S.W.D.P. consider hunting with hounds to be such a serious compromise of animal welfare that any financial considerations associated with it are of no relevance.

Other blood sports consigned to the history books such as cock fighting and badger baiting would not be re-introduced for reasons of economics.

We believe that many of the Countryside Alliances’s claims as to the precise numbers of jobs lost in the event of a ban are not only exaggerated, but rely on all owners of horses used for hunting immediately destroying them and never owning or hiring one ever again.

The fact is that they don’t know the precise number of people that are indirectly employed solely to support the activity of hunting or if those who presently hunt will continue to keep or use horses. It should be borne in mind that a mere 7% of horses in the UK are used for hunting (Wildlife Guardian, League Against Cruel Sports, General Election Edition 1997).

In reality all figures are hypothetical but as a working hypothesis those given by the Countryside Alliance because of their likely desire to exaggerate the effects of a ban, are almost definitely wrong. They have varied from 3,000 in 1983 to 65,000 in 1996 (Wildlife Guardian, League Against Cruel Sports 1997), and now given on the Countryside Alliance website (29 January 2000), for foxhunting only, as 15,895!

A survey included in a report to the Rural Economy Working Group of West Somerset District Council entitled, "Economic, Social and Environmental Aspects of Hunting With Hounds in West Somerset and Exmoor" (Centre for Rural Studies 1998 - 1999), was reviewed and a very high proportion of farmers using hunts’ service estimated that on average they only saved £212.50 annually per farm. We have found no other figures to substantiate this, but it is not as high as might have been expected. That aside, it is a legal requirement that farmers (not the hunt) dispose of fallen stock in an appropriate manner. We feel that a service such as this should require stricter legislation. This would significantly lessen the threat of the cross infections and diseases that can occur when coming into contact with carcasses. In May 1986, the Veterinary Record published the results of, "An inquiry into the causes of liver damage in lambs’, conducted by P.G.H. Jepson and M. H. Hinton. The report stated that in a commercial abattoir with a weekly throughput of 8,000 lambs it was found that the rejection of lambs’ livers due to damage by parasites represented some £25,000 per annum at 1984 prices. It was found that 97% of lambs’ livers were affected, with more than 60% being partially or wholly rejected as unfit for human consumption. According to the report this damage was caused primarily by the larval stage of the parasite Taenia Hydatigena and that a major factor in the transmission of this parasite to lambs was defecation by hunting hounds on sheep pasture. The researchers visited eleven Hunt kennels and observed tapeworms in the hounds’ faeces. All but one Hunt fed their hounds on raw meat and offal from farm casualties and it was through such uncooked food that hounds became hosts to the tape-worms - the eggs of which were then later defecated onto pasture as the hounds hunted in the countryside". (L.A.C.S. 1992).

Draghunting is becoming more popular with an increase in the numbers of packs over recent years.

The Countryside Alliance on their website (29 January 2000) say that, ".... draghunting is not an alternative to foxhunting. They are completely different sports".

With this we agree. One involves cruelty to a wild animal and the other does not, what they both have in common is a days activity for riders and spectators.

The route of a draghunt can be controlled thus avoiding the damage and mayhem that accompanies many hunts. Different hunts can be designed for riders of different constitution and ability if necessary.

The Countryside Alliance website (29 January 2000) also states that there would not be enough country available for all the foxhound packs to turn to draghunting. However, a NOP poll (March 1996) revealed that if the existing 200 foxhunts switched to draghunting, each hunt would continue to have access to between 27,000 and 37,500 hectares, in effect up to 145 square miles.

There are competitive equestrian sports which may give greater satisfaction to those in the pro-hunting fraternity that state draghunting lacks "excitement" or "adrenalin buzz".

Polo is played competitively and there may be an increase in its popularity. A team sport called ‘Le Trek’ which is orienteering on horseback, is little known in this country, but popular in France. The area offered on Exmoor and the Quantocks could see the start of this in the West Country.

A switch to any of these sports would mean no loss of jobs or expenditure in the West Country.

Much capital has been made of the fact that visiting staghunters use Exmoor Inns and Hotels which gives a boost to income in the Winter, a time when the tourist trade in other parts of the West Country is at it’s lowest. Conversely, there are accounts of hoteliers reporting a loss of business from potential customers expressing a reluctance to visit because of deer hunting practiced in the region. Members in the field frequently have been given words of support from holidaymakers expressing revulsion at what they have seen, vowing never to return.

If there was less resistance to a change to draghunting or other sports this need not be lost and more could be done to offer hacking holidays, which could also attract additional people to the area.

Back to top

There is evidence to suggest that to maintain the deer population at its present level an annual cull of 25% should be carried out. This is to say that allowing for death by natural causes, if left without culling the annual increase in numbers would be 25%. (D.S.R.A.D.P. 1988).

The number of deer that are likely to reside in the area that is hunted by the staghunts is 4,000. A cull of 1,000 is therefore sustainable by the herd.

Unlike in other countries records are not available for general inspection. It is estimated that this figure is being achieved because the population has already reached its peak and is now levelling off. Record keeping of deer culled is discussed more fully in Section 5.

On average the staghunts kill only 130 of the 1,000 deer culled.

Quite clearly the consequences for agriculture if hunting were banned would be minimal; the "extra" 130 could easily be encompassed with the shooting cull that accounts for the other 870.

Landowners are entitled at present, by law to kill deer out of season if they can prove crop damage. This, we believe, is open to abuse, and the matter will be referred to in Section 5, Management and Conservation.

Back to top

When looking at this issue in relation to hunting S.W.D.P. takes a similar line to the effect a ban may have on the rural economy. We consider staghunting to be such a serious welfare problem that to discuss this in any depth is irrelevant.

