SUBMISSION TO LORD BURN'S INQUIRY INTO
HUNTING
I enclose my observations on Deer Hunting. It should be read in conjunction with my submission to the National Trust Council "The Red Deer Story Simplified" (copy enclosed).
I, as a practical Veterinary Surgeon am in an unique position of knowing about the combination of the red deer, their hunting and the deer science. I have been involved with the science since the Bateson report hit the headlines. I have tried to both factual and fair.
I consider that the deer and the hunters have been grossly insulted by the inferior quality of Professor Bateson's Science. I have spent time, effort and money to rectify this injustice.
I genuinely consider that the deer, which are magnificent, intelligent creatures deserve to be culled by hunting when they have a chance to escape unharmed, but fitter and wiser.
I would willingly submit more evidence if so required. I am also prepared to assist the inquiry in any way possible and would respect total confidentiality if asked to do so.
D.J.B. Denny.B.Vet.Med.M.R.C.V.S.
205 Henwick Road,
Worcester.
WP2 5PG
Tel/Fax: 01905 424374
THE RED DEER.
The deer are fascinating, highly intelligent, magnificent animals. Some live by choice in close proximity to human habitation, near farms, alongside farm drives and roads etc. They become used to routines they recognise farmers tractors, landrovers and dogs. If the farmer has a new vehicle or a new dog the deer take 10 days plus to recognise them. A farmer on a quad bike looking around his stock - the deer will remain but if he has a passenger then they will move off several minutes later.
Three stags were lying on the edge of a wood approximately 50 yards away from the farm drive and about 100 yards from the farmhouse and buildings. Early in the morning the farmer and his two dogs came out of the house and the dogs raced about the stags paid virtually no attention. The farmer then came down the drive in his landrover to attend his sheep, later the farmers wife went out to work in her car, the postman went up the drive and back again - the deer gave it all no more than a glance. The farmer returned with his two dogs running behind the landrover - barking, then a tractor started up around the farm buildings - still the deer were undisturbed About two hours later two different landrovers came up the drive in convoy and went to the house. The drivers had not been in the house two minutes and the deer were up and off. These were the harboured deer for the days hunting. Until these two vehicles went up the drive it had all been routine to the deer, no danger. Something different and there was danger.
The deer do not seem to associate riders on a horse as such a big danger as a person off a horse. A horseman can approach far closer to deer than someone on foot, without disturbing them.
I was harbouring one evening watching deer and all hell let loose, a farmer and helpers with several dogs was moving several hundred sheep - a lot of shouting, barking etc, the deer just looked up saw what the commotion was and continued chewing their cuds. It was all routine no danger. If a visitor/walker and a dog are on the vicinity then the deer will become very alert not moving off straight away but as soon as the walker/danger has passed.
Out harbouring one Bank Holiday weekend there were no deer to be seen until we approached a parking/picnicking/visitor area and there were deer lying down in a dip on a hill out of sight ,within 100 yards of all the activity. They would have been there all day in the sun out of the wind knowing that they were safe, watching humans at play.
HUNTING.
A hunt consists of one man with a horn - the huntsman - with a number of hounds, helped by the whippers in and overseen by the Masters, the purpose is to cull the quarry, The whole operation is financed by the followers/supporters. It is a disciplined, monitored cull and completely financially self supporting. The followers are more a liability than a help in the hunting field - they are tolerated.
The hunters are the custodians of the quarry. No hunting then there will be no deer herds in the West Country. No hunting then keepers will attempt to exterminate the foxes in their areas.
A hunt is a battle of wits between hounds and quarry assisted or hindered by the huntsman and others. At least half the quarry escape unharmed, it is evenly matched - a sport.
During a hunt a number of deer will have been hunted all but one will have been the wrong one, half the properly hunted deer will escape.
Some stags have been hunted three or even four times during their life. Some taking a similar route to a previous hunt. There is one stag easily recognised because it has a deformed horn, which has been hunted three times and jumped the soma gate each time to escape.
The old stags through fitness, cunning and good luck have survived The local residents even give the older ones names. They collect their shed horns each spring and monitor their stags' progress year on year.
The older stags - 8yr plus - should be culled because of the risk of in breeding increases. Local residents often request that their stag is hunted and be given chance to escape rather than be shot by poachers. The attraction to the followers is the unpredictable quarry/hound relationship, the anticipation of what might or might not happen, the opportunity to see nature in the raw, to be able to appreciate a job of work well done. All hunters respect the quarry - it is not a blood lust. The majority of followers have never seen or don't want to see a kill.
Once the deer is killed, the body is taken to a suitable site where everyone gathers to examine the deer, pay their respects and relate their side of the hunt. The body is eviscerated - the liver is given to followers, the feet - the slots are given to privileged followers - usually first time hunters - the heart goes to the owner of the land on which the the deer was killed, the antlers/head belongs to the Masters who present it later to a special recipient and the venison is divided between the landowners over which the deer had been hunted. The hounds are given the digestive tract to eat as a reward.
BEHAVIOUR OF THE HUNTED.
Except for the old stags, deer usually live in groups. When the hounds initially approach - provided they have not already been disturbed they will wait until the hounds are close to. They will then gather up and huddle together sometimes circling and looking whilst they develop as escape strategy. This is very similar to sheep with a dog. One of the group may break away - usually a younger inexperienced one - but others will run together with hounds in pursuit, who initially hunt by sight i.e. coursing the deer. Whatever the terrain the deer are capable of travelling faster than the hounds and soon a wide gap develops and the hounds hunt by scent.
Deer that are in cover, be it bracken, gorse or wood will often on the approach of hounds lower themselves to the ground to make themselves less conspicuous - they will wait until the hounds are with in a few yards before standing and running off. It is usually the younger, inexperienced deer that move out first.
The object of the hunt is to separate the selected deer off from the others. This is done with a small number of hounds the tufters - the most reliable hounds - approximately 11. Once the deer had been separated then the rest of the hounds "putting on the pack" are laid on to the deer.
The hunted group split up at various stages - the hounds frequently chasing the wrong one, which causes more delay.
I have watched the selected stag - which had been lying on it's own being chased by hounds, travel only 50 yards down a wooded bank and stop and lie down. It sent two more stags out into the open to be chased by the hounds, and remained there itself.
