Brian Caffarey Esq
Secretary to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting
London
SW1H 9ZL
By email to huntinginquiry@gtnet.gov.uk

21st February 2000

Dear Mr Caffarey

I do not hunt.

I am a Surveyor and have worked and farmed on Exmoor since 1966 running this estate of 4,000 acres and trying to build up a sustainable hill farm. I write with the experience of having also been an advisor to the Ministry of Agriculture, first to the MAFF SW Regional Director from 1977 to 1983 and then directly to the Minister from 1979 to 1992 on the UK Hill Parming Advisory Committee. I was put on the Welsh Hill Farming Advisory Committee as the sole Englishman. I was elected vice-chairman of the Exmoor Society (a conservation group), and for 8 years was an advisor to the Bishop's Council of Bath and Wells. This experience is relevant to several of the Committee's questions on the impact on agriculture and on the social consequences of a ban on hunting.

I answer the Committee's questions on the following pages (with a longer answer to question one in order to set the scene):

Back to top

1. What factual information do you have about hunting with dogs, including the organisation of hunting activities and the way those activities are carried out?

We winter on average 80 red deer hinds and 20 to 30 stags on three farms on this estate, being Broford, Week and Howetown Farms totalling 1,700 acres. The deer lie up in our various Exe valley woodlands (400 acres in total) and cross a number of our high Exmoor hedge-banks causing multiple deer racks to these banks in order to get to grass and root crops on these three farms. The damage to hedges costs approximately £600 a year to put right. The 80 hinds and approximately 25 stags consume over 40 Grazing Livestock Units of grass; i.e. the equivalent of 40 dairy cows. Because some of this grass is in out of the way places and includes winter grazing it is our sheep flocks that tend to be deprived of feed rather than our cattle, which are all winter housed. I estimate this consumption of grass is worth approximately £4,500 a year.

Damage to root crops and kale can be much greater. The deer tend to eat the young kale shoots in the spring (on one occasion causing the field to have to be redrilled (with new pre-emergence sprays and with all the other costs of reestablishing a later crop). In a root crop, deer (and stags in particular) tend to pull up and take a single bite out of a large number of swedes or turnips. In frosty weather this causes subsequent rotting of every swede or turnip so damaged. Because of the number of deer we carry, we now have to avoid growing any root crops, or cereals such as barley and oats.

We avoid shooting deer because of what might be called social pressure. We would lose many friends locally if we did so. Part of the pleasure of farming and living on Exmoor is the unexpected sight of a large stag or group of hinds. It is when the numbers become excessive that we have a problem. If we wanted to move deer from a field we would have to blaze at them with shotguns or kill a very considerable number with a rifle before the rest would see the need to move away from that area.

Three packs of hounds hunt across our property, the stag-hounds and two packs of foxhounds. If deer punish a field of kale or grass too much, the stag-hounds will come, on our specific request to them, and move the deer to a different area. I have seen and learnt that this has advantages over and above moving deer out of our fields. By disturbing and moving deer, the hunt carry out one of their most important functions. The deer are prevented from in-breeding, and the poorest stags for breeding are removed. The incident of worms, parasites and the spread of disease in deer is thus minimised. If hunting were abolished there is no other way, this, a main function of the stag-hounds, could be replaced. Where deer are shot by rifle, both the individual shot, and in particular a paying gun, will pick the best stag with a large and fine head of antlers, rather than the worst. Currently the heads of Broford stags are reputed to be among the widest and best in the country outside a deer farm. This is because the widest headed stags have been left by the hunt for breeding. The stag-hounds' harbourer consults us and other neighbouring farmers on most occasions the day before any nearby meet. Any known old, weak or poor stag is harboured for the following day. We tolerate the deer and allow the hunt to control the numbers and move the deer when it becomes necessary. 10 years ago we had a neighbour who disagreed with the stag-hounds and at his request they avoided his farm. He took to putting barbed wire snares in the deer racks and holes made by the deer. Extreme cruelty was caused by this. The deer were caught by the barbed wire snares but seldom died immediately. They would tear their necks or their legs to ribbons trying to get free of the barbed wire snares. Fortunately that neighbour moved 80 miles away to a farm where there are no deer.

Two local packs of hounds collect our dead or "fallen" stock. This is a major function of all hunts. For the purpose of your Inquiry I have analysed the details of the carcasses of animals the hunt kennels have collected from us over the past 8 years.