Clearly there would be a great sense of cohesion within any community that shared a common interest but as migration from towns to the countryside and vice versa has occurred, it is apparent that there is now less mechanical solidarity. There is a greater diversity of people living in villages with different interests and aspirations. Indeed when conducting street collections and information stalls S.W.D.P. receives tremendous support from the local community.

A community in its true sense has to share a common geographical area. Staghunting participants do not live in one particular area but we know are spread throughout Devon and Somerset and other parts of the country. As individuals it is likely that they have as many differences as they do similarities which can be assessed from our knowledge of the diversity of their social and cultural backgrounds.

Many members of S.W.D.P. are resident in the West Country and there is consensus that there are a variety of social and cultural activities available which centre around village halls and pubs, which have no connection to hunting what so ever.

Whilst it is true that a handful of pubs may be used by a higher proportion of local staghunters and that one on Exmoor may not appeal to many people because of a quantity of stuffed heads and feet hung about the walls, they are not exclusive to staghunters. It seems highly improbable that if hunting was banned that the hunters would cease to use these pubs. It has to be assumed that they would not go ‘teetotal’ in the event of a ban.

In West Country pubs there are competitive sports such as skittles, darts and pool leagues and there are also quiz leagues.

Village halls are used by numerous groups for activities such as pantomimes, jumble sales, indoor bowls, whist drives, yoga, Scottish dancing, Eastern dancing and a plethora of other reasons as would be found in any town!

There are a great many opportunities to make social bonds in the countryside outside of the hunting field!

Less resistance to draghunting could mean no overwhelming change to existing bonds or disruption to routine. Much emphasis is made by the hunting fraternity of the importance to their ‘sport’ of point to point events, pony club meetings, hound shows etc., all playing an intrinsic part in the social and cultural life of the countryside. These of course can continue to be of importance to support draghunting.

Back to top

In the case of staghunting we know of no evidence or argument to suggest that it preserves landscape or wildlife habitats. The Report to the Rural Economy Working Group of West Somerset District Council 1998/1999 states, "Direct involvement in any conservation type work is evidently minimal".

We do, however, have evidence of damage, disruption and trespass in the countryside.

1. Trespass

The staghunts are exempt from the offence of trespass under the Game Act 1831, but they are not exempt from civil trespass, when allowing or sending their hounds, members of the hunt or their followers onto land they do not have permission to enter. Fair Game, Parkes / Thornley 1997.

Civil lawsuits are expensive and therefore actual prosecutions are not unexpectedly rare.

The National Trust were made aware that members of S.W.D.P. had seen hounds and followers of the Quantock Staghounds on Trust land during the course of many hunts, after the ban was implemented.

On 28 October 1999 when monitoring the Quantock Staghounds, members of S.W.D.P. filmed an incident, later presented to the N.T. It is alleged that a stag had reached exhaustion point after being chased onto N.T. land. See Figure 4. On two previous occasions in the weeks prior to this we also alleged deer being chased on N.T. property by the majority of the pack in full cry, one of which we were also able to film. The hounds in full cry forced the deer to continue to run emerging we believe on the other side of N.T. land, enabling the hunt to continue, plus its followers.

Professor Bateson’s (1997) observations on the frequency with which hounds hunted without hunt staff or mounted followers in attendance were up to 15% of hunting time.

This type of incident is not just confined to N.T. land. A letter appears in the West Somerset Free Press (14 January 2000). See Figure 5.

2. Hunts in more ‘Unwelcome’ Situations

On the matter of control of hounds, an incident happened in March 1999, when a stag chased by the D.S.S.H. found himself cornered in a school playground. See Figure 6.

The question as to why the hounds were not pulled up before they got into this situation has to be asked.

3. Hunts on Roads

All three staghunts will come up against busy ‘A’ roads, the Tiverton Staghounds even hunt the area around a dual carriageway!

Deer in fear and flight response will attempt to cross even very busy roads. We have evidence of incidents where deer have been severely injured by vehicles whilst running from the hunt.

Much of the area hunted by the three packs is crisscrossed with a network of narrow lanes that link villages, hamlets and farms. Many are barely two lanes in width; many are single width lanes. In fairness efforts are often made to keep these roads traversable for non-hunting traffic. However, if the followers suspect that the deer is near exhaustion, their excitement and desire to converge to the scene of the kill, can cause extreme traffic congestion. At times such as these, little thought is given to other members of the road-using public.

To illustrate this we refer to the following comments that are taken from the article shown in Figure 6.

A police source said, "It was chaos in Parracombe. The roads were all blocked and we had several calls about the incident from concerned members of the public".

We have established that hounds regularly hunt unattended, which can pose a danger to road users. How many staghounds involved in fatal road traffic accidents is unknown to us, but first hand experience tells us that near misses happen regularly. When "speaking" hounds appear on the roads’ edge from hedges or undergrowth with their noses firmly on the ground on the line of a deer and run straight out into the path of on-coming traffic, it has forced many drivers to make emergency stops. Those with riders in attendance are probably more fortunate as traffic tends to slow for horses.

4. Environmental Damage

4 x 4 vehicles are popular with staghunt followers because of access to both private and public off-road tracks. Certain farmers allow access to some fields as vantage points.

Despite status as an A.O.N.B. and S.S.S.I., tracks or R.U.P.P.’s can be used regularly by these vehicles.

In the Quantock Hills Management Strategy (1999) 28, the following comments are made.

"The issue of off road driving particularly affects the hilltop heaths within the main Site of Special Scientific Interest. The Quantock Hills the last area in the country to achieve A.O.N.B. status suffer an exceptionally high level of this activity causing damage to the landscape and nature conservation interest as well as considerable user conflict".

Metal shod horses’ hooves can also damage the thinly formed surface in areas such as these.