The younger - less experienced deer usually break cover first allowing the older stags time to slip away unseen. Deer may run for miles to escape the hounds or use their cunning and keep hiding, The hunted deer will join up with other deer much to their annoyance - they try and disown them because it means hassle for them. They will physically kick up another deer for the hounds to chase the wrong one. They will deliberately run through cattle or sheep or run across recently mucked fields to spoil/foil the scent and thus delay the hounds. They run through water going up or down stream to loose their scent to delay the hounds. Whatever the terrain the deer is superior to the hounds. They soil themselves by wallowing in a mud bath all this and the hounds within hearing distance. They run though habitation, hide in farm buildings.
I watched a hunted stag - it was obviously looking for somewhere to hide - the hounds were within hearing range, it started to slow down as it approached some gorse - it went in the gorse and for about 30 seconds it went out of sight. lt then moved on another 50 yards to more gorse and repeated the process. The hounds by this stage were in the same field of vision. The deer then moved onto more gorse 30 yards away and stayed put. The hounds as they approached the first piece of gorse started to slow down and cast about they proceeded to the second patch of gorse and again after a bit instead of going on to the third patch they passed il - onto the open moor where they picked up the scent of another deer. The hunted deer escaped by staying cool and still. Throughout the hunt the deer is in complete control of the situation. There is no panic, they know where they are making for. Two seasons ago three deer were killed in the same small field in the same fortnight that had been hunted from different end of Exrnoor. This was no coincidence. They select their site to stand at bay if it is not a suitable place to defend then they move on and find a more suitable site.
I could hear hounds approaching in a wood when the stag suddenly appeared from the wood into a large field on the side of a hill. The stag climbed to the middle of the field where there was a large Oak tree. The deer proceeded to rub its antlers against the trunk - to remove some velvet. It then went around the tree twice in a circle approximately 20 yards in diameter before moving up to the middle of the top fence of the field. It then went along the fence to a gate in the corner where there were some cattle looking over the gale to see what all the commotion was about. The stag stopped there some seconds and then moved back diagonally to the tree which it had circled. The hounds by this time were still in full cry and about to leave the wood. The stag then trotted down to the bottom of the field where it joined some hinds and calves, where it stayed for approximately 5 minutes before leaving and entering the wood. Here it joined more deer and laid down. The hounds never found that deer again in spite of intense searching. I could see that deer moving about in the wood to avoid hunt staff and hounds that were looking for him.
The hunted deer especially the older ones who have seen it all before or have hunted previously are cool and calm They use their wits as well as their speed and agility to survive, There is no panic.
The deer when hounds initially approach behave just like sheep, they gather up together and look around. When animals are frightened they frequently empty their bladders. In my study of 23 deer most of the deer had full bladders when they were eviscerated. Since an animal undergoing exercise has reduced urine production than having a full bladder at the end would indicate that they had not been frightened during the hunt.
Near the end of another hunt I could hear hounds approaching I was with many others in a road through a wood going down a hill towards a river. Looking up the stag had entered the wood from the right - it then ran across the top to the end and came back approximately half way down the wood. The hounds in full cry, unable to see the deer, were in the wood following the line the deer had taken. The deer was by now stationary and looking down towards the road which was virtually blocked. There was a gap of about eight foot, between two landrovers, which was filled with people. I shouted to these people to move over and leave a gap. The deer then came down the hill and straight through the gap. The hounds spotted the deer and coursed it down the hill. The deer went into the river, ran up the river about 100 yards where it backed into a bush and stood at bay. It was immediately shot. This deer was cool and calm and showed no evidence of distress.
In spite of all the exercise the deer undergo I have never seen them 'blowing', never seen any increased signs of respiratory movement. They stand at bay mouth shut in a defensive position. If the hounds approach they arch their necks preparing to lunge at the hounds if they approach too close When they are annoyed they will cock their jaws.
An owner of farmed deer who had never been hunting before remarked that she could not believe how cool and calm the deer are. They are completely focused on their survival and appear oblivious to humans.
A young stag that was being chased by hounds in close pursuit up a field. In front of the hedge was a single strand of barbed with then a four foot gap and then a high hedge. The stag lay down under the wire rolled over into the gap and departed through a gap in the hedge. Who taught it that procedure. No panic just a calm calculated means of escape.
For approximately three hours I watched a hunt occurring panoramic landscape. The tufters put up seven deer entered a coombe and came out on three stags. They went into another coombe and came out on five stags. They proceeded in a large oval, for three cycles each time they went close to a tree. Each time the huntsman looked down at a particular place by this tree. The hunted stag having been separated by the tufters than went past the tree and laid up 200 yards away. The pack was put on to this deer, they then left the area. At the end of the day I asked the huntsman why he had been looking down at that particular spot, he replied that another stag had been lying there all the time. It was still there after the end of the hunt. It was completely unfazed - knowing that it was not the target deer.
One old stag that had been 'harboured' was lying in a small area of bracken and gorse. The tufters drew this small area and a young stag came out followed by the tufters. They then redrew the same area. The huntsman dismounted and walked through the patch. I could see the head of the deer they were looking for, sometimes it was within feet of the huntsman. It would then shuffle along and move a few yards. At one stage it was in the exact spot where the huntsman had been a few minutes earlier. After drawing this area at least five times the deer stood up and moved off. It then lay down again approximately 100 yards away. The pack was put on and it was another five minutes before the hounds refound the deer and it ran off. It then ran down the bottom of a valley, crossed a main road - the hounds were by this time way behind, and proceeded to go between the beaters and the guns of a Partridge shoot. Shooting was stopped - the American visitors/guns instead if being annoyed that a shoot had been ruined were excited. This was an old stag that although fit and healthy was past his prime and was known in the area but moved about six miles down the valley for the rut, i.e. never go on your own doorstep !!
A hunted deer runs across a hill. Near the end of a hunt if the deer is at the bottom of a hill and is fresh found by the hounds it will frequently run straight up to near the top of the hill and then come back down again to stand at bay. The locals say "the deer are cooking themselves," this their last effort to loose the hounds ? An interesting observation.
Deer when they canter will lower their heads and point their nostrils forwards. Professor Bateson claims this is due to fatigue:. It is so that they straighten out their airways to reduce air resistance and increase oxygen intake. They will run with their mouths open and tongues hanging out for the same reason.