The above are all animals which died on the farm, were stillborn calves or are animals which we considered were not fit to travel to an abattoir or MAFF appointed incineration unit. Currently we pay £45 to have casualty cows sent to the incineration unit and it costs the government £85 to have them incinerated. Thus it costs £130 a cow, and about £60 per calf, to have cattle disposed of other than by the kennels. The figures in my table for 1992 to 1999 total 88 cows and 446 calves. This averages 8.8 cows and 55.7 calves each year. At the above costs this would cost us £4,486 a year if the kennels were not in existence to carry out this very necessary and essential countryside function.

(I should explain why the figures were higher than usual for 1998 and 1999. In those two years we were barred from selling any suckled calves or cows on the open market because of bovine TB. A high proportion, 40 out of 47 badgers [85%], of our badgers were found to be carrying TB. 250 suckled calves, for which we had no feed, no straw and no buildings, had to be carried through the winter. Every scrap of cover had cattle under it. Spring-born calves had to be calved out of doors, and several died. It is believed that the TB was introduced into the clean badger population by the Animal Liberation Front when they "rescued" TB infected badgers from Ministry traps at Chagford. 20 farms locally were suddenly affected, having been clear of TB for 30 years.)

As a member of the SW Regional Panel dealing with appeal cases by farmers, I went on two farms elsewhere in the SW where the two farmers had refused to have any dealing with the local hunt. They were not able then - before incineration units and JCBs were commonplace - to dispose of their dead stock. They had towed dead animals to a "quiet" part of the farm and left them there in a row. The quiet was broken by the noise of flies. At least one of the two farmers was prosecuted for not burying dead animals. This could become an unforeseen result of a ban on hounds, kennels and hunting. I understand the National Park Authority estimate the value of collecting fallen stock by the hunts averages £212.50 per farmer. This may be what the hunt charges farmers at a subsidised and nominal £10 per head. It is not the realistic cost which would have to be paid if hunting were to cease. I consider this £212.50 per farm to be a severe under-estimate and for that reason carried out the analysis referred to on the previous page. If the Government, after investigating and recently lowering the payment to incineration units, pays £85 per cow (with the farmer meeting the delivery cost of £45) then the ENPA figure represents only 1.6 cows per farm per year. More cows and calves than that die on the average Exmoor farm. "Where there are livestock there will always be dead stock".

Back to top

2. What evidence is there as to the importance or otherwise of hunting with dogs to the rural economy in general and/or to particular areas of England and Wales?

I can only speak for this area. With better ways of transporting horses for hunting (and therefore more comfort for riders and an easier life for their horses) I have noticed over the past 34 years that a greater and greater number of rich "early retirers" have moved to Exmoor for hunting. Also every year a larger number of members of other hunts come to Exmoor for the autumn and spring stag-hunting. Many people from London and elsewhere regularly come several times a year for a day's hunting. These three influxes bring in a much needed flow of outside money. The present hill farming downturn and the problems of the short season for local tourism do not generate much surplus funds. The sporting money coming into the area is - for want of a better single word - "sticky money". The coefficient of the re-circulation of such money is very high. Other holiday-makers' money, at places such as Butlins, has a very low coefficient of re-circulation. The people come in by bus, their food comes in on articulated lorries and the money goes out in armoured vans. By contrast, a visiting couple coming hunting pay £500 a day, which circulates around and around in the area; £60 each for the cap to the hunt, £130 each to hire a horse and have it delivered to the meet and £120 for hotel accommodation and local meals. Quite often I have spoken to parties of 10 or more from other hunts who ride through the farm. There has also been an increase in the number of French and Americans who bring very welcome "sticky money" and - even better - appear to be coming back year after year.

Back to top

3. What evidence is there about the likely impact on the rural economy if hunting with dogs was banned completely?

On employment, others can assess this better than I. All I would submit is that the panel should take account of the "sticky money" aspect of the hunting visitors' cash. This is frequently spent at a time when other visitors have disappeared. I have I hope explained the probable high cost of alternate disposal of dead stock.