In months of high rainfall footpaths and bridleways can quickly become quagmires by the use of hunts attracting many riders.

A knock-on effect of this is that in order to walk in such areas, walkers have no option but to leave paths and unintentionally cause damage to the flora on which they walk.

Their "deer management" policy is quite arbitrary, which is perhaps why they do not refer to it in their most current literature.

On the Countryside Alliance’s website (29 January 2000) they write under the heading, "This is deer hunting".

"Basic rules of husbandry apply to wild deer in the same way as to any herd of domestic animals". [If the Countryside Alliance wishes to adopt this policy then surely it must respect the fact that wild deer must be encompassed within the same protective laws afforded to domestic animals]. "The old and the weak animals are the first to be culled, to maintain reasonable stocking densities based on available food".

It is quite likely that any reader of this would assume that the hunt kill old and weak deer.

In reality what they generally do is choose fit and healthy stags that will give them a good days ‘entertainment’ and a good trophy to hang on a wall. During hindhunting animals are arbitrarily selected irrespective of condition.

The Countryside Alliance’s explanation of hindhunting is that they, ".... concentrate on the one that breaks away", [they conveniently forget that it is usually two; the second, her dependant calf] "unable to keep pace. This usually means that it has some hidden incapacity and therefore must be culled".

Looking at the ‘pace’ that this incapacitated hind may then keep may give validity to this argument.

The following tables appear in Professor Bateson’s (1997) report:

Note: The numbers of animals for which the distances were calculated (column 2) are greater than those durations (column 4). Where distances and durations were both available for an animal, its speed has been calculated".

There is very little difference in the speed of the hinds that escaped and the hinds that were killed, however, the ones that were killed ran slightly slower than those that escaped. If this is an indication of incapacity then it may be expected that this would be reflected in the data given for the stags, but in both groups, those running slower were those to escape.

Given that the analysis of deer activity by radio tagging showed hinds move 5km during 24 hours, if they manage 20km for a hunt lasting 3 - 4 hours then their ‘incapacity’ cannot be used as an argument on management or conservation grounds. The welfare of those that escape is discussed in Section 6.

On some occasions, they may hunt a stag with unusual antler formation, on the premise that he must be culled for the good of the herd, despite the fact that the rutting process would probably mean, like the majority of stags, he would not get the chance to reproduce anyway. It is the stags with the largest, more symmetrical antlers that are dominant during the rut.

The Countryside Alliance claim that they offer a free deer casualty service, killing deer which are reported as being seen to be injured or disabled in some way, and they collect those already dead.

Some casualties are chanced upon during a hunt.

We have observed the hunting of several deer that the Hunt claim are injured. It is clear that there may be strong disagreement over the extent of certain injuries, warranting to death of such an animal.

Examples of this are: A hunt chasing a slightly lame hind for nearly two hours. This is a service that she could well have done without. Her injury was consistent with a muscle sprain which would probably have healed had she been left alone.

A stag with the lower part of a back leg severed, had to endure noise and chaos before they rendered him immobile by hooking his front legs over a gate. He was unable to stand through sheer exhaustion.

We can see an argument that in some cases, particularly where incapacitated deer is lying down in undergrowth, that a trained hound or dog would be invaluable for locating it, but it in no way justifies retaining hunting.

The R.S.P.C.A. already deal with injured deer throughout the country in certain circumstances, but their resources are limited. A located immobile deer can be dealt with by a vet as part of the R.S.P.C.A. service.

Also, stalkers deal successfully with casualty deer. A set of cull records of a group of stalkers in the West Somerset and Devon area (Langbein 1997), showed that out of 276 deer they had shot, 31 showed signs of injury such as broken limbs, lameness, blindness, disease and deformity.

S.W.D.P. feel that the hunting process can contribute to the number of deer casualties, through panic flight and myopathy, which we have explained in Section 6, Animal Welfare.

We believe therefore, that a ban on hunting would reduce casualties.

Some literature (North 1999) refers to hunting farmers as an anti-poaching police force, which is somewhat vague, but it should be noted that alleged deer poachers are drawn to staghunts. This would give them a good opportunity to locate deer herds. In addition, some are those known to be particularly violent towards anti-hunt monitors, but they are still allowed by hunt officials to follow the hunt on a regular basis.

The hunt claim that farmers only tolerate deer on their land because of hunting and that there is a threat of large numbers being shot when hunting is banned. This conjecture would be difficult to quantify.

A ban on hunting could cause a knee jerk reaction in certain individuals, based on emotional feeling rather than practical assessment of the situation. Some may wish to go on killing spree to be able to say "I told you so", but calm down after a period of time, there may be some farmers who really do tolerate deer because of the hunt and would do their best to shoot continually after a ban. An article, see Figure 7, made reference to hunting farmers who live on the Quantocks. We feel that the sort of ‘blackmail’ used at that time was disgraceful. However, they were quite at liberty to behave in that way because unlike other countries there is at present no legislation to conserve and protect deer in this country.

Despite that outrage, it is fairly common knowledge that many landowners are responsible people who are tolerant of deer. They may allow the hunt on their land but would still tolerate deer also after a ban. Even pro - hunt farmers use a combination of the hunt and culling by shooting to control deer numbers.

A few deer on grass fields probably is not going to result in any great loss or competition to the domestic livestock also in that field.

It is the same deer eating the same amount of grass whether hunting exists or not.

A study of Roe deer damage to cereal crops in Southern England at a rare maximum discovered 30% damage but more commonly found less than 5% of the crop might be grazed. However, because each damaged plant was effectively tillered there were more grain bearing stems. So despite extensive apparent damage the yields were not significantly lower than those from ungrazed fields (Putman 1988).

It could be argued that true deer management involves trying to encourage deer to reside where they are likely to do the least damage to agricultural land. Therefore, more logically manipulating non-agricultural habitats in which deer presently find themselves under constant attack from the hunts would be sensible management. The Forestry Commission already practices such husbandry. S.W.D.P. would wish to see a comprehensive expansion of such areas in the West Country.

Back to top

A visual census of deer is undertaken each spring on Exmoor and the Quantocks. Details of sex and calves numbers are recorded. The count can be affected by the weather and is really only useful as a rough guide to general trends.

There are in existence four deer management organisations that were formed during the 1990’s. The largest are the "Exmoor and District Deer Management Society" and the "Quantock Deer Management and Conservation Group". Unfortunately, these groups are made up predominantly of pro-hunt landowners. The two smaller groups are called the "Luxborough Deer Management Group" and the "Nettlecombe / Elworthy Deer Management Group". However, there are some 700 plus individual landholdings within the areas they cover, making the four groups’ ability to formulate, let alone make serious management plans, extremely difficult. Without an overall picture of the total number and vital details such as the sex and age of individual deer culled, it is virtually impossible to safeguard against the culling of unsustainable proportions. This could result in the elimination of deer in certain areas.

There is evidence to suggest that even those participating in these groups sometimes work to their own agenda despite previously made group decisions. Two such hunting landowners were widely reported in the press for killing around 100 deer in the spring of 1998. This was despite agreements with neighbouring farmers at a Quantock Deer Management and Conservation Group meeting to cull a very much more modest number. See Figure 7. These ardent staghunting farmers are still part of the group. Others with strong feelings of displeasure over their actions, resigned thus creating further bias.

Landowners not involved in the groups are at liberty to cull as many deer as they see fit on their own land.

Back to top

N.B. At present, farmed deer are afforded the same protection regarding animal welfare as domestic livestock. This protection is not given to wild deer. This anomaly in what is essentially the same species of animal is a matter that should be addressed.

1. A mandatory carcass tagging scheme in both England and Scotland for wild deer

There are several advantages to such a scheme. The records that would accompany each allocated tag could enable traceability from the point of death to the game dealer, thus deterring poaching. Information such as the sex and age of the deer, required for sound management decisions, also veterinary inspection to ensure good food and health standards. Approved deer larders with stringent regulations would remove the instance of insanitory practices that exist at present on unlicensed premises.

Scientists who have studied deer have recently made recommendations for such a scheme. Professor Bateson (1997) concluded that it would reduce unregulated shooting. Also Dr Jochen Langbein (1997) suggests that such a scheme would assist in the monitoring of annual culls, and discourage and impede the sale of poached deer. He explains this in further detail in a draft consultation document, "Towards Sustainable Management of Deer in Exmoor and the Quantock Hills".

There are groups which would also like to see such a scheme e.g. the Wildlife Network (1999), the British Deer Society who have written a paper on this, and we also have correspondence from the Association of Deer Management Groups in Scotland stating their definite wish for such a mandatory scheme. They have said, "With regard to poaching and illegal sale, until we have a mandatory system and a change in the Game Meat Regulation it will continue to be possible for venison which has been obtained illegally to be sold, without veterinary inspection, into the UK market, although not for export".

Records are required to be kept by dealers but only environmental health staff and the police have access to them. With a tagging system it may be necessary that a little more detail is recorded and that they are regularly sent to a central point such as environmental health departments from where deer management groups or a warden (see below) may use them in management programmes.

2. Deer Commission / Deer Wardens

The Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 created the Deer Commission to conserve and control deer of all species in Scotland.

As already mentioned there is evidence to suggest that self regulating deer management groups may not be successful. It may be too much to expect certain members of the community to co-operate with their neighbours.

A warden or wardens could facilitate and advise local deer management groups. They could identify the appropriate number and sex of deer to achieve the favoured results according to the needs and requirements of each group (sustainability of the largest cull possible for commercial reasons, or smallest for more aesthetical reasons etc.).

3. Road Traffic Accidents

A study has been carried out on this subject for the Highways Agency in 1997. Reference SW 335/V3/11-98. It is entitled, "The prevention of wildlife casualties on roads through the use of deterrents. Prevention of casualties amongst deer population".

We have tried to obtain a copy of this report but have been informed that it is not being made available to members of the public!

In Jochen Langbein’s report (1997), cull records suggest that a sub-set of deer injuries consistent with road traffic accidents were as high as 2.2% suggesting a definite welfare problem.

S.W.D.P. would like to see legislation passed to make it law to report to the police if a vehicle is in collision with a deer. This would make identification of accident black spots much easier and deer mirrors etc. could then be installed as appropriate. Also, if an injured deer was in any area it could be tracked and it’s injuries assessed. The need for this simple welfare measure is unquestionable for large mammals who are not always killed outright in road traffic accidents.

If a deer commission was to be considered they might have a register of stalkers willing to deal with casualties. Perhaps consideration to training a dog to track deer may be made, to locate certain casualties. They could work in conjunction with the R.S.P.C.A.’s present service.

iv. There are incidents of deer becoming trapped in fences. Their feet slip between strands of wire as they jump. On landing on the other side their legs are trapped, with the then tight wire effectively acting as a tourniquet. They can die lingering deaths or lose parts of their limbs. In identified high-risk areas where owners are unwilling to modify fencing, advice should be given as to dangers of such fencing.

v. Management and / or location of deer through environmental programmes could be worked on with willing landowners and managers. Habitat manipulation could encourage deer to re-locate to areas where they do the least damage to agriculture and silviculture as illustrated previously.

