Animal Welfare Seminar - Mission Statement - Summary - Guidance on welfare issues - Behavioural expertise and evidence - Myopathy - Carted deer - Hare Behaviour - Shooting Factors - Stalking evidence and concerns - Stalking as a damaging harassment - The wounding deal - Instantaneous death - Red deer wounding rates - Welfare equation data - Deer Management ideals and objectives - Advantages of hunting methods for deer.

Animal Welfare Seminar

Contents

Mission statement Page 1

Summary of Proceedings Page 2

Guidance on welfare issues Page 3

Behavioural expertise and evidence Page 6

Myopathy Page 9

Carted Deer Page 9

Hare behaviour when hunted Page 10

Shooting factors Page 11

Stalking evidence and concerns Page 13

Stalking as a damaging harassment Page 14

The wounding deal Page 14

Instantaneous death Page 15

Red deer wounding rates Page 15

Welfare equation data Page 17

Deer management ideals and objectives Page 18

Advantages of hunting Page 20

Supporting documentation From Page 21

The Burns Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs

Animal Welfare Seminar

Mission - Summary of Proceedings - Evidence - Concerns

The matters raised within this statement and the attached supporting documentation should be read as an appendix to the British Wildlife Management Submission presented on the 15th December 1999 - Please note the Welfare Equation report and the data dealing with Instantaneous death, Killing deer, Casualties, Casualty Services and Dogs for Deer.

Mission.

I believe that the Inquiry team have a great responsibility, not only to report to Government on the facts on hunting with dogs, and but also to highlight the need for harmony and support for a full range of crucial wildlife management roles.

The high levels of emotion and the mindless conflict are a product of poor leadership and poor communication on the methods which must be deployed to prevent the catastrophic losses and imbalances within our wildlife species and their habitats. Some seventy years of rivalry between hunting and shooting participant organisations must be replaced by a statutory supervisory body run by representatives from the wildlife manager practitioner self regulatory bodies, which are already in place.

Summary of Proceedings.

My submission has highlighted the use of the Welfare Equation as a simple means of reporting an accurate conclusion to Government on this emotional and confrontational issue. I envisage total support for this method of measuring suffering once clearly explained to the opponents of hunting with dogs.

I quote from Professor Broom's submission, page 7:

"As explained by Broom & Johnson 1993, extent of poor welfare can be multiplied by duration of poor welfare as an estimate of the severity of the problem ".

Professor Broom's statements on the measurement of poor welfare should be linked to Professor Bateson's documented statement in the Wise 1999 conclusion that - "should one attempt to factor in calculations relating to duration and severity of suffering, one could could no longer make out a scientific case in favour of stalking."

On the basis of these statements I respectfully suggest that the Inquiry team look no further than the Welfare Equation conclusion which I have presented.

I have been given no reason during the seminar to amend my data and conclusion that well supervised and well regulated hunting with dogs delivers the most humane methods of culling, a high degree of selectivity, and enables effective population and casualty management for a range of species, not achieved by indiscriminate methods.

I believe that the evidence clearly shows that hunting methods are in fact extremely efficient and the first choice of the majority of land custodians. Being able to shoot at foxes is largely dependent on foxhounds and terriers to find them and flush them from cover, and to follow up wounded. Dogs are essential.

This national service is delivered free of charge and offers a wide range of recreational activities available to all groups within our society and guests from overseas. Well run and well supervised hunting with dogs, placed at the heart of the country sports industry, would enable existing benefits and contributions to rural economies and employment to be greatly expanded.

The key issues not mentioned or clearly addressed during the seminar were the nature of hunting methods and the consequences of removing them. I attach a Veterinary Submission covering the different long search and short pursuit phases with scent hounds, to illustrate the fact that it is not a simple chase.

I also attach a letter entered for publication to Animal Welfare, challenging the Bradshaw and Bateson conclusions, and highlighting the inevitable catastrophic loss of the red deer herds in the West Country if misdirected selfish policies are not reversed.

These selfish policies by the National Trust and the Forestry Commission specifically ignore the democratic wishes of the vast majority of local people, and the conclusions and recommendations for the future of deer management in the West Country in the Savage, Southampton and Porchester Reports.

In a letter to British Wildlife Management dated 11th Nov 1999, Professor Bateson qualified his National Trust brief;

"It is wrong to suggest that deer management was part of my brief: It was not. That had been dealt with by the Savage report ".

Professor Bateson has contributed to this current crisis because of the ambiguity and inherent bias of his research, and his refusal to complete his own welfare equation, which came down heavily in favour of hunting. We have covered this subject in detail within our earlier submission and have been given no reason to change any of the evidence provided.

The promotion of a clearer understanding of the many roles within the communal hunting system to the public, and Government support for hunting with dogs, will enable the creation of rich biodiversity and the provision of additional attendant wildlife management roles for all groups and interests.

Perceived guidance on Animal Welfare.

RSPCA requirements on humaneness were suggested by Michael Swann.

a. The best prospect of an instantaneous death.

b. Least disturbance to the animals natural environment.

Hunting with dogs meets both these requirements - Shooting does not.

I believe the RSPCA now takes a narrow view on hunting with dogs, which does not consider the range of benefits provided for the overall welfare and success of our truly wild species. They are not properly considering selectivity issues, nor are they embracing the practical wildlife management factors which their inspectors used to observe. Can there be any comparison with the way we treat our un-domesticated, highly stressed farmed red deer and West Country herds?

I believe that fashionable and corrupting vegetarian/vegan/religious concepts have been presented as truths to uncritical men and women which have no place in a civilised world. The world is already starving because the productive capacity of the husbandmen, stock keeper, shepherd and hunter- has been undermined and in many cases destroyed. Millions just survive on hunting skills.

The IFAW have funded a fellowship at Mansfield College, Oxford to study the theological aspects of animal welfare. The Reverend Professor Andrew Linzey has produced a document titled Ethical Concern for Animals. I believe that this project is misguided in so much as it links wildlife management methods which reduce suffering to activities which unnecessarily cause suffering.

Many scholars reaching back to Aristotle have attempted to search for guidance on animal welfare from religious texts, but have failed to discover the down to earth nature of the original records, because they have been corrupted by urban priests. There is substantive ethical and moral guidance on this issue within the Bible and I have presented information based on alternative translations of the Genesis text and its more detailed and earlier Sumerian counterpart.

An Alternative Genesis - see attached documents.

1. To avoid indiscriminate killing - Comment on Gen 1:24.

2. Caring for wildlife as all good farmers do - Comment on Gen 1:95.

3. Assume responsibility for the good management - Comment on Gen 1:26.

4. Make it your servant or better still manage it - Comment on Gen 1:23.

I would suggest that there is a clear message here for a caring responsibility for the selective good management of our wildlife and our wildlife managers.

The fundamental thread of democracy suggests equal rights under the law. What is happening throughout the world in practice is the indiscriminate slaughter of the innocent, be they people or animals.

Government views and guidance are expressed within the Labour Party Animal Welfare Brief as prepared and approved by Elliot Morley - attached.

"As part of our legislation to outlaw cruelty to wild mamma/s, Labour will allow a free vote in the House of Commons to ban the hunting the hunting of live quarry with hounds".

"Were Parliament to accept the principle of a ban on hunting of mammals with hounds then an additional specific offence of using a dog for the purpose of deliberately killing, or hunting a wild animal would be incorporated".

"Because hunters are such a small and reviled number it is their tactic to try and link the sports of shooting and fishing to theirs and scare participants in these pastimes into thinking Labour will ban hunting shooting and fishing. This is completely untrue. It is not and never has been our intention to prohibit responsible shooting and angling".

(Please note that under Labour at least 100,000 responsible shooters have lost their guns and crucial keepered habitats are in catastrophic decline).

"Labour believes in working with interested organisations, such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Game Conservancy, in developing, best codes of practice for game management, shooting and conservation".

"The excuse of digging to set dogs on foxes will no longer be relevant as it will become an offence, except under licence, if the free vote is passed".

Within the more realistic Labour Party Anglers Charter 1995, we find the following statement endorsed Chris Smith MP, Tom Pendry MP, Elliot Morley MP, Joan Ruddock MP and Kim Howells MP.

"We understand the desirable situation for all sports to be governed by their ruling bodies and left free from Government interference where appropriate"

I have produced the following documents involving Elliot Morley which are self explanatory and attached.

1. A letter giving evidence of Elliot Morley's direct involvement in Forestry Commission and League Against Cruel Sports activities.

2. The merits of prolonging the chase - comments from Elliot Morley and David MacDonald - the need to understand the purpose of earth stopping.