I can foresee that many services - such as blacksmiths, vets, feed merchants and saddlers would be more difficult to find and their costs would have to be covered by farming and much reduced recreational riding. For two or three years after a ban on hunting there might be some offsetting income from sales of venison as farmers shoot out the present herd of deer. Any remaining deer, in my observation, would become nocturnal feeders because of such shooting. This already happens at Baronsdown, the nearby "deer sanctuary". Because there is insufficient food in Baronsdown for the 250 to 300 deer regularly counted there in the daytime, the deer have to forage outside Baronsdown to find sufficient to eat. Several of the neighbouring farmers - but not ourselves regularly shoot some of these deer when they hop over the boundary hedges and large numbers invade their farms. This shooting has been so regular that the Baronsdown deer are now forced to come out of their "sanctuary" only at night. If shooting deer became more frequent in the whole area, all deer would similarly be forced into a nocturnal lifestyle.

For a short time after a ban, there would be a competitive chase after the best headed stags for shooting by trophy hunters; thereafter the quality and number of stags would rapidly diminish with - as in Scotland - a gross imbalance between the number of stags and hinds.

We have two firms who regularly bring tourist visitors around the farm in long wheel-base Land-Rover buses with elevated viewing roofs. Thus tourists at present pay money to see deer by day. If the deer become nocturnal I foresee that these two firms would both go out of business and many other visitors and residents would be deprived of the pleasure of watching deer.

Back to top

4. To what extent could any detrimental consequences of a ban be offset by greater participation in drag or bloodhound hunting or other activities or by other measures?

We see no advantage in permitting drag hunting on our 4,000 acres. At present, when our pastures are wet and easily damaged, the hunt Field stay on the road or on hard tracks and watch the deer for there, moving from one vantage point to the next; venery being their interest - rather than always riding at speed. As I understand it, the pleasure of drag hunting is to follow hounds for the excitement of doing so and the thrill of riding at the gallop. In the conditions brought about by our 60" rainfall, any payment by drag-hunters wanting to gallop across our tender pastures in winter, spring or autumn, would have to be unacceptably high in order to repair that damage. We would have to rent in other grass on more distant farms and haul stock to such other grazing. We would also need to pay for the extra time and cost of caring for stock on more distant farms while our damaged fields recovered. Drag hunting in the shorter grass growing season would disrupt and damage our essential silage and haylage harvest.

Back to top

5. What evidence is there about the need to control the population of foxes, deer, hares and mink?

Deer:
I hope I have explained the need to move and disperse deer, as part of controlling them in my answer to question 1; moving the deer being far more important than the simple matter of numbers controlled / killed.

Foxes:
We annually lose some lambs to foxes. The greater risk of loss to foxes is to the pheasants belonging to our shooting tenant.

Hares:
Here my interpretation of control has to include the re-introduction of hares. I am glad to say we have a few more hares on this farm now. We have succeeded in reducing the excess numbers of predators such as crows and foxes (which previously decimated the hares) as part of the function of managing the Shoot and, in the case of foxes, in conjunction with the foxhounds. The main reason there aremore hares about now is that the local beagle pack have introduced hares from other areas in surplus, and these hares are now fortunately breeding and multiplying. I realise however that these hares are only present on this farm because we have given consent to the beagle pack to treat the farm and its hares as their own. In response to that, they have brought in our present population of hares. These are a fine sight.

Mink:
The numbers of mink in our streams and in our part of the River Exe are kept under reasonable control by the Culmstock Mink Hounds.

Back to top

6. What evidence is there about the advantages and disadvantages of hunting with dogs in terms of agriculture and pest control, compared with other possible forms of control?

I cannot see how deer hunting could satisfactorily be replaced by other forms of control. Shooting with SSG or heavy ball cartridges from shotguns is illegal because of the high risk of wounding. However it still happens in areas where the stag-hounds do not go. It is probable that more people would be impelled to break the Law, if there was no other way of controlling excessive numbers of deer (and the resulting excessive amount of damage), if the hunt were not available to move the deer on. Shooting with a rifle is legal but more dangerous than using a shotgun. Shooting deer results in a surprisingly high number of woundings rather than death. On several occasions deer which have been shot are found to be paralysed but still conscious. Because we are close to the lax "sanctuary" at Baronsdown, where adjoining farmers are forced to shoot deer, we see a higher than usual number of shot and wounded deer. A shot aimed at the head often seems to cause the stag or hind's jaw to be fractured or shot away, and the poor animal starves to death. A shot aimed at the heart often seems to hit the backbone, causing paralysis, but not death.