An old stag at the end of a hunt had travelled across the length of a wood - where the trees had been felled, the trunks were still lying at various heights off the ground - the whole lot was overgrown with about 6ft high bracken. With hounds 30-40 yards behind, the stag turned backed into a bush and stood at bay. The stags mouth was shut there was no apparent increase in respiratory rate. The hounds by this time were in an arc in front of the stag. Every time a hound approached the stag arched its neck as though about to lunge the hound backed off. After about three minutes the stag thought better of this and charged through the hounds straight down the hill for about 60 yards - negotiating the fallen trees and thick undergrowth. At the bottom it came to a stream, where it trotted normally downwards. It was then shot. Until the deer was shot it was in complete control of the situation.
DEER AT BAY.
The older stags probably having been hunted before will stand at bay at any stage of the hunt even to only one or two hounds. They will do this to a farm dog. It is a stand off they consider it a nuisance to be disturbed by such inferior animals.
When a stag is bayed by hounds and there is no human intervention - it is the hounds that become fed up first, loose interest and back off - the stag then moves off in its own time.
Professor Bateson described deer at the end of a hunt as exhausted or utterly exhausted - i.e. out of control and unable to cope, this is clearly not the case. They stand at bay because they have switched from flight mode to fight mode. The fact that they are able to defend themselves, and break bay travelling some distance does not support any scientific view that they are exhausted. The stag in the video of Marsh Bridge incident having broken bay 1/2 mile plus away had come down a steep hill over a fence up a bank and found its path obstructed. It was cool, calm and collected no panic, being aware that the hounds were behind it, turned and attacked the hounds. It was not standing at bay.
SHOOTING THE DEER.
Because the deer are such prolific breeders, they have to be culled either by stalking or by hunting both involve the deer being shot.
The Hunted Deer
At the end of the hunt the deer is shot at close range, under 5 yards, with either a shotgun - the target area being the upper neck below the ear pointing towards the head or with a pistol same target area or the back of the head from the top - when the deer would be held. The target area being small, any movement the deer makes it even more difficult to be accurate.
There would be 2 - 4 shotguns and at least 4 pistols with the hunt staff/Master out during a days hunting.
At the end of the hunt the deer would normally stand at bay in a position it had selected where it can turn and face the hounds to defend itself. The favoured site would be standing in a river backed into a bank - the hounds standing in the water in an arc in front of the deer. If hounds approach too close to the deer then a stag will lower its head and lunge at the hounds in an attempt to gore them. The hinds and stags without horns threaten the hounds by striking out with their front feet.
When hounds are standing in water it is even more difficult for them to approach the deer to launch a theoretical attack.
The deer will back into a bush, bank, corners of buildings e.g. Parracombe School - i.e. any site where the arc to be defended is minimal. If the initial site is unsuitable the deer will break bay - run through the hounds and select a more suitable site.
Because the target area to shot is upper neck towards the head - below the ear - the target opportunity is limited. Some deer at the end are shot whilst they are hiding up in gorse/bracken. Again the gun has to approach close enough and establish a suitable target. At any time the deer can suddenly move its head at the critical time. The other facts to be taken into account is any person, hound or horse that may be in the line
The fact that only one in approximately thirty deer require a second shot is a reflection on the superior standard of the 'guns'. Occasionally the deer is held prior to being shot with a pistol. This ensures that the deer is restrained to reduce movement - to make shooting more accurate. I have had to use two shots on a horse - I was holding the horse when it suddenly raised its head at the critical time.
It is easy to criticise when something goes wrong, easier still it you have never had to do it yourself. When the first shot had failed to kill the deer - there is no possibility of the deer escaping - the hounds are there to fresh find it should it run off.
Stalking:
( I enclose a copy of 'Killing Deer' by P Green (Stalking 1992) ( A member of Bateson's Panel).
The deer are shot with a rifle using a soft nosed bullet (banned under the Geneva Convention for use in warfare) because it disintegrates on impact to do horrendous soft tissue damage.
The ideal target area is the brain - instantly unconscious - i.e. no pain - but since the target area is so small and risk of hitting the jaw bone so high - with the deer to starve to death days later, the recommended target areas are the heart and lungs, or abdomen, intestines, liver. There is massive damage - the deer literally drowning in its own blood from a lungs shot or becoming unconscious from loss of blood if hit elsewhere.
The deer when hit may initially drop or run off before collapsing later becoming unconscious and die.
A stalker because he is not aiming at the brain and instantaneous unconsciousness is deliberately intending to injure the deer hopefully fatally.
Having shot the deer they, the stalkers, are advised not to approach for 20 minutes for fear of the deer running off. They are also advised to have a deer trained dog with them to follow up an escaping deer.
Even those that are hit in the heart will run several hundred yards prior to collapsing. Those shot in the neck are fully conscious but paraplegic.
Bateson claims that there is a 5% non fatal wounding rate. From my experience of rifle shooting in the army ( Battalion Team) I would have thought that to be very conservative particularly amongst the part time stalker, who is not shooting regularly.
In the West Country stalking is necessary to reduce the deer numbers and is complimentary to hunting. Hunting, unlike stalking is selective in that it culls the old, slow, the weak, the ill and the less intelligent - survival of the fittest. The deer are hunted to be given a chance to escape unharmed.
The stalker having paid for his day out returns home. The venison is sold. The deer is thus given a financial value. That is the finish of the stalker's input to the management of the deer. The hunters continually monitor the welfare of their deer. They live for their deer they are the custodians of their deer.
THE EFFECTS OF SHOOTING ON LOCATION OF DEER
Deer move away from locations where there is regular shooting. This can be demonstrated by historical records.
More recently the deer numbers have decreased on National Trust property as a result of the ban - no hunting but more shooting. On Molland Moor, during the winter months the deer members increase dramatically, more than would be expected. They over winter on the open Moor as opposed to the shelter of the woods. This is because in the Molland area there are regular pheasant shoots, causing the deer to move out of the woods and onto the Moor.
Since the National Trust ban and the Devon and Somerset Stag pounds reduced hunting country the Molland Moor area has been over hunted. Despite this the deer have remained on Molland Moor - indicating that the deer tolerate hunting better than they tolerate shooting.
THE SCIENCE.
Knowing the deer I was flabbergasted when I read Professor Bateson's report to the National Trust. It bore no resemblance to my clinical judgement. Consequently I funded my own project to establish the real facts. Out of necessity it had to be simple. I had blood and urine samples taken from both hunted and stalked deer on Exmoor. The project was curtailed so that the Joint Universities Study could commence. I had 47 blood samples taken from 17 hunted deer.