Regarding management and conservation, S.W.D.P. is aware that deer are not rare, indeed Exmoor and the Quantocks contain the largest herds of wild red deer in England. There is an imbalance in the ratio of hinds to stags, trophy hunting has created this imbalance, which should be looked at as a matter of urgency and we feel that there is plenty of scope to improve life for the deer herds and in so doing improve everyone’s enjoyment of seeing Britain’s largest mammal, wild and free in fantastic countryside.

In order to achieve a comprehensive and responsible deer management programme it is essential that marksmen used within the scheme are trained to the highest standard, and that gun laws are tightened to reduce the risk of indiscriminate and inaccurate shooting. A further measure would be to amend the Deer Act 1991 to exclude the clause allowing occupiers of land to use smooth bore weapons to shoot deer to prevent crop damage.

Back to top

The legal definition of cruelty is the infliction of unnecessary suffering.

The Protection of Animals Act 1911 covers various forms of cruelty but only to those animals defined as being domestic or captive (Parkes and Thornley 1997).

It is an offence:

If this act was introduced because it was considered that domestic animals can be treated cruelly, then it is only reasonable to suppose that wild animals can also be treated cruelly, that is, to have unnecessary suffering inflicted on them.

From our collective first-hand experience of monitoring several thousand staghunts, we have identified many practices during an average hunt that we would describe as likely to inflict unnecessary suffering.

To have our common-sense claims of the serious welfare problem hunting imposes on deer quantified by scientific research was a logical step forward. The opportunity for this did not come from an animal welfare organisation as maybe expected, but the National Trust.

At the 1990 A.G.M. of the National Trust a resolution was proposed by Mrs D Cronin and Mrs D Wilson of the Devon and Somerset Residents Association for Deer Protection to prohibit the hunting of deer with hounds wherever the Trust had the right to decide this.

The resolution was passed, but it took some time before agreement was made as to how to proceed. Initially a report was commissioned by the National Trust in response to pressure by its membership, and was conducted by the late Professor Robert Savage. The remit did not address the question of animal welfare.

In April 1995 the Council invited Professor Bateson to conduct a scientific study with the following terms of reference:

"To study suffering as a welfare factor in the management of red deer on National Trust properties on Exmoor and the Quantock Hills having regard, inter alia, to the scientific evidence on stress induced in deer by hunting with hounds and by culling methods, animal welfare legislation, and the likely effects, in so far as they can be estimated, of a hunting ban on suffering among deer".

The report entitled "The Behavioural and Physiological Effects of Culling Red Deer", when completed in 1997 resulted in the Council’s decision to ban staghunting on all their properties where possible.

The report included the study of 88 separate hunts during the 1995 - 1996 season, and the sampling of blood and muscle tissue from 61 deer hunted to their death and deer culled by shooting.

We have already touched on several potential welfare problems in the previous sections, and feel that the table shown below, from Professor Bateson’s report (1997) very adequately covers all the areas S.W.D.P. have identified.

Note: The possible welfare problems associated with shooting are marked (s).

1. Welfare During the Chase

We have observed that the appearance of both hinds and stags at the onset of the hunt after as little as half an hour, their tongues loll from their mouths, and their eyes seem to bulge and they can be seen to pant at this stage. See Figure 8. On cold days, during hindhunting, they steam visibly. Foam can be seen coming from their mouths.

The altered appearance is what followers use to assess whether they are observing a deer that has been hunted or not. Monitors have often heard supporters say, "Has he or she done some work", indicating signs of labouring.

As the chase continues the deer’s gait becomes more laboured, the neck and head lowers and towards the end of a lengthy hunt the signs of fatigue are in some cases extreme. Deer falter at hedges that would previously pose no problem. They lie in water to cool or in cover to hide.

Deer in the normal event of their lives will avoid close contact with people.

We know that deer live within territories that are familiar to them (Putnam 1988, Langbein 1997) and can assume from the routes deer have taken during the hunts, that they are familiar with places that could be of advantage to them. These may include different forms of cover in which to hide, water in which to cool, flat or downhill terrain for easier running, land which they associate with little disturbance, which can be land from which the hunt is banned or wildlife sanctuaries such as those owned by The League Against Cruel Sports.

This knowledge is also used by the hunt and in order to ‘head’ (turn) a deer, followers shout, crack whips, blow car horns and line boundaries and roads.

We believe that the deers’ determination and attempts to stay within their range, combined with a progressive sense of stress at failing to distance themselves from the continuous baying of hounds may force them to face otherwise adverse, stressful alien situations such as close contact with people, riders, vehicles, buildings and crossing extremely busy roads. All compromises the deer’s’ welfare.

It is the intent of the hunt to force the deer from a position of safety. Once in unknown territory the deer cannot use any knowledge of familiar surroundings, implying an even greater welfare problem. Thus disorientation exacerbates the stress experienced in the animal.

Professor Bateson (1997) noted that, "The frequency with which hunted deer came into close contact with hounds and hunt followers, and the frequency with which hunt followers interfered with the flight of a deer were sufficiently high to be a cause of concern. Moreover, the deer were more likely to stop running and so be killed sooner when a greater number of events which were deemed to be stressful occurred during the hunt".

On 13 September 1999 we took film of a hunted stag walking directly towards people and a vehicle in an attempt to hide in vegetation cover in a stream.

A hunted spring stag on 22 April 1996 sought a place to hide behind a Manor house at Halsway on low ground adjacent to the Quantock Hills at approximately 2.40pm.

Halsway Manor is used as an arts conference centre and the Quantock Staghounds had been banned from this property as a result of a previous incident in February 1989, a hunted hind collapsed in a flower bed in full view of guests as hounds entered the property shortly afterwards behind her.

In a newspaper article (Somerset County Gazette, February 1989) a spokesman from the hotel said, "Before the huntsman arrived we drove the hounds away from the deer - I think anyone would have found it very distressing to see the state of this animal. We were glad she was all right".