The other forms of control of foxes are shooting and snaring. Shooting foxes with a shotgun, (unlike deer) is legal, but has the same consequence as shooting deer with a shotgun - a large number of foxes die a slow lingering death from infected wounds. Snaring I dislike very much, having lost a favourite terrier years ago in a snare put down by someone else. The alternative forms of control would and do result in far more cruelty to foxes than hunting.

Back to top

7. What evidence is there about the consequences for agriculture and pest control if hunting with dogs was banned completely?

If hunting was banned, most farmers would have to shoot as many deer as possible (and more than necessary to control mere numbers) in order to move them out of fields where unacceptable levels of damage was occurring. Deer would be concentrated on to those few remaining farms belonging to farmers who did not shoot deer, until they themselves would be forced to resort to shooting. Shooting with a shotgun is illegal and wounds deer. Shooting with a rifle is, in my view, generally too dangerous given the large number of people roaming at all hours over all private property as a tradition of de facto access on Exmoor. We find many people at all hours (particularly in the very early morning) in the Spring looking for fallen stag's horns.

Back to top

8. What other measures, if any, would need to be taken to protect agricultural interests and to control foxes, deer, mink and hares?

I can think of no way of controlling deer, other than hunting, which would not rapidly result in a decimation (killing 90%) of the Exmoor herd of red deer while on private ground. Hares and to a lesser extent, foxes would diminish in number.

Back to top

9. In what ways, and to what extent, does the existence of hunting with dogs contribute to or lmpair the social and cultural life of the countryside?

Having lived for several years at a time in three rural areas other than West Somerset, I can affirm that the existence of stag-hunting brings a cohesion and an inter-linking social fabric to Exmoor, which I have never found, nor even heard of, anywhere else. The efforts so many go to sustain stag hunting and preserve the red deer of Exmoor is amazing. This effort results in very many people organising very many social and fund raising events. The population of Exmoor includes many retired farmers and farm workers and others living on very little money. Hill farming and farm work has never been an easy way to accumulate wealth for old age. The otherwise very low standard of living is immeasurable improved for many people by their involvement in following hounds by car or bicycle and by their inclusion in so many social events run by hunt supporters. Many share a car specially for hunting. "Where are they?" is often the first and main conversation opener between both friends and strangers.

The social events, organised for hunting support, bring out of their houses many old people who have no direct opportunity, or even wish, to follow hounds. Such events include the whist drives and quizzes which happen in so many village halls throughout the winter months, and only because of the energy and determination of probably one or two people in that village to do even better than last year in fund raising for the hunt and in friendly rivalry to their friends.

Point to Point meetings happen only because of the hunt; both to raise money and to qualify horses to go on to grander steeplechases. These, and the many other hunt based horse shows and gymkanas, form annual social meeting places for many who can not afford to go often to the pub.

Back to top

10. What evidence is there as to its importance generally or in particular areas?

For local involvement, I cannot improve on the information prepared in 1999 by the Centre for Rural Studies, Cirencester, for the West Somerset District Council, which I understand you already have. I would only add that this study may not have been able to draw information from visitors coming hunting. We talk to many fresh faces when they ride through the farm and are pleased that others enjoy and appreciate this area we love so much.

Back to top

11. What evidence is there about the present effect of hunting with dogs on preserving or damaging habitats and on the management and conservation of wildlife, including the quarry species?

The management of the Badgworthy Land Company is directly linked to preserving the moorland and woodland habits for deer. The Company was set up by several followers of deer (including my great grandfather Philip Everard, a barrister and author) to preserve land in its then natural state for hunting, and continues to do so. There is currently pressure by the Forestry Authority to erect 6' high deer-proof fences around all Exmoor woodland. At present they will not give a grant for restocking a wood unless the deer are fenced out. If (instead of planting trees in tubes) this policy of excluding deer from woodlands by fencing is pursued, this will mean anti-deer fences at least 6 to 7 feet high, usually of bright green or bright galvanised finish, which will be kept up for at least 15 to 20 years while the planted trees grow to a sufficient height and girth that they are not knocked down by stags in velvet rubbing their heads - as happens when few planted trees are introduced into woodland. Under this technique, because the fencing has to be kept up for so long, - and good woodland management requires areas of new planting or natural regeneration every year, - a larger and larger area becomes very visibly fenced off from the deer. The deer are prevented from getting access into shelter in severe weather conditions and cruelty and sometimes death, particularly of young deer calves, results from this practice. Putting young trees in tubes is a much kinder woodland management practice than anti-deer fencing and allows deer to continue to gain access to shelter. Because this policy is in the long run so injurious to the future preservation of deer, I and some others who are more concerned on its direct impingement on hunting, are campaigning to change the Forestry Authority's policy.

