dogs run when they're chasing something, Giles? "  

Bloody fast unless I restrain  or control them, but not as fast as deer.

"Mr Wright acknowledges that there were times when the hounds were some distance from him and in respect of the 2nd fox, so far ahead he did not appreciate that a fox had been flushed and was, whether by scent or sight being chased." 

mm I'll sort of give you that one.


----------



## Paul T (31 August 2006)

"mm I'll sort of give you that one. "

Good. See, it's not all that difficult. 

""How fast do your dogs run when they're chasing something, Giles? " 

Bloody fast unless I restrain or control them, but not as fast as deer."

But surely if you restrain them they're no longer chasing the deer. Tracking maybe, but you've prevented them from chasing the animals.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (31 August 2006)

I let them chase them as fast as I can run.  I beleive hiunts do control there dogs while hunting animals.

According to the government searching is hunting.

Pursuing is I believe the word in the law.


----------



## Paul T (1 September 2006)

"I let them chase them as fast as I can run."

Through thick undergrowth? Cricky, that must be fast. I don't think any reasonable person would classify that as chasing. Perhaps that's why the police haven't wasted time on your self-seeking publicity crusade.


----------



## Paul T (1 September 2006)

Hear, hear.


----------



## Hercules (1 September 2006)

You could run after a human through undergrowth and that would be classed as 'chasing'.  Why not the same classification if you run after deer?  Speed is not the issue.


----------



## Paul T (1 September 2006)

How ridiculous, of course it is. Speed and distance from the quarry has everything to do with the the concept of 'chase'. 

Dictionary definition: "When you go after someone or something very quickly in order to catch them...Asked why he went fox-hunting, he replied that he loved the thrill of the chase.."


----------



## Hercules (1 September 2006)

So by your reasoning, when for example a fox 4 fields away from hounds it is no longer being chased because it is a long distance away.

Glad about that.  A trail can be hunted, a fox can break covert.  The hounds can be held up until the fox is a few fields away.  Hounds can be laid on to the scent, but because of the distance between themselves and the quarry, they are not therefore deemed to be chasing.

Foxes run faster than hounds, so again speed is not the issue.

Nothing has really changed.  Thanks mate.  I am not a lawbreaker after all.


----------



## Paul T (1 September 2006)

No, the relevant distance will depend on the animal being chased. It's a pity I have to point all of this out but never mind. Don't you think the concept of chase has more relevance if a fox is four fields away rather than a tortoise? Do you think you can chase a fox that's five miles away from hounds?


----------



## Hercules (1 September 2006)

''Do you think you can chase a fox that's five miles away from hounds?''

Unlikely, but you tell me at what distance from the quarry species the chase actually starts/finishes.

You don't really know mate and once again your flawed reasoning has tied you up in knots.


----------



## Paul T (1 September 2006)

''Do you think you can chase a fox that's five miles away from hounds?''

Unlikely..."

Thanks, so you're wrong to claim that speed is not the issue.


----------



## Hercules (1 September 2006)

Mate,

5 miles is a distance, not a speed.


----------