They had in fact called the R.S.P.C.A. inspector and a vet to inspect her for injuries which may have necessitated that she was put to sleep. They found none, but declared she was in a state of "shock and exhaustion".

The spring stag at the Manor which we had observed at first hand had found a gap between an oil tank and a breeze block wall, (See Figure 9).

He lay shaking and panting whilst noisy activity continued feet away from him. This included a noisy lawn mower starting 10 feet away from the tank, and a vehicle left running for approximately 5 minutes next to the oil tank belonging to a service engineer who was asked to return another day because of the stag. It was possible to carefully approach the deer to observe his condition. Figure 9 shows his position. One very noticeable feature was the appearance of his eyes. They were open throughout and had a very dark appearance, but were so clouded and dull that were it not for the laboured breathing and initial quivering, one might have assumed he was dead. It was nearly five hours later at 7.30 that evening that the stag showed signs of movement. He was aware of the world around him and got to his feet, made an awkward jump and stiff legged trotted past the back of the Manor back onto the hills. We forwarded information to Professor Bateson regarding this incident. We wonder why the hunt did not forward this information to Dr Elizabeth Bradshaw in order that she could observe the deer first hand.

S.W.D.P. have witnessed the use of whips to drive deer during a hunt, both from cover or to manipulate their course. The latter operation involves riders flanking the deer and steering them in the desired direction. It was during one such operation that monitors witnessed the use of whips on a stag.

We have observed motorbikes and vehicles used to both chase and influence the direction a deer is running. In the latter this is when the animal is running towards land from which hunting is inaccessible.

We have seen both hunted and non-hunted deer in injurious or potentially fatal predicaments as a result of the hunts’ proximity. This includes deer slipping on road surfaces, repeatedly running into fences and swimming reservoirs. We have filmed incidents of hinds leaping from one side of a road to the other. During one such occasion a dependant calf was unable to perform a similar jump and floundered in the road until it took cover in bracken. Another incident saw a hind leaping across the road causing a horse to shy, unseating the rider. Both deer and horse crashed to the ground, landing heavily.

The rut (mating season), of red deer takes place during autumn staghunting. Big mature stags hold rutting stands and have to protect their harem of hinds from rivals throughout approximately six weeks. This takes a lot of concentration and energy and during this intense time they consume only half their usual intake (Staines 1980). There is inevitable loss of weight and condition (MacNally 1975).

We have identified a two-fold welfare problem. There is disruption to rutting ‘stands’ by hounds and hunt followers. Hinds and the dominant stag are scattered, and whilst they may reform when the danger has passed it may waste invaluable energy that the stag requires at what is a critical time of year.

Professor Bateson (1997) studied the movement of 1 stag and 3 hinds continuously by radio-tagging them and taking location positions every 22 minutes. He found that undisturbed they would travel about 5km per day within their home range area, at an average speed of 0.24km per hour. Time of day did not affect the average speed at which they travelled, hunting did, with the two hinds travelling nearly twice as fast on a day when the hunt was in their area.

The second problem is when the hunts target a stag that has lost condition because he has been active in the rut. As a dominant stag he will usually have fairly splendid antlers our belief is this makes him a desirable trophy for the hunt. Their reasons given for this unrelenting behaviour towards the stag population are to remove the threat of inbreeding. Folklore within the staghunting community has possibly a strong influence on this particular way of thinking. Their argument has a tendency to degenerate into anthropromorphising the deer, comparing their sexual habits to those of human counterparts involved in incestuous relations.

We know of no evidence to support the validity of this argument. In fact a population of deer on the Scottish Island of Rhum evolved from a small number of deer, and there are no suggestions of a welfare problem due to belonging to the same genetic pool (Putman 1988).

We realise that because of the life-cycle of the hinds, finding a ‘good’ time to cull them is difficult. However, the welfare issue for hunted hinds is quite complex. The hindhunting season takes place when the hind is likely to be pregnant and have a dependant calf.

The maternal instincts of a hind are strong. Red deer expert Lea MacNally (1975) illustrates this particularly well by recounting an incident with a hind. She and her calf from the previous year, some 19 months old, stood their ground until he got inexplicably close to them. He then saw, trapped by the hind leg, in a wire fence, her younger 6-month-old calf. He approached to assist the younger calf, and the other two ran away. He assessed that the calf’s foot had been trapped for a day at least. He worked and rubbed the foot and leg, which seemed frozen from being restricted for so long, but the calf seemed robust enough and so he left it on a heather bed.

Describing the incident MacNally states, " Continuing on my way out to the hill beyond, I met the mother head-on, almost bumping into her, as I rounded the low ridge above the fence. Anxiety for her calf over-riding all apprehension of humans, she was returning to the very jaws of danger. My sudden alarming appearance made her retreat again of course but I have no doubt that she did not go far and soon rejoined her calf. One wonders what her feelings about it all were, the quite inexplicable inability of her calf to leave the fence it had just jumped and join her, a problem she had "solved", temporarily, by herself remaining and grazing nearby. Then after a lengthy vigil the alarm-creating arrival of a man, making her run, yet despite her understandable apprehensions, she had obviously remained nearby with every intention of rejoining her calf".

Hunting hinds poses differing and added complexities due to the hind’s bond to its calf. The hunt tries at every possible opportunity to separate them during the hunt. This will be done by riding at them, whipping the ground and shouting in the usual manner.

If the hind is run to exhaustion and killed then the calf has to fend for itself. Orphaned calves have been observed to be under tremendous social pressure because they fall to the bottom of the pecking order. At the start of the hindhunting season a calf will be as little as 3 - 4 months old and the hind still lactating.

Professor Bateson (1997) considered this to be a welfare problem and felt the calf being orphaned could lead to considerable nutritional loss or to loss of social position and marginalising within the herd.