3. Letters between Elliot Morley and Dr Nick Fox.

As I have not been able to obtain a response to the questions raised within the Shooting Issues document, which formed part of my first submission (copy attached), the Inquiry team may have powers and consider it relevant to seek a detailed reply from Elliot Morley and Deadline 2000.

Advisors to the Enquiry - My concerns on the lack of behavioural expertise and evidence.

I believe that the Inquiry team will probably now have more practical knowledge about hunting, than any of the individuals given an opportunity to speak at the Animal Welfare Seminar, including Roger Harris, Patrick Bateson and James Kirkwood. However expert evidence on the key behavioural factors is available and should be fully considered and consulted within this investigation. I specifically refer to David Denny and my own experience.

For a wild animal to adapt and survive for thousands of years in a totally man made environment, it would have been subjected by evolutionary and man made processes to physiological and psychological stress. On any analysis such stress within a surviving wild species would be defined as beneficial, unless some form of damage could be observed or measured as Professor Geist has claimed.

On studying the behaviour of hunted animals it is clear that all that is relevant is the low degree, short duration, recoverable stress that appears to exist during the final short pursuit phase of each hunt. No proof exists that this is harmful to a healthy animal, which will not predict death and on all previous pursuits will have evaded capture. Animals will only suffer when they fail to cope.

For a selected unhealthy or casualty animal the rapid curtailment of suffering is the purpose of the hunt role. For all hunted animals the pressures of the last few minutes or seconds of the pursuit, rather than the relatively long and unstressful search phase, must by fairly set against the duration and degree of all other suffering endured by individuals, and by the species within the welfare equation.

We quote the following sources:

"Leroy realised that the mere accumulation of isolated facts about an animal's habits was of little practical significance - he advocated that those who wished to understand behaviour should live with the animals and observe their daily conduct. It should then be possible to assess which habits were due to the active influence of instinct and which were due to the result of intelligence".

From the writings of Charles George Leroy, French gamekeeper and naturalist, a specialist in the behaviour of red deer and their relationship with wolves.

"Professor Geist makes the point that the analysis of suffering is inevitably subjective and that it is hard to develop objective protocols to determine the degree of suffering. I agree. Even where objective data may be collected on physical parameters associated with distress, or behavioural responses, the evaluation of such data in terms of an experience of suffering is necessarily subjective. However, you have never claimed otherwise and indeed have been actively involved in the debates about the use of behavioural indices in assessing welfare".

Professor Rory Pulnam - Letter to Professor Bateson July 1997 - The importance of the behavioural factors.

"It must be appreciated that the term 'stress' is used in physiology in a different sense to that in lay usage. I believe that physiological stress is any stimulus which elicits a physiological adaptation or response to changes in environmental needs or demands, this includes changes due to episodic feeding or to episodic energy requirements including those of short term or long term exercise. These are situations that are perfectly normal, and would be unlikely to be harmful".

Professor Michael L.G. Gardiner - Letter 10^th September 1999 - Understanding physiological stress.

"I find Professor Bateson's research on hunting was biased from the outset by faulty assumptions about red deer adaptations and behaviour. His research strategy could not lead to anything but questionable, ambiguous results. No damage to red deer or their populations has been demonstrated. The evaluation of suffering comparing hunting and shooting is narrow and excludes the effects of stalking, a known form of damaging harassment".

Professor Valerius Geist in his submission to the Burns Inquiry.

"His most mischievous act was the failure to differentiate between physiological and emotional stress and to equate one with the other. ~ most unacceptable and clever ruse which took in the lay public very effectively. Physiological stress is surely beneficial to the organism".

Dr C.J. Mitchell - Letter 26th August 1999 - Understanding physiological stress.

"How can Bateson, Gripper or anyone know that the hunted deer experience extreme suffering' on the basis of a single blood sample taken after death and compared, in a number of hormone and other biochemical assay techniques, with similar isolated samples collected from culled, stalked or farmed deer"? "They can't was the conclusion reached by the majority of the scientists who attended the Bateson review meeting in Cambridge in June 1997".

Professor W.R. Allen - Organiser of the First Cambridge meeting June 1997 - We quote the extract above from the response to criticism of hunting from a fellow member of the veterinary profession - Veterinary Times.

"As reported there are similarities in many of the results in the two studies but it is evident that the conclusions reached in the first study were incorrect". - "The one point that I can add is that there are parallels between the Joint Universities study and the earlier investigation of Professor Bateson. However, this is inevitable since both are concerned with the consequences of exercise in deer and for the most part the changes observed reflect simply that exercise is being undertaken, and nothing more".

Professor Roger Harris - Western Daily Press - August 20th 1998.

"We selected a stag I knew well, from close to my home, and hunted him and lost him mid afternoon over 7 miles away. I came home and having stabled my horse was a short distance from the door of my house when I saw him come down the lane, he jumped the hedge, went down to the stream, had a good wash and joined his hinds before I went in and made tea ".

Ruth Thrower - Highly respected former master of the Quantock Staghounds in discussion with Edmund Marriage in November 1998. Interviews with many different people who knew their deer well confirmed established knowledge that deer recover very quickly from being hunted and are back home within hours.

"We saw the stag up on the bank behind us and heard the hounds not far behind. He stopped and clearly put off from crossing the road because of the line of cars. There was a shout to make a gap for him which was done and he came through, down to the stream below the road and turned to bay beneath a small tree. He was in control and had chosen his spot to stand, before the hounds came in sight. He was quickly dispatched by the hunt gun and we were moved to tears because he had clearly chosen a favourite place where he met a dignified end".

Anonymous hunt follower January 2000.

Professor Bateson and some of his supporters have implied and persisted in the belief, despite contrary evidence, that the hunted deer suffers unacceptable physiological and psychological stress and that such stress causes great suffering and damage. On this alleged evidence they seek a hunting ban suggesting that the benefit of doubt should be given to the hunted animal.

If that was really the case why is it that I have never met over the course of 40 years anyone with detailed knowledge and experience of the subject who did not fully support the humane role of the hunt?

He was in fact asked by the National Trust to compare the welfare in deer hunting with that of stalking. He refused to complete the simple welfare equation required to complete this task. He has presented at last 60 items of ambiguous, misleading and false information ignored contrary evidence and lied about the physical health of an opponent. This is all well documented and proven by his critics.

Myopathy.

At the seminar Professor Bateson attempted to keep alive the issue of myopathy by claiming that deer had died after being chased by helicopters. In the first instance deer get used to scent hounds over the course of their lives before they are selected for hunting and they will have adapted to this natural situation.

I believe the helicopter chase to which he refers was either darted white tailed deer in America or the 5,000 red deer re-located in New Zealand, described in some detail in the paper on Post Capture Sequellae presented by G. Van Reenan.

In the Van Reenan example deer were chased by helicopter until they were moving slowly enough to be darted, sedated, bound up in nets, transported to waiting lorries, transported a long distance by road, released into darkened pens' and moved later into paddocks. In either case Professor Bateson was quite wrong and devious in his suggestion that there was any link here with hunting.

Of most interest is the tact that the maximum number of deer dying from capture myopathy on this sample of 5,000 deer was 5%, although the best teams achieved losses as low as 1%.

Here we have the detailed evidence to dismiss Professor Bateson's ridiculous claims. If two unnamed stalkers have reported finding two dead deer following hunting, there are many other reasons and causes of death not connected with hunting. Myopathy caused by hunting can not be taken seriously because there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claims.

Carted deer.

A study of carted deer over history will show a highly intelligent red deer participating willingly in providing a day out for horses and hounds. Some would enjoy the experience more than others, often trotting back to the kennels with the hounds and horses after the hunt.

To clearly illustrate honest down to earth behavioural evidence within hare hunting, I have attached a copy of the submission made by the Masters of Harriers and Beagles to the Scott Henderson Inquiry in 1949.

It is my contention that if the hunted animal is allowed to follow the route of its knowledge and choice, its welfare will not be compromised because it will normally be able to cope well, right up to the point of death. There is no evidence to suggest that any alleged poor welfare has damaged either the individual or the species in any way. What the hunt has achieved is to enable the sporting chance of escape for the healthy and clever wild animal and this is of overwhelming moral and evolutionary importance in our close relationship with wild animals.

Phrases such as on the scent, false trail, passing the buck and standing at bay are engrained within our English language, but the meanings appear to be lost to those discussing the fate of the deer during the hunt at the seminar.

Deer choose what to do, where to go and when to stop in a hunt which is conducted at an average walking pace speed. Wilder deer in the past would run much further than today's deer. who become so familiar- with the hounds over the course of their lives.