Back to top

12. What would be the impact on these matters of a ban?

If there were to be a ban on hunting the deer would diminish in numbers and the effort of such a campaign would be wasted. Indeed, in the absence of hunting and for those needing to avoid deer lying up near their vulnerable fields, such anti-deer fences would be an advantage. One only has to look at the reduced numbers of deer tolerated by Forestry Enterprise in their publicly owned woodlands to see what a small number of deer woodland owners would be willing to put up with if the social and other pressures on private owners to permit hunting and deer ceased.

Back to top

13. What evidence is there at present about the effect of hunting with dogs on the welfare of the quarry species or on the welfare of other animals, including those used in hunting activities and domestic pets and farm animals which may be affected accidentally?

Deer survive on Exmoor solely because of the survival of stag-hunting. Foxes suffer less because a number are hunted instead of being snared or shot and wounded. The habitat of deer and foxes survive because of the determination of hunting interests to preserve it. Horses and hounds are reared and cared for because of hunting.

Back to top

14. What evidence is there about the impact on the welfare of animals of other means of control which might be used if hunting with dogs was banned?

I strongly believe that cattle, and humans, are more likely to be shot if stag-hunting is banned. More snaring will result in more deaths caused by the accidental snaring of family pets and resulting misery to their owners.

Back to top

15. What form(s) might a ban take and what would be the implications?

As a past High Sheriff of Somerset (nominally responsible to the Crown for all law enforcement agencies), I consider the implication of a ban on stag-hunting would be a rapid diminution in belief in and disregard for the Law. If one group of people can, in their ignorance, prevent the continuing preservation of deer by another group (who have an understanding and knowledge of the reasons why deer have survived for so long on Exmoor), then that second group are likely to break the Law, both by continuing to use hounds or long dogs, and in protesting by illegal, as well as legal, means to bring their views to bear. Government nowadays have to govern in the main by consent, not by force. The reaction to the poll-tax and the drive for universal suffrage proved that, in extremis, the will of the people is sometimes only achieved through breaking the Law, rather than keeping it.

Back to top

16. How might such a ban be applied and enforced?

With only one beat policeman (in Wiveliscombe) to cover all of the Somerset side of Exmoor (two thirds of the total), I fail to see how a ban could be enforced on the privately owned 142,000 acres of Exmoor, particularly during a time when many other hunts elsewhere would also be protesting and breaking the Law.

Back to top

17. Would a ban need to be supported by any other action?

I cannot see how any other additional legislation to licence or control deer shooting in the event of a ban on hunting could be applied or enforced. Many kings with more draconian powers have failed over the centuries to control deer poaching in royal forests. My some of my forebears were, in the past, verderers of the Forest of Exmoor. Four grandparents (a while ago), in different centuries, held the post of the King's Reeve of the Shire of Somerset. They all failed at various times to prevent the taking of the King's deer. The Crown sold the Royal Forest of Exmoor many years ago. 83% of Exmoor is now privately owned. The instinct for self preservation by any hill farmer, driven to extremes to protect his own property from an excessive number of deer, will always overcome a Law imposed (but not enforceable) by outsiders in ignorance.

Yours sincerely

Back to top

huntinginquiry@gtnet.gov.uk.

Dear Mr Caffarey

I write further to your request for written evidence for the inquiry into Hunting with dogs.

I am a hill farmer on Exmoor. I farm in partnership with my family. The farm is entirely within the Exmoor National Park and covers an area of 700 ha. We run a hill sheep flock and a suckler cow herd. The farm is in the countries of one pack of staghounds (Devon & Somerset), two packs of foxhounds (Dulverton East and West Somerset) and one pack of Beagles (Taw Vale). A ban on hunting will have a very serious and adverse effect on my neighbours and myself.

The farm forms part of the l500 ha Miltons Estate, which has a world-renowned high pheasant and partridge shoot. The Estate is owned by my family.