I and Dr K Collard wrote a report which has been submitted for peer review - but returned 'insufficient samples'. My conclusions from my data:(1) That some of the Creatine Kinase (CK) elevation is due to contamination from damaged tissue as a result of shooting. (11) The haemolysis occurred at or after collection of the blood. Twenty five out of forty seven samples had no or insignificant haemolysis.
You are very welcome to my raw data.
BEHAVIOUR OF PROFESSOR BATESON.
Professor Bateson's behaviour has been an absolute disgrace, he has lied, manipulated the press, rubbished fellow scientists - there is an unwritten rule amongst scientists that you don't rubbish other scientists' work.
He has been a joint signatory to a press release, with in days he has had a letter printed in the Times retracting his statements.
He still insists that his report to the National Trust was peer reviewed by the panel he had appointed. They met for the second and final time in October 1996 - when his project was still in progress - his report was published in April 1997. In August 1997 he signed an affidavit in the High Court to the effect that he had not shown his panel the report because it was too politically sensitive.
How many marks would an 'O' level student receive if he had stated that the hunted deer sustained such severe muscle damage as to be life threatening without even looking at any muscle?
Professor Bateson was selective with is samples "If one was unsuitable it was discarded" Unsuitable for What?
His science is nothing short of negligent. His behaviour since has been fraudulent.
Any other scientists would have gracefully admitted he was wrong when the Joint Universities Study was published, but no he sets about trying to discredit and rubbish Professor R. Harris in public. Professor Bateson has told a fellow scientist that he wished he had had a specialist physiologist the calibre of Professor R. Harris on his panel.
He has doubted Professor Harris's integrity by insinuation. Because the project was financed by the Countryside Alliance and the Stag hounds it must be prejudiced. This I find totally insulting to Roger Harris. Before we both undertook our respective projects we insisted we wanted the truth whatever the consequence. Roger Harris before he started did not like hunting, knew nothing about hunting and did not even want to see a hunt. He thought that it was going to be just another research project and did not initially appreciate the enormity of the project.
Professor Bateson wrongly concluded that since the culled hunted deer had a myopathy consequently 60% of the deer that escape would also suffer a myopathy and that 12% would subsequently die.
To prove Bateson wrong, identified deer would have to be allowed to escape and be stalked 2-3 days later. This in spite of a problem with a licence would be fraught with difficulty. One of which would be having relocated the deer - for that particular deer to present itself as a suitable target. I originally suggested to Roger Harris that the only way to establish post hunting muscle damage of the escaping deer would be to immobilise 30-40 deer, fit them with a tracking device, hunt one of them instead of shooting it let it escape to relocate it 2-3 days later and hopefully shoot it.
I consider that since the deer shot at the end of the hunt show no evidence of a myopathy then those that escape having undergone less work that they too would have no myopathy.
The insult - the exercise - having stopped that there would be no further muscle damage. The grossly unfit carted deer in Ireland like in the West Country deer showed no elevated Creatine Kinase (CK) at the end of the hunt, the levels had fallen dramatically the following day. No muscle damage. The Irish levels were even higher that the West Country deer was an indication of the superior fitness of the West Country Deer.
This conclusion confirms all my clinical observations and all the anecdotal evidence that I have gathered over the years - the deer do not suffer a myopathy.
Professor Bateson's definition of cruelty is knowingly to cause suffering I would define cruelty as causing unnecessary suffering.
Professor Bateson having lost the Scientific argument had been reduced to insulting individuals. He has also cajoled prominent Scientists, some who have neither read the Bateson report or studied the Joint Universities Study, to give him a reference. We have had Tony's cronies now we have Patrick's lackeys.
CONCLUSIONS.
Batchelor from LACS claims that since most people hunt and shoot because they enjoy it, hunting and shooting should be banned. I fail to see what this has to do with the welfare of an animal.
Some people enjoy shopping, horse racing, angling, pheasant shoots but that is no reason to ban these activities because others don't enjoy them.
The welfare of the individual has to be sacrificed for the benefit of a viable sustainable healthy population.
Why have I undertaken this crusade?
I have spent thousands
of pounds of my own money and I have
spent hours of my time. I do not begrudge it, the deer deserve
help.
The deer have been
condemned and the hunters convicted on faulty
evidence.
With hunting they
know who their adversary is, they are given
a sporting chance. Stalking would be like a snipers bullet
- no chance.
Where the deer are
in regular close contact with humans they become
fearless and show no respect for humans. Familiarity breeds
contempt - hunting helps keep the deer wild.
The deer have survived
by inbred instinct. Hunting reinforces their
survival strategy.
I as a Veterinary
Surgeon can defend deer hunting because it has
a purpose - to cull - better than I can defend any other activity
involving animals be it for financial gain, pleasure or both.
DRAG HUNTING.
As a landowner I would
not allow the hunt across my ground, because
the sole purpose is the enjoyment of the followers. It just
becomes a flat out gallop, a glorified 'race'.
I have spoken to
those that have been on a drag hunt. Their comments:
You have to have
a different type of horse. It is harder on the horse,
and not fair on the horse. It is faster than hunting, it is just
a flat out gallop. Although I enjoyed myself I wouldn't go
again. It was an experience.
There is no educational
element for the horse.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON HUNTING
Incidents:
When one is involved with
animals however well trained, like humans,
they are all individuals, the unpredictable is always a possibility.
A huntsman has to
trust his hounds and have confidence in them,
otherwise they will not work properly for him.
Occasionally incidents
happen.
A sheep will be killed
- the hound(s) involved once identified will
pay the penalty and be destroyed.
As my old headmaster
used to say,, glaring at us when a misdemeanour
had occurred " one bad apple soon spreads to others,"
The current incident of foxhounds killing an injured deer
must be put into perspective. I see no difference between hounds
killing a deer and killing a sheep. I don't know the details
of this case. A deer scent is stronger than other quarry -
it takes a well disciplined hound not to hunt deer.
It would only take
one hound to speak to the deer scent and others
would soon follow. This deer must have been partially incapacitated
for the hounds to catch it. At lest the deer is no longer
suffering from its injury.
Beagling:
Where
the art of hunting is learnt. It is a pity more hunters didn't
start beagling.
