Red Stag

[dicehorn 38]

Guys

 

 

If this was a sporting estate I would NEVER have considered this shot..it isn't..it is vermin control and it is LEGAL and a requirement of the estate......and not that I often do, but if some of you uninformed commentaters new the 1991 Deer Act and 2007 amendment I am perfectly legally entitled to take the Doe as well.

 

 

ATB

 

Deker

 

Deker, I have no wish to give my views - just a couple of observations......I have tried to stay away from this one in the hope you may let it fade away if you don't like it, but it seems some just want to look like luvvies......Your views are pretty transparent, YOU ASKED so DON'T blame me if you don't like the answers !!!!!!!

 

I was unaware that the six species of deer in the UK are able to be termed 'Vermin' - they are clearly not. In some police areas even the fox is not categorized as vermin. I am a Game and Vermin Controller not a pest controller, I don't shoot bed bugs... so deer in this context is Vermin not Game....are you happier with pest control, being pedantic about the specific definition of an insignificant word in the context of this exercise seems a little sad

 

Can you quote me the part of the 2007 deer amendment that gives you the right to take deer out of season - I hope you are not going to quote 'Farmer's defence' . Are you aware that even Natural England will not grant a licence to shoot deer out of season to protect property (crops etc)? The "Farmers Defence" is simply that..it is a DEFENCE, (although I understand few have failed with this defence) and I would have no hesitation in using it if I felt the situation appropriate, however,....to be 100% legal you now need the appropriate licence issued by Natural England (not Defra)....what do you mean "are you aware that even Natural England will not grant a licence to shoot deer out of season to protect property (crops etc)"... Where do you get this BULL from I have one for another site!!

 

Finally as a professional I just query why you feel it necessary to put up pictures of departed deer as I would imagine being a professional, culling deer etc is an every day occurrence to you. I don't shoot deer EVERY day and I have just as much right to post LEGAL pictures on this site as you do to ask ANYONE why they do it!!!

 

 

How many times do I have to say I accept it if you don't like it, so accept it goes on, I have done nothing illegal, and my opinion is at least as valid as many antis here, and also much better informed than several, am I the only one that accepts others have a view?? So let us simply agree to dissagree and all move on!

 

Sorry Deker but in statue deer are NOT vermin.

 

Farmers Defence can only be used when ALL OTHER methods of deterrent have been employed - sorry but shooting a doe out of season because it is eating someones rose bush without the landowner taking steps (electric fencing etc) would be an illegal action, and, if caught can I tell you this. The Farmers Defence has never been through a court of law which should sound warning bells to you. Firstly the police having received an alert from joe public would take away your guns on the basis that a firearms incident has been reported (normal procedure) Because it has not been tested in court, there would probably be a long delay whilst this matter was considered by our judicial system - maybe a year during which time you will be without your guns - I'm painting a black picture, but this is fact. Even Nat Eng confirmed this.

 

The 'Bull' from Natural England I got from their application form. I quote from their form:

 

Under section 8 of the Deer Act 1991 (as amended) Natural England has the power to grant licences as follows.

 

1 To permit the taking or killing of deer during the relevant close season for the purpose of.

 

a preserving public health or public safety

 

b conserving the Natural heritage

 

2 To permit the taking or killing of deer at night for the purpose of.

 

a preserving public health or public safety

 

b conserving the Natural Heritage

 

c preventing serious damage to property

 

Now if you read this carefully you will see as regards 1. a) public health etc refers almost exclusively to a situation like airports and airfields. b. SSSI and the like. There is no mention in this section of damage to property (crops etc) - that appears in 2. Furthermore you can only shoot deer at night PROVIDED that the deer is IN season. If you still think this is bull,may I suggest you telephone Nat Eng for confirmation.

 

The reason I know this is that last year on a 5000 acre estate my colleague (a professional stalker with over 40 years experience) and myself were informed by a tenant farmer that the red deer had eaten the ears off twelve acres of barley costing him £15K and this year he was putting in 23 acres of maize and did not want a repeat by the deer. Of the 147 deer we saw coming off the hill we managed to shoot 27 during the late autumn/winter. We applied to Nat Eng mid May, this has resulted in two field visits so far to inspect the damage (the deer have eaten/destroyed about four acres so far) now, at the this present time we are awaiting a further visit from another senior Nat Eng official to come over at dusk to count the deer - meanwhile the farmer is telling us that approx 30 - 40 reds are coming off the hill each evening and with the hinds bringing their calves back into the herd this figure is likely to swell to over 100 in the next few weeks.

 

So the point I make is that bearing in mind the numbers of deer we are dealing with - what chance do you realistically think you would have in applying to Nat Eng to shoot just one roe doe - out of season?? Perhaps you can tell us why the landowner wants this doe shot so that we can all see where it fits within the Act.

Edited August 8, 2009 by dicehorn

[Guest Fireball]

Well put dicehorn..

[CharlieT 32]

Dicehorn

 

I must, although I know I will live to regret it, come to Deker's defense.

 

As you know the so called "Farmers Defense" permits occupiers to shoot marauding deer.

Section 7 of the Deer Act which covers this clearly states what persons using this section of the act may do. One of which is the killing of deer out of season and as you know a license to shoot deer out of season under the "Farmers Defense" is not required.

 

Now, providing Deker qualifies under the term occupier and providing he can demonstrate the grounds for shooting them he would not be breaking the law.

[Guest Fireball]

I think all the beefs about the piddly Kid he decided to shoot Charlie and not what laws been broken..

[CharlieT 32]

I think all the beefs about the piddly Kid he decided to shoot Charlie and not what laws been broken..

 

 

I am well aware of that and I made my feelings known in a post on an earlier page.

 

However as Dicehorn brought up the subject of the "farmers defense" and asked Deker to point out where in the deer act he was permitted to take deer out of season. I felt that in the interests of fairness I should point out what the law actually states which is somewhat different to "Dicehorn's law". Because if and I stress if Deker was truly dealing with some marauding deer then in my book he has done nothing wrong other than to be a bit little bit silly in posting pictures and advertising the fact.

[martin 332]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cV__3c22Xo

[foxdropper 17,092]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cV__3c22Xo

Cheers mate

[dicehorn 38]

I think all the beefs about the piddly Kid he decided to shoot Charlie and not what laws been broken..

 

 

I am well aware of that and I made my feelings known in a post on an earlier page.

 

However as Dicehorn brought up the subject of the "farmers defense" and asked Deker to point out where in the deer act he was permitted to take deer out of season. I felt that in the interests of fairness I should point out what the law actually states which is somewhat different to "Dicehorn's law". Because if and I stress if Deker was truly dealing with some marauding deer then in my book he has done nothing wrong other than to be a bit little bit silly in posting pictures and advertising the fact.

 

To be very brief Charlie - this is not "dicehorn's Law" what I quoted previously re farmers defence, I have had sent to me on Nat Eng headed paper - the only thing I left out was that they suggested I inform the police of the action I planned but stressed that "even this would not guarantee immunity from a possible prosecution without the necessary licence" .

 

Marauding deer (a herd of red deer) is one thing a roe doe is another thing. I could easily justify farmers defence but also being a section 5 holder (tranquilizer guns Home Office approved) I am not prepared to take that risk.

[midnight sun 0]

Up and away at 05.30 yesterday morning heading for a meet with a guy I am deer mentoring.....in the hope of collecting the Red Stag that I am reliably informed has been causing problems at a stables in Chertsey.

 

Strange as it may seem no sign of said Red, but around 07.00 Charlie put in an appearance, ranged at 169 yards, with the most pathetic Brush I have ever seen!!! Shooting down from quite high, straight in the front and out the chest!

 

....and then a bit of a wait until 10.00 when the little buck turned up...just finished the gralloch and his dad arrived on the scene!! ...around 90 yards and 100 yards...90g SP .243, both dropped on the spot..if you look close you can see why, both hearts mullered when we took them apart!! The dad was in a valley and shooting down quite steeply, on the diagonal, hole may seem a little high but it came out much lower the other side!

 

 

Still not a fan of these early mornings......

 

If the estate requires vermin control and vermin control is what you've given them, then it looks to me that you have only done your job. Well done!

[CharlieT 32]

Up and away at 05.30 yesterday morning heading for a meet with a guy I am deer mentoring.....in the hope of collecting the Red Stag that I am reliably informed has been causing problems at a stables in Chertsey.

 

Strange as it may seem no sign of said Red, but around 07.00 Charlie put in an appearance, ranged at 169 yards, with the most pathetic Brush I have ever seen!!! Shooting down from quite high, straight in the front and out the chest!

 

....and then a bit of a wait until 10.00 when the little buck turned up...just finished the gralloch and his dad arrived on the scene!! ...around 90 yards and 100 yards...90g SP .243, both dropped on the spot..if you look close you can see why, both hearts mullered when we took them apart!! The dad was in a valley and shooting down quite steeply, on the diagonal, hole may seem a little high but it came out much lower the other side!

 

 

Still not a fan of these early mornings......

 

If the estate requires vermin control and vermin control is what you've given them, then it looks to me that you have only done your job. Well done!

 

 

I am sorry to keep on but shooting deer is NOT vermin control. Deer are not vermin and their killing is strictly controlled, hence the 1991 Deer Act.

 

Occasionally they may be a bit of a "pest" in the broadest sense of the word but vermin they are not.

[moonflight 6]

Up and away at 05.30 yesterday morning heading for a meet with a guy I am deer mentoring.....in the hope of collecting the Red Stag that I am reliably informed has been causing problems at a stables in Chertsey.

 

Strange as it may seem no sign of said Red, but around 07.00 Charlie put in an appearance, ranged at 169 yards, with the most pathetic Brush I have ever seen!!! Shooting down from quite high, straight in the front and out the chest!

 

....and then a bit of a wait until 10.00 when the little buck turned up...just finished the gralloch and his dad arrived on the scene!! ...around 90 yards and 100 yards...90g SP .243, both dropped on the spot..if you look close you can see why, both hearts mullered when we took them apart!! The dad was in a valley and shooting down quite steeply, on the diagonal, hole may seem a little high but it came out much lower the other side!

 

 

Still not a fan of these early mornings......

 

If the estate requires vermin control and vermin control is what you've given them, then it looks to me that you have only done your job. Well done!

 

 

I am sorry to keep on but shooting deer is NOT vermin control. Deer are not vermin and their killing is strictly controlled, hence the 1991 Deer Act.

 

Occasionally they may be a bit of a "pest" in the broadest sense of the word but vermin they are not.

VERMIN THEY ARE NOT BUT DESTRUCTFUL PEST THEY CAN BE 'IF IT WAS LAWFUL FOR DEKER TO SHOOT THE KID THE ONLY THING WRONG IN MY OPINION IS THAT DEKER MADE A MISJUDGEMENT IN PUTTING THE POST ON HERE I THINK HE MAY AGREE OR NOT . JUST MY 2p WORTH.

[anythingoes 28]

It is sad that some one would put the deer in the same category as the rabbit and the squirrel show a mentality of a Nat

Why shouldn't all animals be put on an equal footing? What gives one animal the right to get controlled any different to another?

 

Some of you lads shoot hares, that's sacrilege to the coursing lads, yet you demand that the deer be put on a pedestal and be given special treatment.

 

They've got a word for people like that...

Couldn't have put it better myself 100% spot on .

[Flynn 314]

For the Last time DEER ARE NOT VERMIN !!!

 

 

Seasons

[elma fud 0]

This is the sort of behavior that would be expected from a novice with pride in his first kill,If you have the experiance that is suggested on the posts from your peers you should never have posted the photos. That was your mistake Now show your professionalism and remove them.

Edited August 9, 2009 by elma fud

[FOXHUNTER 5,020]

This is the sort of behavior that would be expected from a novice with pride in his first kill,If you have the experiance that is suggested on the posts from your peers you should never have posted the photos. That was your mistake Now show your professionalism and remove them.