Back to top

The red deer are not managed by stalking on this estate. The Devon & Somerset staghounds carry out all culling. The system of deer management practised by the Staghounds works extremely well and as a consequence the red deer herd on Exmoor is widely regarded as the healthiest in Western Europe. The staghounds help to control deer numbers but equally importantly they help to disperse the deer. This is of crucial importance as it prevents a build up of deer numbers in one area and subsequent risk of disease and parasitic infection that can occur in too high a population density. These sorts of problems can be seen all too clearly at this time of year at the League Against Cruel Sports sanctuary at Baronsdown 2 miles from here.

Occasionally we have an injured deer on the farm, when this happens we call the staghounds and they come and dispatch the animal quickly. All landowners on Exmoor except the League Against Cruel Sports use this service. Occasionally a fox is wounded by the gamekeepers, when the foxhounds come through here they catch such wounded animals.

Back to top

The principle reason for Exmoor farmers going hunting is to see the running of the deer, just as it has been for generations of our forebears. I do not go hunting for the enjoyment of riding a horse across country, (something that is borne out by the fact that so many farmers follow the hunt in a car or land rover) and therefore drag hunting is of no interest to me. If drag hunting were introduced here it is unlikely that it would be of interest to local farmers or land owners. The main attraction of drag hunting to people is that it provides a means of riding a horse at speed over fences. There is no jumping on Exmoor and therefore, this combined with the lack of enthusiasm from local farmers means that it would not flourish, and therefore would not alleviate any of the detrimental consequences of a ban on hunting with dogs.

Drag hunting would not happen for the same reasons that large scale "off roading" of 4 wheel drive cars on private land does not happen. Farmers are not going to allow an activity to take place where the disadvantages outweigh the advantages so heavily.

Back to top

Foxes need to be controlled on this farm because they attack and kill game birds and young lambs. Every year during the spring we lose lambs to foxes. On average we would lose about 8 lambs a season to foxes. If there were no hunting we would lose more.

The control of foxes is of paramount importance to the well being of the Miltons shoot. If a fox got into one release pen on this shoot it could do up to £20,000 of damage, £20,000 being the cost of the pheasant poults in the pen. The extenuated damage that would result from such a lose is catastrophic. The complete destruction of birds in a release pen would mean that a number of days shooting would have to be cancelled. A team of guns will pay an average of £12000 for a day's shooting here. The wiping out of the main release pen would result in the cancellation of 8 days shooting which equates to the loss of £96000.

Red deer need to be controlled because they eat grass and forage crops which we need for our livestock. It is estimated that a red deer will eat the equivalent amount of grass as 3-4 sheep. Thus a herd of 30 deer on the farm is the equivalent of over 100 additional sheep.

Fox Control
The alternatives to hunting foxes is snaring and shooting. The former is used on this farm on a very limited basis. Snaring has two very big drawbacks. Firstly, it rarely provides its victim with a quick death. Secondly it is indiscriminate of species. If you put down a snare you run the risk of catching someone's cat or dog or a protected species such as a badger. As a consequence the places where one can use a snare are very limited.

The second alternative - shooting is also limited. We farm in an area of steep wooded valleys. These wooded valleys provide foxes with an extremely protective habitat. The dense undergrowth makes it difficult for a man with a gun to find and shoot a fox. Thus the only effective way to shoot foxes is at night in open fields with a spotlight and silenced small calibre rifle. This is one method employed by the gamekeepers on this estate. However there are a number of drawbacks to this method which hunting overcomes. Shooting at night only deals with foxes that are moving about in the fields. It does not control foxes resident in the woods, from the gamekeepers' point of view this is a serious drawback as these are the foxes most likely to kill pheasants. There is the added problem of foxes being wounded rather than killed, apart from the welfare aspects, wounding has the added problem of handicapping a fox's hunting ability and therefore increasing its propensity to catch "soft targets" such as lambs

Hunting overcomes these problems. Hounds are able to penetrate the thick undergrowth of the woods and pursue a fox until they catch it, or it runs to ground from whence it can be dug out. In the early autumn hunting helps to move litters of

cubs about, thus preventing a concentration of foxes in one area. Fox hunting is vital to the running of the Miltons shoot. If hunting foxes with dogs was banned the management of this shoot would be very seriously effected.

