No need to shoot more Exmoor deer
THE Deer Initiative thinks more deer should be shot (November 17). It is quoted as saying Exmoor is one of the areas worst affected by rising numbers and that quite a lot of damage has been done to its ancient woodland. It is wrong in both and is jumping the gun.
Exmoor and District Deer Management Society is the largest such society in the country and its 230 members are the farmers and foresters on whose land these deer roam. There is a considerable affection for the red deer among local people (and the stag's head was chosen as the emblem of Exmoor National Park Authority).
We actually know what is happening to deer numbers on Exmoor because, with the help of 240 counters on two consecutive dawns in every year since 1994, we have made our census and published the results. The highest number counted, just over 3,000 red deer, was in 2003. In 2008 there were actually fewer deer counted than in the previous year. The number of calves born each year is in rough equilibrium with losses from the herd. This is a stable population.
There is a balance to be assessed, but the Deer Initiative appears to have closed its mind both to public affection for the magnificent red deer and to a programme of government- funded research (of which it is fully aware). An ecologist is assessing adverse and beneficial effects of the existing herd on Exmoor woodlands and it is much too soon to be giving an opinion of the outcome.
Of course, some management of the deer in relation to the habitat is needed and our society is committed to all forms of legal control and non-lethal intervention. Most habitats can cope with the grazing pressure from a few deer, but very much larger numbers can cause unacceptable damage.
We advocate methods of disturbance that break up concentrations of deer numbers and thus minimise the impact in particular locations that can arise if nothing is done.
The overall population is not a problem as it is spread over a large area and dispersal is a useful technique used here for many years in the traditional management of the deer. Exmoor is not being overrun!
Hugh Thomas
Chairman, Exmoor & District Deer Management Society
Computer cop-out
COMPUTERS have clogged up the system, be it banking, the NHS or child protection, as in the latest atrocity perpetuated on an 18-month-old boy, resulting in his death. If this is a case of no-one's to blame, what on earth are we paying for?
Management that merely follows everyone else is easy-peasy; looking at what is in front of you and deciding what is to be done to rectify or prevent a situation now is a different style of management altogether – one we thought we were paying for.
Computers have become an opt-out of responsibility instead of a useful tool to aid it, and the bigger the organisation the bigger the management opt-out.
S M Nutton
Braunton
Expert departs
LET'S continue to be grateful for the WMN as it seeks to report and face up to the circumstances of our complicated world and our spiritually and ethically apostate Government.
Added to departing farmers and restless "firefighters, police officers, teachers, doctors and nurses" (editorial October 31) is Professor Colin McGuckin, distinguished adult stem cell expert – leaving this country because he says the UK's bias towards embryo research is preventing him helping people.
"You would barely know that adult stem cells exist," he says. "Unlike embryonic stem cell research, work with adult stem cells does not involve the destruction of human embryos. It has also shown itself to be more successful."
Professor McGuckin's announcement came two days after the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill passed its remaining stages in Parliament, opening the door to further controversial research using embryos.
Scientists, politicians and campaigners have repeatedly pointed out that embryo research shows far less promise than work using the ethical alternative of adult stem cells.
The professor will now open the world's biggest institute devoted to cord blood and adult stem cell research at the University of Lyon in January, taking with him a research team of about 10 from Newcastle.
Ann Whitaker
Bodmin
R-rated mouse
I RECENTLY bought a copy of The Tale of the Town Mouse and the Country Mouse, a modern retelling of the familiar story – ISBN 1-905847-00-9 – with a view to obtaining copies for my daughters.
On the face of it, a very innocent and entertaining little book – even the so-called warning in the very small print on the cover seems to be a joke.
What a shock as I got further into the book – so much so that I must write and express very strongly my objections to the language and content.
Thank goodness I obtained a copy first, and I do hope not many people got caught and were as shocked as I was. Mine is in the dustbin.
Frank C Payne
Totnes
Anti-Bush vote
WITH reference to the various letters in your paper concerning the election of Barack Obama as US President-elect.
As a US citizen, I would like to set the record straight. His winning of the election was not the momentous occasion many people make it out to be. The majority of people did not vote for him personally, but for the Democratic Party.
It was an anti-Republican vote in protest at the dire financial position in which George Bush and his party have left the United States.
Robert Schultz
Bodmin
12 Comments
View all
by FWK, Crediton
Thursday, December 04 2008, 9:48AM
“Just checked the guide to the Hunting Act on the Defra website. Reasonable steps to shoot any animals flushed out as soon as possible after flushing, and NO MORE than two dogs can be used to do the flushing (doesn't apply to two or more dogs as I thought). So if you take your dog for a walk in the woods and he flushes out a deer, you would be legally bound to try and shoot it as soon as possible afterwards. Presumably you could use the excuse that ity was unintentional, but if someone wanted to prosecute you you would have to prove non intention.
One would think it unlikely that this would be enforced, but it is nevertheless a daft clause and could be used to effectively prevent someone like Mr Bradshaw regularly moving deer on for perfectly legitimate reasons if someone who shares Joanne Marriage's views objected to it.”
by E Pendleton, runcorn
Monday, December 01 2008, 12:36AM
“One wonders why the Hunting Act requires flushed out deer to be shot. Is it perhaps just poorly drafted?”
by FWK, Crediton
Sunday, November 30 2008, 6:44PM
“re Joanne Marriage's comments - I have no idea what Giles Bradshaws woodland is like and for what purpose he manages it - he can no doubt answer for himself. But coppice management of woodland, e.g. for fuel, can be a perfectly sustainable, carbon-neutral form of management that saves using alternative fossil fuels. It is not the same at all as chopping down rainforest and replacing it with soy crops or grassland for raising beef.