They will stand and watch the hounds on exercise at a distance of 30 yards. They will run beside the horses on foxhunting days. They will remain confident, cocky, entertaining, intelligent and innovative right up to the point when hounds finally run in sight as they tire. Hinds will remain in a passive position if found while hiding and stags (sometimes hinds) will turn to bay, switching to an instinctive and intelligent fight strategy before they have run to exhaustion. These are not the actions of a frightened animal as many photographs will show.

They will decide to stand at bay before the hunt starts, or at any other stage of the hunt even before the hounds come in sight. Some 15% will be dispatched before the hounds arrive. They will normally remain in control to the end without their welfare being compromised.

No judgements on hunting should be made without a real attempt to extract behavioural information from the data banks in the minds of those who have observed wildlife on a daily basis throughout their lives. There are more than enough welfare specialists in Britain's countryside, who do not need advice on animal or wildlife welfare from Professor Bateson.

Shooting factors.

Before the enclosures began to appear in the late 17th century, the farmers livestock grazed across large tracts of common land. From the mists of time bulldogs were bred and trained to hold the nose of farm cattle and wild bulls so that simple veterinary and management tasks could be carried out. Bulls had rings put in their noses and what we now call a twitch was used to lead the animal by the nose. Humane slaughter was carried out by cutting the throat or by a well aimed blow to the head. The second method is common practice in Africa today. Cutting the throat of deer has the significant advantage that the maximum amount blood can be immediately extracted from the carcass improving the quality of the meat which is highly prized.

When a stag is brought to bay or a hind is bayed in a passive position by the soft temperament scent hounds, a pistol can be used at close range. Sometimes the head will need to be held. More commonly a heavy gauge short two barrel 12 bore shot gun is carried by two or more hunt guns. This can be described as a powerful short range weapon firing some 8 steel balls aimed at a 43 degree angle behind the ear of the deer.

Contrary to Professor Bateson's claims it is a very rare occurrence for the hunt gun to miss the target, provided the deer is not distracted and moves its head when the gun is fired. Continual and deliberate League disturbance has caused such problems, but from checking with several sources I am happy with a 98% first shot instantaneous death with no wounded escaping with the hounds in attendance.

Attached within the documentation and included within my original submission is a diagram produced by McKelvie showing the small target area for a lethal rifle shot. The size of the target will vary depending on the position of the stalker to the position of the deer. For the deer to be shot accurately it will have to stop and stand still and not move as the shot is fired.

The high velocity soft nose bullet will fragment if it hits a twig or similar obstacle on the way to the target. The stalker will have to consider the range of the target and the wind direction in taking his shot. His telescopic sight will have to have set up accurately and regularly checked. He will have to find a comfortable position and support for the barrel to place an accurate shot. Deer can be very wary and gun shy with an excellent sense of smell and hearing.

A stalker will normally have to approach upwind and ensure that when he shoots there is a safe backstop to prevent the bullet travelling a long distance and possibly causing damage or fragments striking other live targets. This operation becomes more difficult in National Parks and areas like Dulverton and the Quantocks where there is so much public access both walking and riding.

Deer will stand and watch at close range a member of the public on a horse or walkers chattering, whistling and waving their arms, but they will sense the smell, sight or behaviour patterns of stalkers and high seat locations.

Managing deer by gun alone presents a whole set of problems for even the most skilled stalkers in the undulating and wild sheltered habitat areas of the West Country. Selectivity, economics, commercial constraints, limited access over some 800 small farms, co-ordinating culls with others, leaving the best breeding stock, not having a means of following up or finding casualties, all stack the odds against deer stalking as a satisfactory management method.

Nowhere in Britain has management by gun alone established any kind of satisfactory track record with the possible exception of certain very large self contained land holdings away from mixed farming.

Deer roam across many boundaries in a short space of time, they need regular dispersal when congregating near valuable crops, they have to be regarded as a communal resource and therefore carefully managed within a self financing communal system, which can maintain numbers at high levels so everyone can enjoy seeing them. Most importantly the land custodians will accept these high numbers if they know that the venison will be shared out fairly by the hunt as compensation. Without the hunt a free for all would develop leading to a dramatic drop in deer numbers. The priceless amenity value would disappear.

It is of significant importance to find out just how much money has been spent by the National Trust and Forestry Commission to operate their deer management systems and how much they are now paying in damage compensation to their neighbours.

I have covered in some detail within the letters and documentation sent to Professor Stephen Harris, for his research contract, the evidence presented by all those organisations who support the existing deer management methods in the West Country. The second part of my second submission statement based on these letters is contained within the gold coloured report attached.

Stalking advisors - My concerns regarding their credibility.

Mike Squire BDS, Dick Youngson DCS, John Swift and Peter Watson BASC all play a major role in the stalking industry and would almost certainly benefit short term from a deer hunting ban. They are all directly opposed to my plans to combine the roles of hunting and stalking, which I believe would resolve amenity, dispersal, poaching, recreational, financial, management and casualty issues. However long term they should all benefit from the combination of the two activities and so would all species of deer.

I would describe their presence at the seminar on a par to asking the undertaker to help cure the patient, as they are all involved in attempting to implement idealistic and un-proven deer management plans on land custodians by flooding them with semi-trained stalkers. I am disappointed that they were not prepared to be more open on the real management problems which we should all be trying to resolve.

We were given a clear description by Dick Younoson of the plans for Scotland and on Wednesday the enormous costs involved in the indiscriminate slaughter of deer on a grand scale both at night and out of season, where past management methods by gun alone have failed miserably.

There seems to be little understanding by such stalkers of the special communal good selective management situation, which still manages to survive under great pressure in the West Country. In reality commercial stalking interests are the kiss of death to the future of the West Country herds because independent and unaccountable stalking interests disrupt and undermine the communal role of the hunt.

All these advisors are directly involved in the fastest growing sport of stalking and in finding deer to shoot for customers, employers or colleagues. This is born out by some 4000 stalkers being trained by three shooting organisations. In reality a tiny proportion will have dogs which are effective when things goes wrong, and very few will find deer to stalk. See the dog training problems within Dogs for Deer or speak to leading dog trainer Guy Wallace on (NB number removed for web version. Secretariat).

Professional deer managers, who are failing 75% of their applicants on shooting tests, believe that in some areas there will soon be more stalkers than there are deer. Excessive culling and destruction of the best breeding stock is key feature of so called deer management throughout Britain.

The Deer Initiative is attempting to resolve this deer management chaos but is driven by the adverse influences of the Forestry Commission and Elliot Morley.

I believe that the Inquiry team, by focussing attention on the real issues, will be able instigate radical changes to improve wildlife welfare and management.

Stalking, a known form of damaging harassment.

We would refer to Professor Geist's powerful and authoritative testimony against Professor Batesons conclusions within his written evidence to the Inquiry, which includes his comments on the work of Batchelor C.L. 196S, one of several researchers who have established that stalking is a known form of damaging harassment. Further references are provided within the research contracts, including Langbein and Putnam, who anticipated behavioural changes towards secrecy and herd dispersal for red deer subject to increased culling by rifle in mixed woodland and farmland areas of South West England.

Those with practical experience will know that deer are far more relaxed in hunting areas. When deer are selected for culling they will normally separate from the herd and be dispatched by hunt gun away from other deer in their own favourite locations. I believe there is far less stress for a red deer culled in this manner than for farm animals taken to the slaughterhouse.

When an accurate high velocity rifle shot drops a deer, others in the vicinity will display symptoms of stress, often rushing off a great speed, displaying fear and panic which is not seen within hunting. The suffering imposed upon these deer should be added to the welfare equation.

The Wounding Deal.

The attached letter to Yves le Coq Director of the Federation of Field Sports Organisations in Europe is self explanatory and deals with the wounding deal, wounding figures and a failure of the main shooting organisations (in which I include the BDS) to follow the lead of Denmark and Sweden in releasing realistic wounding information to the public.

The background and importance of this matter is covered within my submission under Political Evils and Wounding Deals. I have discussed this issue with all parties involved but am less than hopeful that responsible shooting interests will report accurately on these matters to the Inquiry.

Is body shot rifle shooting the best and most humane method of killing our deer ?

A soft nosed bullet, banned under the Geneva convention in war, is used to deliberately cause as much soft tissue damage as possible in order to stop the deer. The Deer Commission of Scotland call this a stopping shot in the engine room.

In reality all body shot deer remain conscious (Green 1992) and a significant percentage will suffer unnecessarily. Even with the best modern ballistic technology many people do not accept that this method meets the criteria for an instantaneous death.

We certainly do not use this method on our domesticated farm animals and horses. This is clearly an important moral issue which was regarded by Professor Bateson's team at the time of writing his original report as a central Issue.