Mink Hunting:
I consider
that the mink should be exterminated by whatever means
available.
Man Power:
My
practice has three Veterinary Surgeons. A ban on hunting would
result in l/2 a job loss.
Improvements in Hunting:
Stop the holding up of covers - autumn hunting unless for safety reasons. Roads,
railways etc. Have an independent committee/body with powers to investigate
rule breaking to ban/suspend hunts or individuals. Have power to monitor a Hunt
if wrong doing is suspected. Any Disciplinary Committee should include a Hunter
to put everything into perspective.
Hunting/Horses:
Hunting is very educational for horses. It teaches them patience, balance how
to be agile and sure footed, how to jump; they become used to being in close
company with other horses. Most horses enjoy hunting - all mine have taken an
intelligent interest in a hunt, watching hounds and or quarry. Many race horse
trainers send their 'stale moody' horses hunting to vitalise them.
3rd April 1999 - Marsh Bridge.
In the past it has been stated unwisely, that the hounds never make physical contact with the deer. It does on occasion happen, because it is rare when it happens it becomes newsworthy.
One such occasion was 3rd
April 1999 when the Devon and Somerset
stag hounds made contact with a 5yr old stag at Marsh
Bridge Dulverton. The
stag had already stood at bay. It then broke bay and ran down
the hill through a grass field, being coursed by the hounds
i.e. they were hunting by sight, towards the River Barle
at Marsh Bridge.
As the deer approached the bottom of the hill it entered the wood,
crossed a stream and popped up onto the top of a bank. Here
it was faced with a lane containing people of which at least
three were LACS reps with video cameras. At the bottom
of the lane towards the bridge there were vehicles horses
and people, all having congregated to be at the end of the
hunt. The whole area was completely congested. One of the
LACS vehicles was abandoned on the bridge blocking the road.
The stag stopped
and looked around to see which way it could go
- it would have gone straight to the river where it would have
stood at bay and been shot. Five seconds after the deer appeared
the first hounds appeared - by this time hunt staff, hunt
guns and Master had already arrived.
The deer had no alternative
than to turn and face the hounds. This
deer was not standing at bay- where they are in complete control
of the situation - it had been forced into this situation. The
left hind leg of the deer became straddled across a trunk of
a small tree which was lying about 18" above the ground. The
front leg then became straddled. This reduced the deer's opportunity
to move. The deer
had no alternative than to be actively aggressive towards
the hounds, who responded by biting at the top of the deer's
head and antlers. The skin at the top of the head of a stag
is thick and like leather - almost callused - to protect it from
the sparing and fighting it does with other stags. I would
not have expected the hounds to have done any physical
damage to the deer.
The deer could not
be shot with a shotgun at this stage because,
people and hounds were too close and the deer head the
target area- was moving.
A foot follower then appeared and held the deer by the antlers to
protect from the hounds. Other hounds by this time had appeared
and went round the back of the deer -they did not attack
the deer - the whole episode being completely foreign to
them -a stationery deer unable to defend itself. In the meantime
more followers appeared and protected the deer. The
hunt whip jumped off his horse - he then had to clamber up
a near vertical bank 5ft high from the road cross an area drop
down again to climb another bank to the deer. He had to load
his pistol and shoot the deer. The whole episode from deer's
first appearance to its death was 45 seconds.
If I as the Veterinary
Surgeon at Worcester Races could shoot a
horse with a broken leg within 45 seconds I would be pleased
with myself.
Whilst the incident
was unfortunate it was handled brilliantly. Everyone
concerned had to use their initiative, by their actions their
sole aim was the welfare of the deer. The league reps although
not the sole cause of the incident have to take some responsibility.
Deer will pass horses,
they will pass vehicles but they are extremely
reluctant to pass humans on foot.I
was sent the video of the incident by the 'antis'.
|
D. J. B. DENNY, B. VET. MED. M. R. C. V. S. 205, HENWICK ROAD, WORCESTER |
RESIDENCE (01886) 821243 |
The Science on Deer Hunting in both Professor Bateson's and that of the Joint Universities Study is complicated and most of it incomprehensible to the non scientist.
The enclosed attempts to rectify this.
Part of our National Heritage - The Wild Red Deer Herds Of the West Country - is under threat.
The whole issue is too important to allow your personal prejudices to have any influence.
Please read this booklet.
The Red Deer Story Simplified.
Introduction
Professor P. Bateson was commissioned by the National Trust to study the welfare issues in the management of the red deer on their properties in the West Country.
In April 1997 he presented his report to the National Trust Council. Having had the report from such an eminent scientist - High Provost, Kings College Cambridge and a senior figure of the Royal Society - the Council understandably banned deer hunting.
Having seen the report and knowing the deer, most of what Professor Bateson claimed bore no resemblance to my clinical judgement. Many others from all walks of life joined in the criticism. The damage was done and the critics had no ammunition to discredit the Bateson report. The National Trust Council said at the time that they would consider new Scientific Evidence.
The three main reasons why he (Bateson) came out against hunting were :
1. The hunted deer suffered a myopathy - severe muscle damage.
2. The blood of the deer haemolysed at an early stage of the hunt.
3. The deer were stressed.
Procedure:
At the end of a hunt the deer is shot at close range, either with a shotgun behind the ear or with a pistol same site or the top of the head. The body is then moved to a suitable site where it is stuck with a knife in the lower neck region - to bleed the body out, approximately 2 minutes after shooting. The body is then removed to a more suitable site where heart, lungs and abdominal cavity are removed -eviscerated.
Professor Bateson had blood samples taken either at bleeding out or at evisceration. The samples were taken by the hunt staff who had received no instructions on collection techniques and or on the safe keeping of the blood after collection. Samples being left in Land Rovers, jacket pockets, kitchens etc, etc.
The samples were sent off for analysis. To quote from the report "if one sample was unsuitable it was discarded" !1 Unsuitable for what ??
From the laboratory results on the samples he wrote his report.
When all the facts and figures - the data - are correiated and written up - it becomes a report. Before a report is normally published - certainly before it is printed in a scientific journal it is sent to independent specialist scientists for criticism - peer review.
Professor Bateson's report to the National Trust in spite of what he told you and others had not been peer reviewed.
He maintains that his Scienbfic Panel peer reviewed his report.
1. His panel only met twice, once in Jan 1996
2. His panel were not independent, some had vested interests.
3. They were not specialists.
Professor Bateson told a fellow scientist that "I wish I had an exercise physiologist the calibre of Professor Roger Harris on my panel ".
Immediately after the release of the report, I funded my own research study of the hunted deer- with permission and full co-operation of the joint Masters of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds.
The only condition made was that I was after the truth and unlike Professor Bateson there would be no selection of data. If Professor Bateson's findings were correct then they, the Masters would have to seriously consider stopping deer hunting.
My own findings confirmed that there were very serious flaws in the Bateson Science - consequently his conclusions were wrong.
As a sequel to my project the Joint Universities Study under Dr Roger Harris (Now Professor) was initiated.
Again Professor Harris was onty interested in the truth. He had never been hunting, didn't much like the thought of hunting, and did not want to see a hunt.
His whole purpose was not to mimic the Bateson study but to create his own. There is an unwritten gentlemen's agreement amongst Scientists that they do not publicly 'rubbish' each others' work.
The Science.
Muscle Damage:
Muscle is made of numerous microscopic fibres approximately 0.05mm in diameter, bound together in bundles. Many bundles are bound together to make up a muscle. These fibres expand and contract like a piece of elastic - all under electrical control of the nerves. They are fed by chemicals from the blood supply - which also takes away the waste products.
When unfit muscle undergoes strenuous exercise then a chemical enzyme Creatine Kinase (CK) leaks out through the fibre membrane into the blood stream. This is all normal. If however the exercise is extreme and there is serious physical damage to the fibres and the bundles that make up the whole muscle - a myopathy occurs. These physically damaged muscles release a chemical - myoglobin, into the blood. The kidneys, which extract waste products from the blood into the urine are very sensitive to myoglobin, i.e. any myoglobin in the blood is excreted into the urine. No myoglobin has been found in urine (Bateson never looked for it).
Professor Bateson found raised CK levels in his blood samples and concluded that hunting causes the deer a myopathy. He was either so pleased with what he had found or so naive that he did not even look at whole muscle or at muscle fibres under the microscope to confirm the damage.
When an animal has a myopathy the muscles dramatically stiffen up and go into a severe and very painful cramp - the animal is very reluctant to move or even unable to move. Further movement causes even more damage and the animal will collapse and possibly eventually die.
On Bateson's figures he states that since half the deer that are hunted escape 60% will suffer a myopathy and that 12% will die. If it were true then hunting had to stop. There is absolutely no evidence in the field to suggest that this will occur. Al1 anecdotal evidence is to the contrary, the deer are observed back on home ground unharmed within 2 days of being hunted.
If Professor Bateson were correct that the deer had a myopathy, then a deer that because, it was able and capable of escaping that hunt would have no or far less myopathy.
The only way to satisfy Bateson and his supporters as to whether or not escaping deer suffered from a myopathy was to allow deer at the end of a hunt to escape and two to three days later to shoot the deer and examine its muscles. An experiment was planned so that some deer were tranquillised, a tracking device to be fitted - they were then hunted and allowed to escape, to be shot later. A licence was applied forall experiments involving animals have to have a Home Office Licence. The licence had passed several months of scientific scrutiny and was about to be issued, when a political decision was made to withhold the licence two days prior to issuing. That was a unique decision. Whose hand was on the pen ?
My study, like Bateson's revealed that CK values were raised in the hunted deer. I had samples taken from the same deer at different times after shooting - this demonstrated that some of the samples from the same deer had vastly different CK values. This indicated that some of the CK was contamination. It was not coming from generalised muscle damage but from damaged muscle - as a result of shooting the deer. Shooting causes localised muscle damage, which would either release CK into the bloodstream and or fragments of muscle would be collected in the samples to release their CK at leisure.
All the relevant literature states that CK values are not a good indicator of muscle damage. As the muscle becomes fitter, less CK seeps out through the membrane wall.
The Joint Universities Study under Professor Harris also found raised CK values not dissimilar to the Bateson Report and my own study. They looked at muscle at magnification x 100 and electron microscopy of x 3000. They found damage to individual muscle fibres in both stalked deer i.e. shot but not hunted and in hunted deer. These changes are normal and are the natural response to exercise. There was no correlation between the distance hunted and the percentage of muscle fibres damaged. In fact some deer in the shortest hunts had more damaged fibres than those in longer distance hunts. This is more an indication of the fitness of the deer. The art of becoming physically fit is to gradually increase the exercise rather than to suddenly do strenuous exercise and have painful muscles. All the muscle damage found would have repaired within a few days.
The rate of 'destruction' of a substance within the body is known as the half-life - i.e. half of the substance is destroyed in so much time. The half-life of CK in the horse is 2 hours - i.e. every 2 hours half the CK is destroyed.
After intensive exercise the CK level peaks in a few hours before dropping. If the exercise - the insult - is ongoing then the level will keep rising, until the insult has been removed.
In Ireland they hunt the carted deer. These are deer that are kept in small paddocks. Two or three times a season they are loaded up and 'carted' to a suitable venue where they are released and hunted. These deer compared with the free-range wild deer of Exmoor would be grossly unfit.
At the end of the hunt the deer stands at bay. The hounds are called off and the deer is captured by one or more men and put back into the cart. Blood samples have been taken from these deer at capture. The CK levels have risen as would be expected. Some of the deer were re-sampled the following day. The raised CK levels had reduced between ten and twenty times. Those not tested were too strong to handle. This indicates that the insult has been removed - i.e. the deer do not have a myopathy - if they had the CK levels would have continued to rise.
Microscopic examination of muscle fibres by the Joint Universities Study demonstrated that deer muscle is similar or superior to Thoroughbred racehorses and is well adapted to support both fast and endurance exercises.
Haemolysis:
Blood consists of red cells (erythrocytes) and white cells (leucocytes) which are carried in plasma - the liquid that contains enzymes, nutrition etc, etc.
The erythrocytes contain haemoglobin - which gives the blood its red colour. The haemoglobin caries the oxygen around the body. Deer erythrocytes are smaller than other mammals - half the size of bovine erythrocytes. They are also very delicate fragile. When damaged or destroyed they release their haemoglobin into the plasma - haemolysis.
Once blood has left the live animal it is very sensitive to sudden temperature changes, mishandling and contamination of any sort, particularly water.
After a few minutes the blood clots. The cells clump together and become a solid mass, the remaining fluid is the serum, which is a clear straw colour. When blood has been 'mishandled' the serum becomes discoloured because of haemolysis ranging from pink to red.