Towards the end of the hindhunting season the calf will be older, but still face the same social problems if orphaned. The hind is by this time well advanced in her term of pregnancy.

Professor Bateson (1997) examined kills at early and late halves of the 1995 -96 season by the D.S.S.H. He found that the proportion of autumn stags killed rose significantly from the early part of the season to the late part. Similarly, the proportion of hinds killed rose significantly from the early to the late part of the winter. No change was found over the spring stag season.

Back to top

Deer may flee from a hunt that runs close to them. The majority are likely to return to their range when they have assessed that they are no longer being pursued. It seems inevitable that some will be injured occasionally in their panic, causing broken limbs, lameness, and getting caught in wire.

We have established that hounds regularly hunt on their own and in small groups, having broken away from the pack, to follow the line of one or more deer.

These deer that have to all intents and purposes been hunted are also vulnerable to the same welfare problems as the target deer.

Back to top

The hunts claim that deer that are hunted and escape will return to the herd unharmed.

Professor Bateson (1997) concluded it is known that in species, including red deer, severe stress (including extreme exertion) can cause mortality from myopathy or suppression of the immune system in a proportion of the animals.

Also, in a study of other deer species including red deer, there were indications that 12% subsequently died after capture and release. We have established that 50% of hunted deer escape, which gives a figure of approximately 60 deer a year. These animals would have been hunted for a period of time lengthy enough for them to be at risk. This would give a total of 7 deer that could die, plus non-target calves and an unknown additional amount of deer chased by stray hounds hunting on their own. This poses a great welfare threat to these deer.

J Henshaw and R Allen (1989) wrote a paper on, "A case of Suspected Capture Myopathy in a West Country Red Deer", and made references to it and other papers in a press release (1997). "Barlow (1986) stated: "The condition (capture myopathy) may be prevented by avoiding prolonged pursuit and stressful forms of restraint", and Van Reenan (1979) stated "Be ever conscious of the animal’s anxiety" and "Avoid lengthy chases which will terrify or unduly frighten the animals". Warnings such as these would remain unknown to or would be ignored by the deer hunt staff and participants, who, in my experience were generally most ignorant of the most basic knowledge concerning deer and their biology."

"In March, 1989 I and my assistant became involved with a red deer stag calf found in a distressed condition following the hunt. This animal was in obvious pain, but bore no signs of external injury, and it could no longer control its muscular activity and could not even raise it head from the ground. A veterinary surgeon called in to examine this deer described its condition in terms of a stress problem. By the following day this deer had deteriorated and was unable to eat or drink. Due to the obvious severe pain and deteriorating condition I shot this unfortunate animal to prevent further suffering".

"A blood sample was taken from this deer and submitted for analysis to the Ministry of Agriculture, Veterinary Investigation Centre, at Starcross, near Exeter. When compared with known normal blood values, the results led to a conclusion by the examining officer that the measured values were "consistent with acute myopathy" (See Appendix 4).

Back to top

The staghounds are at the mercy of the hunt followers in many respects. They have been trained to follow the scent that a deer leaves on the ground as it runs. It is fairly inevitable that they go astray on deer that are not the hunts’ target. In these circumstances staff and followers should try to stop this as soon as possible. However, staghunts move at a fast pace and odd hounds seem to be expected to catch up with the proceedings in their own time. Often meaning that they are vulnerable to the hazards of busy roads, posing a threat to themselves and that of other road users.

We have seen hounds with injuries which would suggest they have sustained deep cuts, possibly whilst traversing barbed wire. Hounds are known to suffer injuries and even death when gored by stags during a hunt.

Hunt monitors have witnessed horses dying during staghunts, listed below are three accounts:

In one incident, during the hindhunting season, a horse was made to gallop towards the target hind and her calf in order to separate them. The horse skidded on the particularly water logged grass surface, and fell whilst travelling at considerable speed, sustaining fatal injuries.

The second was on an extremely hot day during autumn staghunting. The Master’s horse after being ridden all day was observed collapsed on the ground at 4pm and died later.

The temperature in August in particular is cause of concern to animal welfare organisations such as the R.S.P.C.A. Clearly there is a welfare problem for hounds, horses and deer that are expected to exert themselves in high temperatures.

In the third incident a hunt monitor in a letter to the press states, "I had earlier filmed the horse being led staggering along the road. I do not know how long or hard this horse had been ridden but it is not uncommon to see horses exhausted or worse at the end of hunts and I filmed this just for our records. Later I came across the horse collapsed by the road with people surrounding it. At first I stopped to see if I could help. Only after it became obvious that our help was not wanted did I start to film the scene and almost immediately was attacked by hunt supporters".

Sheep are usually afraid of hounds and will run away from them. Mrs White’s letter in figure 5 illustrates the welfare problems connected with this.

Deer running through fields of animals cause an interesting reaction. Sheep, cattle and horses are alarmed or excited by deer but almost always run after them. Animals can be seen to bunch in the area where deer had crossed until hounds arrive, they then tend to scatter.

We usually observe this from a distance, but on one occasion S.W.D.P witnessed a horse in a field adjacent to a road following a stag that had jumped the hedge to get out of the field. Hunt followers nearby caught the horse and a head collar was quickly put on to it. The horse had sustained cuts to its face and was bleeding profusely. It seemed very agitated as it was walked up and down a shallow river nearby.

There are species of ground nesting birds and reptiles which are specific to the habitats found on the Quantock Hills and Exmoor, both sites of which are A.O.N.B.’s (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), both also contain S.S.S.I.’s (Sites of Special Scientific Interest). In the case of Exmoor it has been given E.S.A. (Environmentally Sensitive Area) status, for reasons including a number of relatively rare semi-natural habitats, and the diversity of wildlife they offer.