David Denny as a vet with considerable experience in deer hunting and stalking matters covers this point in more detail within his submission.

Wounding Rates for red deer in the West Country.

Accurate figures have now been provided to the Inquiry by Douglas Wise and Denys White, which has established that Professor Bateson underestimated the shooting casualties dealt with by the hunts, by excluding Quantock Staghound records. These figures give support to my calculations of a 15% walking wounded rate, which I dealt with in detail in my earlier submission.

I have challenged the Bateson claim that half the shooting casualties would be found by the hunt, which he used to calculate his original 5% figure. Injured deer (and foxes) by instinct go to extraordinary lengths to seek thick cover in which to hide (or go to ground). Deer will in any event try and lose their scent by travelling through water if it is available before they lie up. Any real knowledge of West Country habitat will illustrate the fact that a significant number of carcasses will disappear- without trace each year in this enormous area particularly within the many large patches of gorse.

Professor Bateson has moved the goal posts yet again and now talks about a 2% walking wounded rate. My request for a BDS working party to consider the deer hunting issue and a response to this 2% walking wounded figures, together with other key comments on wounding is detailed within British Deer Society Journal 2000 pages 255 & 256 attached.

I have a file record of Michael Squire accepting my walking wounded figure for the profile of the average deer shooter in the West Country of 15%.

I have produced a letter from Hugh Rose, source of the wounding rates used by Professor Bateson suggesting a target of 93% for best stalkers.

John Swift at the seminar thought 2% would be a difficult target to achieve.

Of course all those clammering to support the Bateson 2% are stalkers looking for stalking, and of course this figure cannot reflect the average individual shooting deer in the West Country, which will include many amateurs, poachers and commercial interests, looking for cash from venison and taking head or neck shots, together with land custodians or their sons.

In a joint paper with Dr James Kirkwood. Tony Sainsbury et al 1995 produced the conclusion that deer wounding rates for average stalkers in the U.S.A were 8-42%. This data was formulated from three sources

Gladfelter H L (1985) Deer in Iowa - Iowa Wildlife Research Bulletin No 38 Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

McCaffery K R (19S4) Wildlife Society - Bulletin No 13 - Pages 360 - 361.

Noble R E (1974) Characteristics of the Mississippi White Tailed Deer Mississippi Game and Fish Commission - Game Division - Mississippi.

This is just one example of data which I supplied to Professor Bateson which he has omitted to use in his more recent papers.

I believe that there are excellent training facilities in America, military service, and a culture of excellence in shooting disciplines and skills. I see no reason to dismiss this data.

In the case of Staines l985, who produced a wounding rate for professional stalkers of 37%, Professor Bateson dismissed this figure as the actions of one amateur. However this would appear to be in doubt from comment made within the research paper dealing with this subject and the Staines paper in question.

At the Dulverton public meeting a game dealer quoted 10 - 15% misplaced shots on approximately 200 carcasses bought over the past year. His records show that between 30% and 50% of carcass value was deducted for saddle and haunch shots. Bearing in mind that lung, liver and gut shots would not have resulted in deductions adding a further 2 - 4% of misplaced shots we can see that even in the best circumstances wounding rates are higher than those quoted by Professor Bateson. I stand by my figure of 15% walking wounded.

The Welfare Equation Data.

As you will have seen I have used Professor Bateson's earlier 5% walking wounded figure and ignored the degree of suffering in calculating the welfare equation which proves that deer hunting with dogs is proven kinder by a factor of at least 10.

I believe that there is now a consensus on a minimum 5% walking wounded rate in deer, and an average of l5 minutes of low degree, short duration, recoverable stress at the end of the short pursuit phase of the hunt.

I believe that broad agreement was reached at the seminar on this basic criteria, which is needed to resolve the comparative measurement of suffering between hunting and stalking.

The self evident higher wounding rates and very short pursuit phases in fox and hare hunting resolve the issue of humaneness in favour of hunting with dogs.

Average wounding rates for hares and foxes with shotguns I calculate at 55%.

Average pursuit phase with foxhounds above ground - 45 seconds.

Average final pursuit phase with hounds hunting hares - 45 seconds.

Average coursing of hares with single or pair of dogs under 1 minute.

Deer management ideals and objectives.

The past and present roles of the Quantock Staghounds is an important case study to show how efficient a deer hunt can be when it is well supported locally, and the problems which arise when one large land custodian, in this case the Forestry Commission, refuse to co-operate or allow deer and hounds to cross their land, even to follow casualties.

The facts and figures relating to the Quantock Staghounds will be presented in comprehensive form within the relevant research contract, but to cover the traditional hunt role in general terms I have quoted below from my earlier submission:

"Deer are most often shot by land custodians, when they suffer excessive damage to their crops or when they wish to 17arvest the veniso,,7. They are not exclusively shot by professional or skilled recreational stalkers as repeatedly suggested by Professor Bateson, nor would that be possible ".

"On the Quantocks less than 40% of the venison is marketed and no more than 10% of deer are shot by professional or skilled recreational stalkers. Over the years the hunt gun has averaged 50% of the cull including casualties, with some 87% of deer accounted for by gun or rifle through the hunt management system, supported by the vast majority of land custodians."

"No convincing case has been made that funds and access rights would ever be made available for professional or recreation stalkers to manage the West Country deer herd, or provide alternative compulsory facilities for casualties. No knowledge is displayed on how the current communal system works".

"Growing selfish commercial stalking interests in fact threaten the herds. Replacing the hunt role with a comparable system is therefore hypothetical nonsense and of course plays into the hands of these unaccountable short term commercial interests and other unregulated and unsupervised activities".

"Professor Bateson implied to Tom King A,IP that deer had died following hunting under the Mastership of Mr Bissett (1855-1884). In fact the extensive Bissett hunt records show that apart from saving the herd from extinction, there was convincing proof that hunted deer could be hunted, contained, tagged, transported, released and hunted again, without ill effects. Only one possible case existed for claiming such a death, being a deer found drowned the day after being released following hunting. This is unlikely to have had a hunting related cause".

The existence of the quality and quantity of red deer on the Quantocks has always depended on hunting.

As a consequence of the Forestry Commission ban, and anti-hunt opposition whipped up by a very small but vocal minority, the Quantock Staghounds are now restricted to an average of one day per week hunting in the Quantock area.

In consequence there are two major un-resolved problems.

1. The deer casualties dealt with by the hunt have fallen from a average of 44 to less than 10. There is no evidence that the actual casualty numbers have fallen or that they are being dealt with by other means. Road traffic related injuries have in fact increased over the period, and locals believe there is more poaching as a culling stand off has led to an increase in numbers.

2. Whilst hunting, continues in its present restricted form with the hope of a reprieve, the land custodians who suffer the most from deer damage have held back and have not taken heavy culls. In reality a temporary stand off with the Forestry Commission stalker exists for the moment. This situation cannot last indefinitely and the Quantock herd will suffer a catastrophic decline if the hunting role is removed and the competitive free for all to cash in the value of the venison takes place.

I urge all those involved with this subject to take the trouble to understand how the existing system works and why the herd is at serious risk. They would also be advised to closely look at the situation on the ground, as no other case study in Britain gives a clearer picture of the importance and potential of the crucial wildlife management and welfare roles carried out by hunting with dogs.

Looked at in narrow isolation, the uninitiated have assumed that "there is universal agreement that shooting is the best method". However l have listed below the advantages of hunting over shooting and leave the reader to make their own judgement on the conclusion of this universal issue. I will be happy to discuss any of the factors raised within my submissions, and the points listed below.

Edmund Marriage. 25th.April 2000.

Advantages of hunting methods for red deer.

High amenity value.

Local deer managers/harbourers in place who know the deer in their area.

Quality of the herd.

Visibility issues resolved because of high carrying capacity in hunted areas due

to land owner tolerance and compensation from fair venison distribution and

benefits such as dead stock services, social activities and communal duties.

Least disturbance in areas where the species resides.

No damaging harassment of the red deer species.

Preservation of wildness.

Lowest stress levels for a wild species.

Sporting chance provided close to natures natural selection.

Popular local support.

Selectivity unrivalled.

Instantaneous death.

No wounding.

Clean carcasses.

Higher quality venison.

Efficient casualty services.

Effective removal of sick or diseased animals.

Vispersal targeted to reduce impact of deer damage.

Continuing dispersal prevents build up of worm infestations and risk of TB.

Less habitat fencing required.

No unidentified shots heard.

No commercial conflicts.

No excessively high culls.

No loss of good breeding stock or very old quality stags.

No argument on choice of deer to be culled.

Effective neighbourhood watch against poaching and un-authorised culling.

Communal support and action for a communal resource.