Professor Bateson used an anticoagulant to prevent the blood from clotting. The reagent is in the test tube and blood is added. It is critical that the correct amount of blood is added. Too much blood and there is insufficient reagent to prevent clotting. Too little blood or added too slowly then the reagent itself causes haemolysis.
When the blood is collected from the free flow from the jugular vein, it is virtually impossible to obtain the correct amount. The tube frequently being over filled. The hunt staff were then unable to put the tops on the tubes - so some blood was poured out - diluting the anti-clotting reagent. The tubes were then kept for hours or days being agitated every time they were moved thus encouraging haemolysis prior to being analysed.
When the blood was taken from the abdominal cavity at evisceration, approximately 30 minutes post shooting, only small amounts were collected at a time, consequently the reagent causes haemolysis. The risk of contamination by the environment, rainwater etc., being very great.
It should be no surprise that Professor Bateson found high levels of haemolysis in his samples. Because his samples were haemolysed, whatever the distance of the hunt he concluded that the haemolysis must have occurred in the early stages of the hunt.
It is recognised that the erythrocytes become more fragile after strenuous exercise, and that some degree of haemolysis occurs during such exercise. It occurs both in horses and man. It is thought that it may be nature's method of increasing the erythrocyte recycling process - the younger erythrocytes are better oxygen carriers.
Had Professor Bateson used whole clotted blood i.e. not used an anticoagulant, he would have found significantly less haemolysis - since it would have travelled better, i.e. being a solid mass the erythrocytes would not be so shaken up.
With improved blood collection and handling my study took forty-seven samples from seventeen hunted deer. Over twenty had no or insignificant haemolysis.
Some samples from the same deer were haemolysed and others were not. This clearly indicates that the haemolysis occurs at or after collection and not as Bateson maintains during the hunt.
Cortisol / Stress:
To give Cortisol the tag of 'stress hormone' is an over simplification. The nonscientific have gone further and equated stress with distress. Stress is any stimulus, which increases the metabolic rate in an animal - undergoing any exercise, then that animal is stressed.
A stimulus results in the release of cortisol. Cortisol has a half life of thirty minutes i.e. half the cortisol is destroyed every 30 minutes. Cortisol released from any subsequent stimuli will result in a further increase in the blood level. It is impossible to determine whether a raised cortisol level is the result of one or many stimuli. Since deer hunting is a series of stimuli over a period of a few hours, the level of cortisol at the end of a hunt cannot be an indication of the level of stress.
Professor Bateson measured the levels of cortisol in the blood of hunted deer. They were raised - so he proclaimed that the deer were stressed! The levels of cortisol found in the hunted deer were similar to those found in farmed deer being transported to slaughter.
Professor Bateson maintained that the levels of cortisol in the hunted deer were the highest possible. This level is established by repeatedly injecting deer with a hormone, which stimulates cortisol production. When the deer is unable to produce further cortisol then this is the upper limit. Hunted deer had a level approximately half of the maximum.
Sustained high levels of cortisol over a long period of time (weeks) reduces the immunity level - the resistance to disease. Professor Bateson in his report maintained that having found high levels of cortisol then the deer's immunity could be compromised. Having removed the stimuli the cortisol levels would drop rapidly so it will not apply to the deer. In fact this is opposite to the truth. Regular stress is in fact beneficial to the well being of the animal.
Stalking:
The deer are shot with a rifle using a soft nosed bullet (banned under the Geneva Convention) because it disintegrates on impact causing horrendous soft tissue damage.
The recommended target area is the heart, lungs, liver or intestines.
The only target area where death is instantaneous is the brain - but because the target area is so small and the risk of injury to the lower face is high, it is not recommended.
When the bullet hits the target the deer may initially drop or run off. It can take the deer several minutes before it becomes unconscious from the internal blood loss, or by drowning in its own blood and unable to feel pain.
Bateson assures me that initially when a bullet hits a human it is not painful!! He is not referring to the soft nosed bullet used in deer.
When stalking, it is advised that having shot a deer you should not approach it for approximately 20 minutes - i.e. allow it to die from it's injuries, in case you should disturb it and it runs off. The other advice is that you should have a suitable tracking dog in case you are unable to find your shot injured deer.
Professor Bateson makes a conservative estimate that 5% of the deer are non-fatally injured - i.e. they escape with their injuries.
With stalking you deliberately set out to injure the deer, how could Professor Bateson condone this with his definition of cruelty - knowingly causing suffering?
Behaviour of the Hunted Deer.
Professor Bateson observed that:
1. During the hunt, the deer lowered their heads. He concluded that this was due to fatigue. Nothing could be further from the truth. The deer lower their heads thus straightening their necks in order to remove the bends in their upper airways - i.e. improving their air intake by reducing resistance.
2. A stag was shot at the end of a hunt, I quote "It lay down, and was again shot, and bled out with blood samples being taken. The stag tried to get to its feet - but was held down by three men. It struggled and bleated intermittently responding to touches of the eyeball by jerking away sharply until its death 5 minutes after the first
shot" This must be some deer!! After bleeding out any animal would become unconscious within seconds - there would be no way the deer would be able to move.
Anybody, never mind a scientist writing such rubbish invites ridicule.
The Behaviour of Professor Bateson:
Professor Bateson during his study was made very welcome and given every cooperation by the Hunt Officials. He had gained their confidence. In February 1997 after a very social dinner he was asked by a Master "Have we anything to be concerned about?" Professor Bateson replied "You have absolutely nothing to worry about"
He was taken unwisely at his word. He had already a month previously sent a preliminary report to the National Trust Chairman - to the contrary.
There is now a saying on Exmoor "Never trust a man in sandals"
Professor Bateson continues to insist that his report had been peer reviewed prior to publication. This is not true.
Douglas Wise and Professor Bateson were the joint signatories to a letter published in the Veterinary Record, to the effect that there may be another way to interpret Batesons' data. Within days Professor Bateson had retracted his agreement.
A joint meeting in September at Cambridge with fellow scientists Professor Bateson was again a joint signatory to a series of statements. The final one was to the effect that there would be no further press releases. The following week there was a letter in The Times, again retracting what he had previously signed.
Batesons definition of cruelty is "knowingly to cause suffering " That does widen the debate!!