These habitats are put at risk due to the random and unpredictable activities of hunting, for example the mounted field and motorised followers, not restricting themselves to the designated and appropriate tracks and bridleways.

S.W.D.P feel that the most objective evidence has been supplied by Professor Bateson (1997) regarding the welfare problems associated with shooting. He states that "I estimate that 130 hunted deer are killed each year by the hunts and roughly a further 100 that escape will experience unacceptable levels of suffering whereas only 7 or so of the 130 at present killed by hunting would have such problems if they were shot." See table on page 20.

The hunts have consistently claimed that it is not possible to safely shoot deer on the Quantock hills and Exmoor. The League Against Cruel Sports (1992) writes of the late David Stephen, author, naturalist and wildlife photographer. Mr Stephen had extensive experience of deer culling in Scotland, and wrote in "The Scotsman" in 1988, "Down south you’ll hear it said that red deer on Exmoor and around about could not be culled in the Highland manner, that is with a rifle. This is nonsense that any Highland stalker would laugh out of existence. The Devon and Somerset Staghounds hunt in country with well-wooded valleys, and is tailor made for shooting red deer from high seats as the Forestry Commission does with roe deer."

Back to top

On Exmoor deer often run to water during a hunt, (on the Quantock Hills there are less geographical opportunities), deep rivers, reservoirs and the Bristol Channel form part of the terrain. We have first hand evidence of deer swimming across reservoirs; evidence of hunted deer swimming out to sea is commonplace in hunting literature (Collyns, 1902, Edwards & Wallace 1927, Walling 1935).

During one particular hunt S.W.D.P monitored we suspected that the hunted stag had drowned in the River Exe. Having witnessed him running towards Exbridge village across fields we decided to head in the same direction. Shortly after arriving we noticed mounted hunt followers and hunt vehicles at the scene. It was apparent to us that there was considerable panic amongst them. Hunt followers rushed down the footpath adjacent to the river from both directions and tried to stop us filming the body of the stag floating downstream towards the bridge in the village. A follower was trying to pull the body from the river onto the bank. It was evident that something had gone wrong in the ten minutes that had passed since our original sighting. Although we were physically jostled and surrounded by hunt followers we saw enough of the stag, as he was dragged from the water to the back of a waiting Land Rover, to be confident enough there was no sign of blood that would have indicated a shot wound.

G. A. Floyd (1998) writes of a stag, hunted from near his own home on Exmoor, which had gone to sea. He had seen him swim towards a dangerous stretch of coastline fishermen on the shoreline made him wary of returning to land at that point. Continuing to swim he headed on against the force of the tide further around the headland. Mr Floyd climbed the cliffs to look for the stag, upon reaching the cove on the other side he saw the stag’s drowned body amongst the rocks.

Some hunted deer will swim well, however, if they are already tiring and panting heavily, crossing an expanse of deep cold water is clearly a threat to their welfare.

We have described the nature of kills in Section 1. Biting by hounds, man handling by followers, see Figure 10, protracted kills through inaccurate shooting and humane killers, throats cut to drain blood whilst deer are still conscious, and drowning, are all potential factors compromising their welfare at the end of every hunt.

S.W.D.P consider that deer pursued during hunting will experience many types of physical pain and total exhaustion. There are abnormal flight responses when put under the pressure of contact with humans, riders and vehicles, adverse conditions totally alien to their natural environment. There is evidence of other abnormal behaviour reflecting bewilderment, see Figure 11, and acute sensitivity to the very real threat the hunt poses to them. We conclude that hunting causes unnecessary and unacceptable suffering.

The painstaking research conducted by Professor Bateson over a relatively small number of hunts, in our opinion, vindicates our observations of the effect hunting has had and continues to have on deer (See Appendix 5).

Back to top

S.W.D.P are acutely aware of the Government’s pre-election promise to provide time for a Bill to ban hunting. M.P. Michael Foster’s Bill in November 1997 received an overwhelming vote of 411 to 151 in favour of a ban but the Government failed to use legitimate processes to enable the bill to reach the statute books.

We have answered all the questions raised by the Committee of Enquiry but reiterate that we do not consider that matters of economy, social and cultural life etc are relevant to what we regard as an overwhelming issue of animal welfare.

There was no mention of social, economic or cultural factors either in Michael Foster’s bill or in the Government’s manifesto. We understand that the intention was, and still is, to make provision for the protection of wild animals from being pursued, killed and injured by dogs in the name of sport.

The only two questions in need of consideration are, whether staghunting causes unacceptable levels of suffering and whether that level of suffering would be reduced if hunting with hounds ceased.

Professor Bateson’s FRS report to the National Trust, and his subsequent paper, "The Staghunting debate" (Appendix 5) provides probably the highest quality of scientific research available. He answers these questions of cruelty fully.

S.W.D.P. are only too painfully aware of the answers to these questions and feel that any further delay in getting a Government or Private Member’s Bill onto the statute books would be intolerable and unforgivable in light of the abundance of clear cut evidence.

We would prefer to see the Government investing in management and conservation projects that would benefit deer, rather than funding draghunts or compensating existing

"live-quarry" hunts. The Countryside Alliance is an extremely wealthy organisation, their annual accounts will reveal funding more than adequate to make available any financial assistance for a switch to draghunting should it be required.

We have outlined in Section 5 that we consider there are several practical measures that should be considered to aid deer management and conservation. These would be a positive step forward and should be considered for implementation with or without a ban.

If hunting live animals is banned we would suggest, in the case of deer, the introduction of a carcass tagging system, outlined in Section 5, so those who wish to manage and conserve deer have, at last, the opportunity to do so. The effects that a ban has on hunting can then be quantified. We must stress, however, that the implementation of such a scheme should not delay the introduction of a ban.