Recreational activities provided for riders, walkers, bikers and drivers.

Recreational activities provide opportunities for social cohesion.

Recreational activities provide funding for free management service.

Recreational activities contribute significantly to the rural economy.

Recreational activities and amenity values encourage tourism.

Funds available for habitat management and fencing off hazards.

Activities are well regulated and open for all to see.

Communal cohesion in place to provide good arrangements and roles to cater for the needs of many other species.

Supporting documentation

Red Deer Welfare Equation Page 21-22

Endorsment of Welfare Equation - Hugh Warmington Page 23-26

Comments for a veterinary submission Page 27-36

Letters to Animal Welfare Page 37-48

An Alternative Genesis Page 49-52

Labour party Animal Welfare Brief Page 53-56

Evidence of Elliot Morley direct involvement Page 57

Reasons for prolonging the chase Page 58

Morley and Fox letters Page 59-60

Shooting Issues Document - Unanswered Questions Page 61-66

Professor Geist's submission Page 67-76

Van Reenan on Capture Myopathy Page 77-80

Hare behaviour when hunted Page 81-88

McKelvie deer target area diagram Page 89-90

Yves le Coq FACE Europe - Unresolved wounding deal Page 91-94

Green 1992 - Killing Deer Page 95-98

Shooting Performance figures Page 99-00

How often do stalkers wound Red Deer - Bateson Page 101-2

BDS Journal Readers Letters - Hugh Rose letter Page 103-5

Double rural productivity, halve the politicians Page 106

How Bateson got his sums wrong - Game Conservancy Page 107-8

BRITISH WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

The Red Deer Welfare Equation - Simple sums and solution.

100 deer moved by soft temperament scent hounds and culled by a close range head shot to give best prospect of an instantaneous death.

Low degree recoverable fatigue, described by some as recoverable stress or suffering (the alleged damage has not been defined or proved), experienced only during the final stages of the hunt, duration on worst assessment 15 min. av. before dispatch (May be no more than 10 min. JU Study - often nil BWM).

100 units x duration 1/4 hr = 25 hours of low degree recoverable fatigue/stress.

There are ethical bonus's of an instantaneous death, a sporting chance and a clean. quality carcass. We claim that such low degree recoverable fatigue/stress is necessary, in order to avoid the inevitable unnecessary suffering in rifle shooting, and to allow the curtailment of all degrees of natural and casualty suffering by good management with hunting methods. Between 25% and 50% (Bateson report & JU Study samples) of deer are selected by the local harbourer because they are already suffering from a range of natural, casualty or genetic problems other than maturity, and the hunt's key role is to reduce this suffering.

Hounds are used to ensure selectivity not achieved in rifle shooting. We claim that with wild red deer in the difficult terrain in the West Country. hounds are at least 3 x more efficient in following specific casualties as a single suitable dog. Suitable dogs with skilled handlers and access rights in practice are not usually available. In addition hounds are far better able to fulfil the much wider range of essential roles in searching, finding and quickly bringing to bay a distressed animal. Action taken by land custodians to remove or restrict hound use leads to an increase in all suffering and in consequence causes unnecessary suffering.

100 deer body shot by rifle. Head or neck shots are not recommended.

Human error leading to loss of wounded deer (5% Bateson report - 15% BWM), two shots needed (10% Bateson report), no instantaneous death (70% JU Study).

100 x min 5% = 5 units of high degree non-recoverable suffering for a minimum of two days = 5 x 50 hrs = 250 hrs of high degree non recoverable suffering.

Solution - Hunting is kinder by a factor of at least 10 (25 hrs v 250 hrs) before the figures are weighted for the duration of all suffering curtailed by hunting methods (add O to kindness factor), the ethics of instantaneous death, accurate wounding rates, degree of suffering, the ethics of sporting chance and clean carcasses, and allowing for the length of time all body shot deer take to die.

BRITISH WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Comments for a veterinary submission on hunting with hounds.

A. Strategic problems to be overcome.

1. The central issue, or excuse, which concerns Labour MP's, is that they have been led to believe that hunting with dogs is cruel and barbaric. The jobs and rural economy issues are of no interest to them because many of them have represented constituents who have lost their professions, jobs and homes when whole industries were put out of business by economic forces and bad Government. The subject of hurnane species management has never featured in the so called conservation debate, always dominated by protection policies.

2. The MP's valid cruelty concerns, beyond basic class prejudices, are supported by contrived or fabricated video evidence, a string of incident press reports, many concentrating on the emotive deer hunting issue, together with wildly inaccurate glossy research reports from a range of people or organisations such as Professor Stephen Harris and the Forestry Cornmission. now dominated by Elliot Morley.

3. We have investigated this subject in depth and not found one genuine news story, leaflet, advert or video clip. We did find a host of complaints upheld by the Advertising Standards Commission, the Press Complaints Commission and serious charges against the IFAW disclosed by the Canadian Government and the Home Office.

4. We have challenged these corrupt protest movements with the details and the truth about their black propaganda. They have no answers to the exposure of their lies, never make positive suggestions, and continue a campaign featuring violence, abuse, false accusations, threats, lies and generous payments to those promoting their cause inside and outside Parliament.

5. The RSPCA, whose council is now dominated by vegans (vegetarians who impose their beliefs on other members of society), in 1978 reversed their prohunting policy without giving reasons. When pressed by the Charity Commissioners and British Wildlife Management in the Autumn of 1996, they claimed that the reasons for the change of policy were prevailing social mores (customs) and that they were promoting shooting as the most humane method of fox control, using evidence provided by the Game Conservancy and the British Field Sports Society.

6. The shooting organisation BASC has worked hand in hand with the Labour Government for many years providing vital assistance to the anti-hunt research and debate. Their effective lobbying for shooting has given full support to the false claims that shooting is humane, efficient and selective. They have promoted shotgun and rifle shooting in isolation for their membership, to the detriment of many other important rural, handgun, sporting and wildlife management interests. They are now involved in a disgraceful very public dispute with the National Gamekeepers Organisation over the national pigeon shoot.

7. The hunting lobby has failed to recognise and deal with the BASC agenda, Game Conservancy complicity with the shooting lobby, the RSPCA change of policy, or effectively challenge the corrupt protest movements. They have failed to change their strategy and present the key wildlife management arguments, which would have allowed them to go onto the offensive four years ago had they accepted my report and advice.

8. At this late stage there is no practical agreement to work together with the stalking lobby, still at odds over deer hunting. BASC have failed to approve the National Working Terrier Code of Conduct and recognise the efficiency of hunting methods. Most seriously of all the .Alliance spokesmen are failing to face up to and promote, as a matter of priority, the key welfare equation argument, and the reasonable conclusion that hunting method are kinder by a factor of at least 10. Essential strategy if the conflict is to be justly won.

B. Basic requirements for a veterinary submission.

1. The first requirement therefore is to explain clearly what is special about the three stages of a normal well regulated and well supervised hunt. Long search phase, very short pursuit phase and quick kill. Something quite different to an un-supervised, direct and fearful predatory attack or a long enduring and stressful chase by a strange or un-familiar animal.

2. To explain that these hunting methods normally take out the weak, sick and injured, yet provide a sporting chance for the healthy and clever quarry on his own territory, allowing a high percentage to escape.

3. To explain that these hunting methods provide the best prospect of an instantaneous death not achieved by the use of shotgun and rifle.

4. The different characteristics of physiological stress in hunting must be clearly defined, to show and prove that it is beneficial and not harmful or damaging.

We also require verification, because of the very short pursuit phase, that if any harmful physiological stress did exist it is minimal, low degree, short duration, and recoverable.

5. The wide knowledge available on the behaviour of the hunted quarry must be properly considered separately in order to define and prove that psychological stress is not a serious issue for species which have experienced and adapted to hunting methods for thousands of years and will most often through modern venery practices become familiar with hounds, even over short life spans.

Psychological stress can be easily observed both in people and animals. Hunted animals will normally cope very well with the experience until they become tired or are diverted from the route of their knowledge and choice. Most of the time they are in control both physiologically and psychologically. Deer in a norrnal hunt will choose what to do, where to go and when to stop.

Failure to cope will arise under certain circumstance and the reasons for this should be obvious to experienced observers, as will the rnethods of avoiding or reducing such unnecessary stress.

It should not be forgotten that carted deer often trotted back to the kennels with horses and hounds after a hunt. There are many instances, with both fallow and red deer, where on fox hunting days, deer run alongside mounted hunt followers.

We also require verification, because of the very short pursuit phase, that if any harmful psychological stress did exist it is minimal, low degree, short duration, and recoverable. There is also clearly an argument that some psychological stress is beneficial to the individual and the species.