As for turfing the deer out of their homes, red deer are fairly nomadic most of the time and flushing them out of a coppiced woodland probably causes them little or no inconvenience, unless there is no other cover for them for miles around, in which case it is very surprising that they are there in the first place.
Joanne may have some specific knowledge of Mr Bradshaw and his woodland (unlikely as she lives in Lancaster), but her comments seem hysterically anthropomorphic. If we treated animals in exactly the same way as we treat each other, we wouldn't eat them, house them in kennels, neuter them or put them down when they got ill. We wouldn't put them on a lead to take them for a walk, nor insist that they go into the garden for a poo. But perhaps Joanne doesn't do any of those things either.
Incidentally, if Joannes neighbours persistently came into her garden and starting eating her vegetables or stealing her logs, no doubt she would soon take measures to have them expelled.
I am not a huntig fan, but how can she approve of the Hunting Act as it stands when it insists that any deer put out of cover by more than two dogs (?) must be shot, rather than left to run away unimpeded? This is being somewhat hidebound, surely?”
by Joanne Marriage, Lancaster
Sunday, November 30 2008, 12:48PM
“Let's not forget exactly WHY Giles Bradshaw wants to disperse the deer on his land. He goes into his woods with a chainsaw and cuts all the trees down. Why does he do this? Because of his own selfish greed! Too long have people been allowed to rape the countryside in this way. How can we preach to countries like Argentina for destroying the rainforest when we allow such vandals to run amok in the countryside?
Not only should his activities remain illegal but he should not be allowed to decimate the woodland in the fist place.
He complains that deer are a problem because they stop trees regrowing. What complete hypocrisy when it is him who cut them down in the first place!
There is nothing wrong with the Hunting Act it just needs to be enforced. b It is well known that police forces are pro hunt and I have no doubt that this is the reason that this man is not arrested.
There is no need to disperse the deer on his land and such dispersal is hideously cruel. If it were not then why would it be illegal?
We don't turf people out of their homes with packs of dogs so why should we do so to animals?
If people like Giles Bradshaw will not comply with the law of the land in a civilised manner then their property should be taken from them so that the wildlife on it can be left in peace.
People who destroy and harass our wildlife in this manner represent the face of unadulterated evil”
by Robert Jenson, Bath
Sunday, November 30 2008, 9:19AM
“If people are merely flushing out deer to disperse them the law should not require them to be shot.”
by Francis Kirkham, Crediton
Saturday, November 29 2008, 11:21AM
“I have no direct experience of stag hunting but my understanding is that old and sick animals were targeted, their locations having been identified during reconnaisance a few days before a hunt. If this is the case it will have performed a natural function that would otherwise have been performed by natural predators (including man) and is therefore good for the health of the deer population. One assumes that, in the absence of hunting, this function should be performed by selective shooting.
It seems as if deer numbers have been fairly static at least for some years. Speaking to farmers on Exmoor in the past I got the impression that the numbers of deer present were in general tolerated for the benefit of the traditional hunting, and that the disturbance/dispersal caused by hunting was appreciated. It may be that now hunting is officially banned farmers and landowners are less tolerant. The worst thing would be for them to take matters into their own hands with the danger of using inappropriate methods and a ham-fisted approach.
A sensible culling policy is required, based upon the opinions of all those affected - not necessarily the same as all those concerned - sound data, and the identification and availability of the necessary expertise to carry out culling.”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Saturday, November 29 2008, 9:52AM
“I do recognise that Neil and I am not completely against shooting deer. I just think that it is wrong for the Hunting Act to require me to shoot the deer that I flush out.
Also my neighbours don't have an especial problem with deer and if they did they would shoot them because they are very keen on shooting. The deer only really cause me a problem when they congregate in my coppice woodland because they stop the coppice stools regenerating.”
by neil burgoyne, south yorks
Saturday, November 29 2008, 1:37AM
“As an ex gamekeeper,i am well aware of the damage deer can do to a habitat.I fully respect peoples wishes to remove deer from their property non lethally ,but surely you must realise that pushing the problem deer from your land will simply push the problem onto someone else.lethal control will surely reduce numbers that are more acceptable to everybody concerned.It should also be noted that deer/fox hunters do not seek to eradicate these animals but maintain them to an acceptable number.”
by Charles Henry, Somerset
Thursday, November 27 2008, 12:15PM
“"AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP! . That¿s what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been ¿Get Out of Bed!¿ In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then. . . It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world¿s most powerful country hostage and paralysed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U.S. Embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 23 years." . . . These are the words U.S. Navy Captain Ouimette, the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. . . .
Do a Google search for, "America Wake Up! Speech by Captain Dan Quimette" . . . Mr. Robert Schultz. . PLEASE READ THE FULL SPEECH . You will then understand fully why your country America went to war. . If Bush had had European support, instead of constant criticism, and less of the biased attack from the pusillanimous left wing media the world might not be in the mess it is today.”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Thursday, November 27 2008, 11:21AM
“The problem FWK is that it is almost impossible to persuade politicians that any law needs relaxing nor that they have got anything wrong. I have been trying to persuade labour MPs LACS and the RSPCA that flushed out deer should not have to be shot and they refuse to accept it.
I even was a claimant in the Countryside Alliances human rights case and the Government has defended it's right to force me to kill the deer I flush out with my dogs right up to the house of lords.
The Government and animal charities should start to consider sensible alternatives to killing our wildlife and support not criminalise people who carry them out.”