Professor Bateson in his report made the point that when the hinds were hunted during the season November to February their calves at foot would be orphaned and that when the hinds were stalked every effort was made to shoot the calf as well. This raises some very interesting points.
1. A deer calf 6 months old is both big enough and old enough to fend for itself. Cow calves are weaned at 2 months plus. In the case of orphaned cow calves and lambs there is frequently cross suckling - i.e. they suckle other mothers.
2. The deer are nearly always in groups. To identify which calf belongs to which hind is a virtual impossibility. If both could be identified it is highly unlikely that they would both present themselves as suitable targets - both would have to be shot simultaneously.
At the end of a hunt the deer's' muscle energy is depleted. This is similar to footballers at the end of a match or a horse at the end of a race. Both the footballer and the horse would correct this by eating food. The deer already has ifs next two days supply of food on board in it's rumen -stomach - all it has to do is chew it's cud to rectify the matter.
Bateson describes the deer's situation as being 'utterly exhausted' - this is solely to create the image of the deer at the end of the hunt staggering about and collapsing like unfit long distance runners. Nothing is further from the truth. The deer are in complete control of the situation and show no clinical evidence of being distressed.
Professor Bateson describes the deer as sedentary - to create the image of an unfit animal that undertakes minimal exercise. The deer do live in their own areas of Exmoor - but exercise themselves daily and are fit, otherwise they would not run so far.
Professor Bateson attempts to discredit the Harris Report by claiming that 'it was influenced by his paymasters'. This I find totally insulting and an attack on the integrity of Professor Harris. He should not judge others by his own standards.
Distance of Hunt:
In his criticism of the Joint Universities Science Professor Bateson has observed that the deer in the Joint Universities Study were not hunted as far as his deer.
In the Joint Universities Study a member of the team on horseback with a dicta phone recorded the deer movements as and when they happened. They were then plotted on an Ordnance Survey Map and the distance calculated.
In the Bateson Study the details were taken from the Hunt Report in the West Somerset Free Press, the primary purpose of which is to make a readable article and not for it's facts. The information was fed into a computer and a mileage figure established. Inaccuracies in, inaccuracies out.
During a days hind hunting, frequently several deer are killed some of which had not been hunted. Blood samples were taken from some of these deer both hunted and non-hunted.
Professor Bateson would not have known that this occurs. By taking the details from the Hunting Report he would not have been able to identify whether or not the deer had been hunted. Consequently it would have distorted the findings.
The History:
The Red Deer are wild magnificent animals. The individual deer are bigger and more prolific than those in Scotland - because the level of nutrition is higher.
They have to share the countryside with farm livestock. The deer eat their crops be it grass, roots or corn they are very partial to young tree shoots particularly Oak and Beech. They also do serious damage to fences and hedges.
The deer are the property of the owner of the land on which they are situated. The deer movements are influenced by the availability of the food supply. They will travel miles at night for a feed of winter turnips. The farmers only tolerate the deer so that they can be hunted. The local people are able to identify individual deer, they even have names for them, particularly the stags, and monitor their progress year on year. When old age sets in they prefer their deer to be culled by hunting where it is given the chance to escape rather than being shot by stalkers or poachers.
Some stags have been hunted three plus times during their lives. They frequently take the similar routes each time. Recently one particular stag has jumped the same gate on three different hunts!!
The farmers actively discourage poachers - noises in the night, unusual lights, strange vehicles are all investigated.
The hunt staff, turn out day or night 365 days a year to cull an injured or suffering deer. They all care for the welfare of their deer.
Historically when there has been active hunting, the deer have flourished and their numbers have increased. Today the herds are healthy and wild.
The Hunters are the custodians of the deer. The National Trust has a major responsibility to protect one of our National Heritages - the deer herds of the West Country.
The slogan 'No Hunting No Deer' is not an idle threat.
Conclusion:
1. The hunted deer do not suffer a myopathy.
2. The haemolysis that occurred is an artefact
Professor Bateson's science is nothing less than negligent. His report was biased to the extreme against hunting. The deer deserved better.
The Joint Universities Study concluded that the Red Deer are the supreme of all athletes, well adapted anatomically, physiologically and biochemically for strenuous exercise.
Bateson compared the welfare problems of the individual deer involved in the two methods of culling. A stalked deer is deliberately seriously wounded with the intention that its injuries are sufficient for it to become unconscious, unable to feel pain within minutes prior to dying.
A hunted deer is chased to be given a chance to escape unharmed, it is the survival of the fittest.
The conviction of cruelty to the deer was made on totally false science and biased evidence.
This conviction should be overturned on appeal in the light of the new science.
The Way Out?
Deer Hunting was banned because of Professor Bateson's report, which had not been peer reviewed. In answer to the many critics the National Trust Council replied that they would consider any new sound science. Your chairman has since told the Exmoor tenants that hunting was barred solely because of the Bateson Science.
With the publication of the Joint Universities Study which has been Internationally peer reviewed, all the science and consequently all the conclusions made by Professor Bateson have been discredited.
Professor Bateson unfortunately, is still deliberately deceiving you as to the quality of his scene The National Trust have been put in an embarrassing position.
In order to resolve this situation would the National Trust Council
1. Request Professor Bateson to submit all his data and report, to peer review of the same International standard as the Joint Universities Study underwent?
Taking impartial scientific advice on interpretation if required?
and/or
2. Go to independent arbitration with the Science - and accept the findings?
Who Am I ?
I am a Countryman born and bred and closely associated with all forms of livestock wild and domestic. I have been a Veterinary Surgeon in mixed practice for 39 years and have been the Veterinary Surgeon at 4 or more Point to Points annually and at Worcester Races throughout.
I breed my own thoroughbred horses and race them. I was introduced to deer hunting in 1976 and have been fascinated and involved with them ever since. For 3 years 1, at every opportunity went with or assisted with the harbouring of the deer (Harbouring - seeking a suitable deer to hunt). I consider myself to be in an unique position to defend the deer against the allegations made by Professor Bateson in his report to the National Trust.
Living 140 miles away I also have no vested interest.
D.J.B. Denny, B.Vet.Med.M.R.C.V S.
205 Henwick Road
Worcester
WR2 5PG
Tel / Fax: 01905 424374
Distribution:
Council Members of National Trust
The Masters of the Devon and Somerset Stag Hounds
The Times
Date uploaded to site 12 May 2000