6. There is also the need to compare the psychological stress of the presence of scent hounds, which will probably only concern one fox or deer for a very short period, with the known increased psychological stress when gun or guns are being used, either within larnping, the use of fox destruction packs or within stalking.

High powered rifles and shotgun use is a very recent evolutionary experience for foxes, deer, and hares, and is an experience which clearly causes psychological stress and failure to cope for nearby non target animals.

We believe there is much evidence to show that all associated animals will suffer stress and alter their behaviour pattern accordingly, when guns are being used. They will become nocturnal, less visible, more sedentary and more easily spooked. Their quality of life will be severely disrupted. This is most evident with deer populations and current experience as result of the National Trust Hunt ban at Holnicote. It is also evident outside hunted areas where mature stags will spend an unnatural length of time standing under one tree in a safe haven.

7. We believe it is crucial to present a range of completed welfare equation examples, as proof that hunting methods are kinder by a factor of at least 10 on culling comparisons, and also consider the wider implications of the welfare equation when all the species management considerations are taken into account, which on our calculations put hunting methods kinder overall by a factor of at least 100.

C. Suggested improvements and additions to the text.

1.Hunting is more broadly and better defined as the well regulated use of hounds, terriers and sporting dogs in the humane management of mammal species.

2. Emphasis should be placed on the fact that it is within the combined role of foxhounds and terriers and different hunting methods, that a 100Cic control and management of the fox population could be achieved by an individual hunt.

Contrary to popular misconceptions all hunting methods are extremely efficient.

3. Whilst currently the percentage of the cull taken by different hunts can range from 10% to 85%, hunting methods can be 100% efficient if the hunt is supported by all the land custodians. In areas where mounted packs cannot operate, either hunt or non-hunt terrier work can fill the gaps.

4. To put the hunting v shooting debate into perspective, the best assessment of the estimated 500,000 annual deaths to foxes (data from Oxford and Bristol Universities, Game Conservancy, LACS and The Patrick Foundation on the back of the Fox Picture attached) shows that some 27% are attributable to largely indiscriminate shooting and 10% to the more selective hunting management methods.

Of some 135,000 shot by rifle and shotgun more than 40% are wounded and left to suffer because follow facilities do not exist. A large proportion of these wounded are in the spring months when vixens are pregnant or nursing

The 28,000 culled with terrier assistance are dispatched with a close range head shot, a method which when properly conducted causes the least stress and is considered by the experts to be the most humane and selective. Selective as the quarry can be tailed and closely inspected before dispatch. No foxes are left

Some 22,000 foxes are killed above ground by hounds or sporting dogs and many of these are the weak, the sick, the injured and otherwise incapacitated. Many casualty foxes, being quickly overwhelmed in cover by much heavier hounds, will be quickly killed and their death will not be noticed or recorded.

Therefore suffering is revealed and curtailed by working hounds through the countryside. As hounds are specifically trained to follow the scent of the fox it is extremely rare for non target species to be chased or killed by foxhounds.

Foxes are not injured and abandoned.

The uninitiated assume cruelty because they are unaware of the behaviour of the quarry and the hounds, and believe that shooting from a distance with a shotgun or rifle is in some way efficient, and ignore the power to weight ratio and speed at which a fox or hare is dispatched by the appropriate hound or sporting dog.

A ban on hunting with dogs would therefore result in the need for some 50,000 foxes to be culled by alternative methods.

5. Hunting methods in different parts of Britain will vary enormously and it can be misleading to concentrate just on the recognised (by MFHA) fox hound packs.

6. A large pack of scent hounds will be used in order to provide a better chance of finding the scent of a fox when hunting in open countryside. This will also assist the location of earths. Smaller more manageable packs will be used in less accessible areas.

7. A small number of experienced foxhounds will be used on lamb calls where a specific rogue fox can be located and dispatched.

8. A small number of tufters (experienced hounds) will be used to follow the scent of a deer, carefully selected by a local deer manager (harbourer) so that it can be separated from the herd and followed to a suitable location so that the full pack can be laid on the line of scent.

9. A small number of experienced hounds will be used to search, follow or hunt, locate or bring to bay and assist in the dispatch of a specific casualty.

10. All hounds will hunt or follow the scent of a specific species or an individual of that species. The more experienced fox hounds will tend to have the hard temperament needed to kill a fox quickly (instinctively avoiding the sharp bite that can be delivered by the fox) and be at the head of the pack at the kill. It is very unusual for more than one hound to reach the fox at the kill.

11. Deer hounds have a quite different role in that a deer is brought to bay or bayed in a standing, resting or hiding position. They are best described as soft temperament scent hounds. When they make a baying sound. quire different to the sound made when they draw scent into their nostrils, they indicate the probable end of the hunt. Sometimes deer will stand ,at bay when first challenged by hounds, stand at bay before hounds arrive or break; bay after a short rest.

12. When hounds stand in the baying position their heads are held up at an angle, which often makes it appear that they are biting the quarry. This factor is fully exploited by the LACS. Postmortem inspections are often made to prove the point that the quarry has not been attacked by the hounds. The only claimed evidence that hounds attacked deer, to be accepted by Bateson and Bradshaw, came from a doctored or fabricated League video (QSH 29th August 1995 Animal Welfare 2000, 9: 3-24.

A stag tripped over fencing wire trailing from his antlers with the hounds close at hand, and the video was stopped to make it look as if the stag had attacked by the hounds. After speaking to witnesses who saw a slow motion video replay of the whole event, we are satisfied that no contact was made, apart from one hound treading on the stags leg.

13. We believe it is essential within the veterinary submission evidence to differentiate between the three normal phases of the hunt. The search phase, the pursuit phase and the kill or dispatch. The use of the word chase is misleading and should be avoided.

14. The Search Phase - Hounds spend nearly all their hunting time with their noses down during the search phase, when the pack or group of hounds first searches for the line of scent left by the quarry and then follow that line of scent. They can only run as fast as their noses detect the scent, which will vary according to the many different factors which will effect it's strength.

The quarry at this point could be as much as one hour or two hours ahead of this trail and is in most cases unaware of or unconcerned by the hounds. In any event the wild quarry, in a state of natural awareness, will be simply moving away from the sound or sight of the hounds or the presence of people and horses.

In most cases following Autumn Hunting, the quarry will have already experienced the presence of hounds, will be familiar with their behaviour, and be unable to predict any serious threat. Young foxes and semi-tame foxes dumped in rural areas will however probably display some fear and panic, but will in most cases be quickly dispatched or if they escape will have gained from the experience.

15. The Pursuit Phase - Initially the problems of following scent together with the superior speed and instinctive evasive tactics of the quarry will leave the hounds trailing far behind. However superior stamina will allow the hounds to draw close to the quarry, uplift their noses from the ground and hunt by sight. This is called the pursuit phase and comes at the end of a successful search when the quarry is tired and less able to cope.

It is at this point a fox or hare will be killed quickly and a stag will decide to stand at bay in a defensive position ready if necessary to fight the hounds. The pursuit phase is very short, averaging half a minute with foxes and hares, and 5 minutes with deer.

As the hunted deer relies on a whole range of instinctive and intelligent actions such as sprinting away very quickly and hiding, muddling the scent with other deer (passing the buck), losing the scent in water, running through thick gorse, jumping 8' high obstacles, back tracking through thick braken etc., observers are treated to an extraordinary controlled display, which is on average 50% successful in escaping the hounds on the day. In such cases hounds may well come in sight or get very close and or even run alongside the deer several times within the course of the hunt.

16. The Kill or Dispatch - Hunting methods provide the best prospect of an instantaneous death, a factor on which much more emphasis should be placed as a result of research carried out on deer by Green 1992 - Morrison 1979 - McKelvie 1999 - Alsop 1999. Some 70% of rifle body shot deer will take several minutes to die and venison will be spoilt.

Head shots are not recommended because of the risk of wounding and soft nose bullets are used to cause as much soft tissue damage as possible. This is described by the DCS as a stopping shot in the engine room. Therefore with stalking in the real world' you deliberately set out to immobilise the deer by causing severe injury. This cannot be compared with the close range head shot used in hunting or the humane dispatch in the slaughterhouse. Professor Bateson claims that those who hunt do it knowing that they are going to cause suffering and yet those who shoot, do it with the intention of not causing suffering. His definition of cruelty is - knowingly causing suffering.

17. We believe that if foxes were not managed or controlled and their numbers were left to nature, the population would stabilise at too high a level. .A problem would exist for example, if the much increased population of young foxes is not dispersed and dealt with as early as possible after harvest, their basic subsistence diet of voles would diminish to the detriment of other predator species.