Deer Control.
The only alternative to hunting deer on Exmoor is stalking. This option is extremely restricted. It is illegal to shoot deer at night. It is illegal to stalk red deer with a small calibre rifle. A bullet from a deer rifle has a lethal range of 2 miles. The Exmoor landscape consists of steep valleys with intermittent areas of moorland (all of which have full public access). Scattered across this landscape are farmsteads, houses and roads. Exmoor is very different to the other main area in the British Isles where Red deer are found - the Scottish Highlands. Unlike in the Highlands deer cannot be stalked in vast open, sparsely populated areas. Thus the only alternative to hunting deer on Exmoor is risky to both humans and farm livestock.

When deer are stalked continuously they become crepuscular. They soon realise that if out in the open during daylight hours they run the risk of being shot. During daylight hours deer will therefore lie up in woods only coming out to feed at night.

Occasionally we see the appalling consequences of deer that have been wounded by shooting. I have never seen deer that have been wounded as a result of hunting. When deer are hunted they are either shot at close proximity with a licensed firearm or they escape.

As stated earlier hunting has the advantage of moving deer about. If we have a problem with deer eating a kale crop we ask the hunt to come and the deer are dispersed. If we shot the deer we might reduce their numbers by a few but we would not move them on.

If deer hunting were banned, the consequences for our farming operations would be dire. We would have to consider erecting a permanent 6ft deer fence around the farm boundary and then systematically shoot any deer remaining in the confines of the fenced area.

Back to top

Stag hunting on Exmoor is uniquely important to the social and cultural life of Exmoor. The supporters clubs to the Devon & Somerset staghounds organise a mass of different social activities. In an area where the community is spread out as on Exmoor the organising of such social activities contributes greatly to the social cohesion of the area. Such activities range from hunt balls to a 4-wheel drive car rally. These events bring together people whose paths' would almost certainly not cross otherwise.

Back to top

The red deer of Exmoor are widely regarded as being the healthiest in Western Europe. This is because they are hunted. Hunting is true natural selection in practice. This is the principle weakness of managing deer by stalking. A stalker's selection of which animal to shoot is subjective, in some instances the decision is merely based on which is the safest and most convenient animal to shoot.

At present due to the high regard of stag hunting by Exmoor farmers the deer are managed by consensus. If I were to start shooting stags I would become a pariah in the community. If hunting were banned then the consensus management of the red deer herd would end. The average value of a red deer carcase is £200; in addition to this there is a trophy fee of £500 or more for shooting a stag. Hunting prevents farmers from killing deer for cash. Without hunting there would be a free for all with farmers trying to shoot "the £700" that is walking around their farm before it crosses the boundary to their neighbour's farm and he has it. In a relatively short period of time this would result in a reduced deer herd that was of an unnatural age and sex structure.

Back to top

The clearest evidence as to the beneficial effects of deer hunting is the red deer themselves. The Exmoor deer herd is strong and prevalent. The Bateson report states that hunting is so detrimental to the welfare of deer that even deer that escape will subsequently die from shock. This simply is not true. We have never seen a deer that has died in such a manner. The only deaths we see on this farm are from deer that have been badly shot or caught in wire. On one occasion we found a hind that had died due to a breach birth. Never have we seen fatalities of deer resulting from shock and fatigue as the Bateson report suggests.

The staghounds cross part of our land at least once every two weeks, the foxhounds less frequently. We have never had a problem with hounds attacking domestic pets or farm animals.

If hunting were banned then more deer and foxes would be shot, and thus in all probability more would be wounded. At present hounds catch wounded animals. No hunting would mean these animals would not be found and would continue to suffer.

Back to top

At present there is one policeman on the whole of Exmoor. One policeman could not implement the ban. The alternative - relying on informants would be unlikely to be taken up by locals, but if it were it would be extremely socially divisive.

Like many Exmoor families stag hunting is our main social and recreational activity. A ban would have a devastating effect on the red deer herd and the Exmoor community. As explained above fox hunting is very important to us as a means of controlling foxes. It is not as important to me, as it is to others, as a recreational activity. If stag hunting were banned but not fox hunting we would not take up fox hunting as an alternative and consequently we would not spend the money as detailed above.

Yours sincerely

Guy Thomas-Everard

Back to top

Date uploaded to site 25 May 2000