From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: some addresses & stats for Russell
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:14:50 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

Since you've badgered me for addresses, references, etc, here they are.

British Deer Society
Beale Centre
Lower Basildon
Reading
Berkshire
England

The journal "Deer" has ISSN 0141 4529 and thus is available
internationally. The BDS publications are scientific and objective. The
journal to which I referred previously was Deer, July 1991, Vol 8 No 5.
The series of articles on the "Future of Red Deer on Exmoor and The
Quantock [staghounds]" occupied pages 282-298. There is much common
ground between the articles: there is general agreement on the need for
man to control deer numbers through culling, the debate is really only
over the means. That is, staghounds versus firearms. The LACS article
say that while they cannot understand how anyone can derive pleasure
from killing a beautiful animal [appeals to emnotion, as always,] they
"do, however, accept the need to control deer numbers and that this
should be carried out by marksmen with high powered rifles." They then
go on to say that stalkers should be properly trained and praise the BDS
stalker's training program. Now you have the reference, and the address,
you can read it for yourself.

League Against Cruel Sports
Sparling House
83-87 Union St
London
England
SE1 1SG

The publications from the LACS have some scientific content, but are
subjective and make frequent appeals to emotion. They should be read
with a healthy dose of skepticism. They are also hypocrits. They argue
(above) that it is necessary to control deer numbers, but in a pamphlet
on fox cub hunting [with hounds], they say, "Numbers of foxes are
controlled by the availability of food in defended territory - when food
resources are low the fox population drops; when food is plentiful the
numbers increase." So while they do not accept starvation as a means to
control deer numbers, they do accept starvation as a means to control
fox numbers.

Another example of LACS hypocrisy is their attitude to sports fishing,
an *extremely* popular pastime with supporters of the Labour Party whom
the LACS does not wish to alienate (because their only hope of banning
fox hunting is a Labour Government). In a letter to major fishing
organisations, Richard Course, then Director of LACS, said "anglers are
not cruel people" and that the only people opposed to sport fishing
were "a very small group of extremeists". (Angling is the sport of
catching fish & returning them alive to the water in order that they
may be put through the ordeal again at a later date.) Yet, later, Mr
Course said, "If we are talking about fish you can't [don't?] eat, of
course we are opposed'. Can you say duble standards? Lies? Deceit?
(Source: Countryside Monthly, Aug 1982)

Statistics: according to recent LACS publications, they "own and control
about 2,500 acres of land in Devon & Somerset" compared with 1200 acres
in 1985 (Source: Dog & Country, Dec 85).

On the subject of how good a selection of which deer to kill wrt man
vs. wild predators, I ask that you read the following: Chapter 4 "What
to Shoot and How Many" of Whitehead's Practical Deer Stalking, ISBN 009
466 840. This provides a good discussion on controlling numbers so that
over population does not occur, the deer are selectively culled so that
the healthiest population exist, while at the same time reaping an
annual harvest of surplus beasts for consumption and minimising damge to
forestry. 

On the subject of fencing so-called "sanctuaries", I suggest you read
the experience of BW Dalrymple as described in Chapter 11 "Deer
Management, Hope for the Future", of his book The Complete Book Of Deer
Hunting, Stoeger Pub Co, NJ 07606. Paraphrasing him: a large area was
fenced, and the deer population increased, and continued to increase.
The quality and health of the deer declined until a really heavy cull
took place. That chapter also describes the effects upon deer
populations in a "sanctuary" created by Roosevelt. Similar results.

Once you've read these, perhaps we can continue the debate, but I ask
that you *do* read them. Especially as you asked for them.

--Jonathan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals