to want to kick the bastard who shot this stag

[OnEdge]

Mindless cunt

This deer was culled - licensed stalking and shooting is part of population control.

And if it has to be done, then why not let the landowner, who probably gets bugger all from the supermarkets for his lamb meat, make the profit from some city bloke?

Deerstalking in this country has nowt to do with endangered species of deer in Central America.

Mental?

An accusation levelled at those of us who are disgusted by the mindless, merciless and pointless killing of a wild animal by someone who, in their own words, "ALSO" loves fishing.

Oh the irony.

I still hope that someone got the bastard's car reg details and/or a photo of him.

melted, for some of us this has fuck all to do with whether or not this was a legal killing, who it was carried out by or for what reason. That reason was clearly not in the animal's interest, the creature was not suffering beyond help.

Therefore it's an act of murder AFAIAC.

Please lets not let this turn into some sort of Huntingdon Life Sciences persecution thing!

"Please lets not let this turn into some sort of Huntingdon Life Sciences persecution thing!"

Ever heard of the saying about one man's terrorist...?

I don't need and wouldn't bother to make an appeal for such details on here. I have plenty of similarly-thinking contacts across the world, some of whom are indeed no fans of HLS.

Melted, I know that too. Most animals probably started off not being endangered. I know that deer are not in any danger of becoming extinct here, but still, if a species is being culled then it should be the weakest, oldest, unfit members that are taken, not the one who is going to provide good genes for the continuation of the species.

The fact that it would be beneficial for the rest of the herd and the animals killed in the long run should be the only motivation for killing them, not for a "trophy". Surely if this was culling as opposed to just killing it shouldn't have been so indiscriminate. Actually, indiscriminate is probably not the right word perhaps because they sought out the best example rather than the worst.

Populations do have to be controlled, and unless you're happy to pay more taxes in order that the govt can pay for someone to do this (AND to pay for higher rural unemployment), then controlling population by deer stalking - which someone will pay a lot for and therefore provides an income rather than costs money - is the only solution I can see.
If it was a totally immoral practice I would feel differently, but I see no moral difference AT ALL between killing (cleanly and quickly) for pleasure and killing (after transporting to an abatoir etc) for the pleasure of eating meat as food. Nor between killing a less appealing creature (e.g. fishing) and killing something big and impressive, or cute and cuddly.

FFS the humann population needs controlling bumperella... shall we start by killing your child?

Or how about one of those in a country where contraception isn't much used?

No, of course we shan't. So why, how can you, justify the killing of this sentient being?

For the record, I see no moral difference between killing for pleasure or killing for meat. Both are abhorrent to me.

It's not my bag but does it matter that this stag was apparently more beautiful and majestic than his friends? Would there be the same outcry if the little runty stag was shot? Wouldn't see his face on the BBC news, would you?

There would be here, RockBat.

I guess rockbat the regular culling of weedy stags would not be newsworthy simply because it is regular. Deer don't tolerate too many males in their society and parks like Exmoor can't support infinite numbers. Equally, deer with weedy genes are the first to be selected for culling because the conservationists don't want their weedy ol' offspring cluttering up the plce next Spring.

The focus on the size and beauty of this stag is because it makes the "culling" defence a lie - he was not culled because he was at the height of his strength and full of lovely genes. However, in the next few years he would indeed be mating almost entirely with his own offspring and would be on a slippery slope - less able to defend himself, less able to eat (like sheep, deer grind their teeth and become less able to feed)and would probably become injured and die in the rutting season. He would have been culled in the next few years in any case - I guess for me the moral dilemma is whether the landowner should have been allowed to make money out of it. It's the trophy hunting aspect that makes it so distasteful for me.

I have a friend who has a small estate and he has deer which are not hunted.

There are no natural predators and they destroy crops and trees. I have seen the huge number of deer tracks in his forests and even walking across his lawn in herds at dusk. The numbers increase each year. He is going to have to start culling - even though he does not hunt himself. They are only there in the numbers they are because of the crops he and other farmers around about grows that provide nutrients enough to breed and support the herd he has on his land. Deer could be said to be a natural cash crop that need managing just like anything else.

I have great repsect for nature and its beauty. What a wonderful animal this stag was but he is only there because of the habitat we provided. He had a wonderful life and hopefully died quickly and cleanly and his progeny will be as magnificent as he was.

I understand why people feel upset but hunting deer only provides a mecanism for disposal and herd management that nature can no longer provide.

where's the bastard and who has a gun?

maybe we can take a souvenir to hang on the wall...

ooh I would love to know how many people on here are vegetarians. Much better to be killed by a bullet from a rifle than transported and killed in an slaughter house. I have never understood why there is not more outrage about the rearing, transporting and slaughtering methods we do have for the more obvious meat producing animals, rather than the outrage over the odd beautiful deer or fox that actually have a good existence and relatively quick death.

I simply do not believe the meat was left in the field. Am pretty sure it will have gone onto the market in some form or another.

Therefore it is not mindless killing, it would be sport followed by meat production. All after a lovely natural life and a quick death. Not many pieces of meat could say that.

He will have sown his seed many times over by now. Does being the most beautiful or the largest mean you should live the longest?

I assume that everyone who is 'disgusted' by the 'murder' of this stag is a vegetarian, or at least buys ethically kept and killed meat? Or is it only 'murder' when the animal is beautiful/famous, plain old abbatoir cows etc are not glam enough for ya?

Oh isn't it jolly to jump on the bandwaggon!

oops early - we appear to have been thinking the same things at the same time.

Whoops! Great minds! :)

Well yes I am a vegetarian actually.

The point is though that this animal was killed just so that someone could feel big about themselves (and if it was a woman who did it, I'll eat the body myself), not for any actual tangible purpose.

It says in the articles I've read about it that the body was left by the side of the road and the head carried away. I'm fairly sure it's not normal for bodies found by the side of the road to then be introduced into the food chain.

Fairly normal privet - lots of shoots collect the game later that day or overnight if they are hard to find - then they are taken to be sold. Remember game will often be hung for a long time - so particularly if it is the land owner who is going to be using the meat for either his dogs or himself/herself, they may not be in too much of a hurry to collect. The head would go with the sportsmen.

Whatever is felt about doing it as a sport - at least shooting is a sport that has a use - providing food.

As has fishing if the fish are killed and kept.

I just cant understand the outrage over shooting as I hate with a passion the way we raise and kill animals, yet think shoooting is fine as a way to get the meat that many crave. It is far more humane.

I think human intervention is necessary because we don't actually live in a 'natural' environment any more. And if we did, I don't think we'd like it as much. Sad to see a beautiful creature dead. I don't know enough about deer conservation to know whether it was a good time, or whether this was a good individual to cull, but I do know that the sight of 'nature' carrying out its own corrective measures would be quite unpalatable as well. And it would certainly involve death and suffering.

frogetyfrog - I don't eat meat, fish or fowl. I don't eat anything containing such things - e.g. certain sweets because they contain animal products in the form of gelatine. I don't wear leather or suede nor do I buy leather furniture.

I find the needless, selfish killing of animals abhorrent and murderous in all its forms.

Vallhalloween - then I respect your views on this subject. However, I suspect many people are simply angry that this stag was killed because he is a beauty.

I dont eat meat or have much leather etc - but accept that the bulk of the population do eat meat and use leather etc. Therefore I still stand by my view that as animals have to be killed to produce for the population, I want it to be in as kind a way as possible. Deer stalking is pretty kind as killing goes.

It wasn't shot for food though, was it? It was shot as a trophy, that's what I hate the most about it, seems so senseless to me and I can't imagine anyone who would want to shoot something being someone I'd like to know. (forgets fact that my dad used to go shooting)

If it will go to be used in food somehow then that is good I guess, better than being completely wasted I suppose. But it's still a by-product of the process.

To be honest, if they profiled a normal calf in a field for a news article and said it had been killed (for meat, in the usual way, as happens daily to god knows how many animals), I'd probably feel quite sad about that too. Obviously I don't actually spend my days thinking about that sort of thing as a general rule though!