So complex is the feed chain, that a much greater understanding is required to keep and correct the balances, which when properly managed, create the rich biodiversity we all want to see. Both protection and indiscriminate methods of culling fail to deliver any form of sound wildlife management. In Scotland there now seems to be a better understanding within Government of the importance of fox management with hunting and less enthusiasm for fox destruction gun packs.

18. Serious consideration should be given to the potential problems of the spread of TB in deer from sanctuaries set up by the League Against Cruel Sports.

19. During terrier work foxes held at bay, are normally dug to and shot at the request of the land custodian. The decision will depend on local conditions and requirements. Hunts will encourage land custodians to maintain healthy and well dispersed fox populations and discourage less humane methods of control.

Within non hunt terrier work foxes can be efficiently flushed or bolted by terriers. Terrier work is an essential partner to using hounds above ground, because hounds which have worked hard will need to be rewarded by the taste of the quarry at the end of a hunt. This is a key part of keeping their interest and maintaining a well disciplined and competent pack, more difficult where hunting is not properly supported or where other constraints exist.

This has become a key factor because of the problems which prevent efficient earth stopping. Earth stopping is a key welfare factor to ensure that as many foxes as possible are put above ground to be tested by the hounds.

20. One aspect of terrier work that should not be ignored is that in some parts of the British Isles hard terriers are trained to go underground and kill foxes quickly and efficiently and deliver the dead fox to the surface. In welfare terms this must be considered as a humane method where earths or below ground structures are obstructed and cannot be dug and also where hounds do not operate. Such fox control must be considered alongside biodiversity requirements.

21. The best examples of long term track records in maintaining well dispersed and healthy populations of deer, fox and hare occur where hunting methods have been allowed to be used over a long period of time. The Red Fox, the Red Deer and the Brown Hare managed by hunting rnethods within the British Isles are amongst the finest examples of species management on the planet.

Management by gun alone with deer has no comparable short term track; record beyond two or three years anywhere in the British Isles. We do not believe that foxes and hares can be managed by gun alone. Un-managed foxes in Southern Finland, Central Europe and urban Bristol demonstrate that neglect and protection are not valid options for mankind in his relationship with wildlife.

The whole purpose of the veterinary submission is to counter threats made by the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals. Protection in real terms equates with neglect, which on any analysis is immoral, un-ethical and barbaric.

Our responsibility of care for all species within our overcrowded planet demands positive and active management, even when that management takes the form of placing strict restraints upon the human disturbance of wildlife.

Edmund Marriage 10th February 2000.

British Wildlife Management

4th May 2000.

Dear Lord Burns,

A further submission to your Inquiry - Casualty Deer - A brief assessment of current problems and the only effective solution - More hunting with dogs.

Following my earlier submissions I have enclosed a sample of 22 photographs of casualty deer whose suffering was curtailed by the casualty services operated by two of the five important deer hunts in the West Country. As reported in my earlier submissions these casualty services are not operating at anything like full capacity due to lack of access through existing hunting bans.

The deer hunting issue centres on the alleged and unproven poor welfare of some 180 hunted deer, which have been carefully selected for culling, many for reasons of poor health, where suffering or natural suffering is in fact curtailed by the actions of the hunt. The existence of the hunt protects high numbers of visible deer from less humane culling methods and indiscriminate slaughter.

To be weighed against the complaints of causing unnecessary suffering made against the hunts is the issue of the high degree, long duration, non recoverable suffering of deer casualties, the damaging harassment of deer inflicted by stalking, and the potential loss of some 90% of the West Country deer herds.

Each year on a national basis a minimum of 20,000 deer will walk away fatally injured from road traffic accidents, without attempts being made to follow up and curtail suffering. A minimum of 20,000 deer are injured in unsupervised direct predatory dog attacks. I have not extrapolated all casualties nationally.

I have no evidence from the stalking industry or the RSPCA that these issues can be properly attended to on a national basis without experienced deer hounds and tough measures to encourage some 7 million dog owners to keep their pets under control. Attached copy letters speak for themselves and I can only ask that you question the genuine welfare motives of those who seek a hunting ban.

Yours sincerely

Edmund Marriage

BRITISH WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

The Wildlife Welfare Equation - The Facts - 1st August 1998.

Background and Summary.

Professor Patrick Bateson in presenting his report to the National Trust with the brief - "To study suffering as a welfare factor in the management of red deer" introduced to the scientific world a method of making un-emotional mathematical comparisons of suffering inflicted between the different or complimentary methods used in the management of red deer in the West Country. In consequence no case can be made to restrict hunting methods.

Logical consideration should be given to the number of suffering units, the different degrees of suffering and the duration of that suffering. In complex predation studies many different species subjected to suffering can be categorised under the suffering units heading. However in the case of comparing the hunt and stalker methods of shooting deer, a simple process is available, because the data for the equation is available from the specialists in exercise physiology, muscle biochemistry and haematology, not consulted by Professor Bateson before he reached his conclusions, and the specialists supporting British Wildlife Management's two year study of deer behaviour and management.

We quote from an analysis of the subject prepared by Charles Aldous QC.

Since the publication of the Bateson Report the flaw in the welfare equation has been drawn to his attention by his critics. The Professor has however sought to defend the welfare equation by different reasoning. In a letter to British Wildlife Management dated 24th July 1997 he gave the following example:

Suffering units and duration of suffering - "Suppose, (1) on the one hand, as result of stalking, 13~70 of the deer population are injured and suffer for 36 hours, and 2% of the population suffer for 400 hours; and (2) on the other hand, hunting causes 50% of the deer to suffer for one hour and the other 50% of deer to suffer for three hours". Professor Bateson says that using his statistical methods, stalking still comes out as the preferred method. However, this example demonstrates that on these figures that the total suffering caused by

hunting is 200 hours (50 + 150), while in the case of the stalked deer the total suffering is 1268 hours (468 + 800) - i.e. on these figures produced by Professor Bateson stalking causes more than 6 times the total suffering.

[In this example Professor Bateson had used British Wildlife Management's figure of 15% walking wounded, accepted a single degree and a duration, using his most pessimistic figures (now disproved) for the hunted deer.]

Professor Bateson defends his position by saying that it is incorrect as a matter of statistics to concentrate on the total hours of suffering. But common sense surely leads one to the conclusion that the total hours suffered is highly material, and on the figures assumed on the above example, hunting is to be preferred.

Degrees of suffering - Equally dubious is the assumption that the pain suffered by the hunted animal which suffers for say 1 hour is to be equated with the pain of an animal which has, for instance been shot in the head and had its jaw shot destroyed. The second animal will not suffer only the immediate pain of injury, but may also starve and develop gangrene or be infested by maggots. These suggestions are not mere statistical "assumptions"; the suggested case is a very real one, as photographs provided with this paper make clear. Common sense again dictates that the suffering of the deer and suffering from gangrene for several days after being shot is likely to be measurably worse than the immediate suffering of the hunted deer. Professor Bateson had again assumed that the pain of the two animals is to be equated and has not taken the obvious differences between them into account.

This shows how dangerous it is to assume that because an arguments couched in the jargon of science it must be right.

The true position is that Professor Bateson made a fundamental error in his 'welfare equation' which is essential to his conclusions. Instead of being prepared to acknowledge this error he has now had to resort to the nonsensical justification to maintain his previous case for having deer hunting banned. If the welfare equation is legitimate it in fact works out strongly in favour of hunting as the best means of avoiding unnecessary suffering; the very opposite of what Professor Bateson claims. In short there are many experienced veterinary scientists and animal physiologists who are convinced that hunting causes less suffering to the deer herd than will result if hunting is banned.

Degree and duration of suffering analysis by British Wildlife Management.

Professor Bateson was unable to observe enough deer behaviour to understand the manner in which soft temperament scent hounds are laid on the line of scent of a pre-selected deer and search for up to 95~0 of the average walking pace hunt, at an average 15 minutes behind the deer. He has wrongly implied that deer are subjected to a fearful and prolonged predatory attack. He separated distance and time in his Royal Society paper, presenting language and a cover picture, which we believe has seriously misled his un-informed audience.

Hunted deer, especially older hinds, normally become familiar with scent hounds over their lives and are not threatened by them. Hunted carted deer often trotted back to the kennels with the hounds at the end of the hunt, bonding with the horses and hounds. Many experts confirm that beyond a state of natural awareness deer are relaxed when being moved, sometimes alternating between feeding and watching hounds, even aware from experience the difference between deer and fox hounds. Hunted deer would not normally 'suffer' or be concerned until three key factors coincide. 1. The hounds run in sight of the deer. 2. The deer becomes sufficiently fatigued or irritated and decides to adopt the standing still 'fight strategy' of standing at bay. 3. Human intervention to place a safe head shot, which puts them under further pressure. We therefore suggest that no measurable or observable suffering exists until the last half hour of the bunt. Some specialists consider that 10 minutes should be used in the equation. No proof or consensus exists of damage or nonrecoverable suffering following being moved or pursued by scenthounds, beyond recoverable fatigue.

Our figures thus based on 100 hunted deer, show recoverable low degree suffering of between 17 and 50 hours. Using the Bateson figure of 5% walking wounded on a 100 shot deer with the professional stalkers we would expect at least 200 hours of high degree non-recoverable suffering from the walking wounded plus an element of high degree non recoverable suffering, when the small lethal target area is not accurately penetrated, leading to death over an average period of five minutes, adding 20 hours of high degree non-recoverable suffering. Duration of suffering from recoverable wounds should be included.

A revealing picture of suffering emerges in the 'wider' welfare equation overleaf, which has been compiled using actual data and knowledge available from a wide range of experts. This highlights the constraints placed on Professor Bateson by the National Trust's narrow brief and where he has used self serving extremes, rather than averages or real data, to justify his conclusions. He accepts professional figures of 5% walking wounded, when a totally different and less satisfactory average shooting performance profile actually exists. A factor not resolved if shooting was restricted by Parliament to Government marksmen.

Different degrees of suffering are not fully considered and by disclaiming a management brief, he thereby omits the crucial suffering issues raised in the 'big picture' equation, which can only be discouraged, revealed and curtailed by hunting. On the quality of the new evidence, we consider that Professor Bateson's claims of suffering, great suffering and damage following hunting should now be dismissed in the interest of good welfare and survival of the deer.

An outline description of the West Country Red Deer 'welfare equation' based on the submission by British Wildlife Management to the National Trust Council in October 1997.

The highest annual estimate for deer shot (many officially through the hunt supporting land custodians, many poached without permission) in the wider area covered by the three packs of hounds is 900. The number of road, shooting and other management casualties are reliably estimated at a minimum of 140 animals, of which 78 were accounted for by the hunts during the last year. The casualties dealt with by the hunt are nearly always reported by third parties who happen to see a suffering animal. Sometimes such incidents will be reported during foxhunting or whilst hounds are being worked through the countryside. Sometimes injured deer will still be able to run many miles. As injured or sick deer tend to seek thick cover in which to hide, only a proportion of these casualties will be reported or found.

In order that they can be found, sometimes many miles from the kennels, the experienced hunt staff often mounted, with access rights and excellent local knowledge, will take the most experienced hounds, trained to find and follow the scent of that specific species. They will then have to draw, search, follow, hunt and dispatch a potentially dangerous and distressed wild animal. In some cases they will spend all day looking for a casualty. This is an efficient free 24 hour, all year, all conditions service, using highly skilled and experienced staff, extensive back up facilities and is therefore not replaceable as suggested. The hunt staff estimate that the minimum average length of time that such casualty victims have suffered is four days. We therefore have multiplied this lowest estimate of 140 casualties by 96 hours (4 days) to give a figure of 13,440 hours.

We believe that the mathematical model should show that each of the 130 deer culled by the hunts (Bateson Report annual average) on the most pessimistic analysis, might suffer at the high or the alleged unacceptable levels for no more than half an hour. No evidence has been produced to show that deer are not well adapted to exercise and do not recover quickly from such exercise. This side of the equation therefore would now clearly show necessary (recoverable) suffering of no more than 65 hours to achieve instantaneous death, the avoidance of wounding, a clean carcass, a sporting chance, the provision of a recreational resource and most important of all the provision of the means of following up, to curtail the predominantly unnecessary (non-recoverable) suffering of the real victims, which we calculated to show physical suffering at unacceptable levels for a minimum of 13,440 hours.

Our figures relate to individuals and do not take into account the additional positive hunt factors, including the reduction of natural suffering, which ensure the survival, good health and low overall stress levels in the herds of red deer. Hunting adds £4 million to the rural economy, which currently places a value on each deer culled by the hunt of some £30,000.

N.B. Please take note of the difference between the fully recoverable 'alleged' suffering from exercise during the 'average walking pace' hunt and the real non-recoverable physical injury or health problem suffered to create the actual casualty figures - Census research suggests that 2,000 hinds give birth each year in the wider. area. Allowing for an unacceptably high first year natural mortality of 20%, this still leaves 430 deer unaccounted for, raising serious welfare concerns and confirming the crucial need for all management and shooting to be conducted through one competent organisation based on the existing proven local harbourer system. These figures emphasise the needs for close observation, inspection and the 'unique' casualty service.

British Wildlife Management

31^st May 2000

Dear Lord Burns,

A further submission to your Inquiry - A spotlight on the deer management problems and culling solutions adopted at Wytham Woods for Oxford University by certain members of the British Deer Society - A case study which should be compared to the superior welfare and management roles undertaken by the West Country deer hunts.

I am very concerned by what I regard as deficiencies and inaccurate comment contained within the research contracts covering the hunting with dogs issues, especially those which challenge my own credibility on a number of subjects.

I am also concerned by a self evident research bias against hunting with dogs, but have explained and clarified the inherent causes in my submission.

However I am confident that the Inquiry team will take into consideration the breadth and depth of the many informed submissions made to them, which have not been accessible to the research contractors within the time span available.

The range and roles of different hunting methods are clearly not understood, the number of foxes dispatched using hunting methods is understated and my own detailed evidence submitted both to the Inquiry and those involved in the research contracts, particularly involving hunted animal behaviour and wounding statistics, has not been accurately presented.

In order to further challenge the authority of the scientific content of this debate and highlight what I believe to be the lack of practical wildlife management advice made available to the Inquiry team by opposing lead groups, I have enclosed papers relating to deer management problems experienced at Wytham Woods, Oxford.

Outstanding questions need to be asked of Dr David MacDonald (The deer management problems and the availability of scientific data on wounding rates), Hugh Rose, key stalking advisor to Professor Bateson (Reasons for the high cost of the cull and low revenue made available to the University) and Michael Squire, supporter of Professor Bateson (The role of the British Deer Society). Not to be excluded from this line up is Andrew Hoon, Chairman of the Deer Initiative, who took part in the cull.

Formal complaints have been lodged by more than 40 BDS members and full internal and external investigations are under way. However the personal conduct of all those involved must remain above reproach, as none of the claims made have been formally substantiated.

Hunting methods have been places under the microscope and it should be self evident that a similar critical process should be applied to the alternative or complimentary methods, especially those promoted by experts who have failed to give supportive or realistic evidence thereby threatening the role of hunting.

There are very important practical lessons from this case, which are highly relevant to the Inquiry, and I have listed the key points below.

1. Why had it become necessary to cull 2/3rds of the deer in Wytham Woods?
2. How common is this kind of wack them and stack them cull?
3. How selective was the cull?
4. How much unnecessary stress or damage did such a major cull inflict upon the remaining deer?
5. Why have the scientific staff not processed the wounding rate?
6. Why, when some of the best professional and amateur stalkers were used for close range, high seat shots, was there such a high proportion of saddle shots (preliminary estimate at 30 in 198 Fallow deer, and 16 in 75 Muntjac)?
7. How many deer needed to be followed up beyond the 8 informally reported?
8. What were the circumstances involving two deer dispatched when caught up in perimeter fencing?
9. Did the revenue of some £8,000 from high quality, park deer carcasses reflect the best prices obtainable?
10. Would quality heads and revenue from recreational stalkers or sportsmen, have contributed to additional revenue for the University?
11. Why was the management of the deer not put out to tender?
12. Did external estimates by BDS members with outstanding local experience place a value for the deer cull to the University in excess of £10,000?
13. Why were net proceeds of only £1,810.85 made to the University?
14. Had a different medium-long term deer management regime been deployed would both the deer, all other species, and the University greatly benefited?
15. Why was the local branch of the BDS and including some of those who took part in the cull unhappy with the Hugh Rose role and BDS involvement?
16. Why did Wytham Wood deer manager, Dr Martin Dowie, lose his firearms certificate, job and home - Was there a local RSPCA involvement?
17. Why did BASC and the BDS not make available funds to give continued support to the legal action taken on behalf of Martin Dowie?
18. Why did Hugh Rose actively support the removal of Martin Dowie?
19. Can practical wildlife management lessons be learnt from this case study?

I ask the Inquiry team to draw their own conclusions from all the information I have presented, in the hope that they will do everything in their power to ensure that the wildlife management and welfare issues under scrutiny are removed from the political football arena through the use of the welfare equations.

Back to top

Date uploaded to website 6 June 2000