Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T03:51:03.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deer hunting and welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

Edmund Marriage
Edmund Marriage*
Affiliation:
Cirencester, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Sir, Bradshaw and Bateson (2000a) wrote ‘overall we judge that the welfare costs associated with hunting red deer were higher than those associated with stalking and reducing the welfare costs associated with hunting was much less feasible than reducing those associated with stalking’. Others have reached the opposite conclusion (eg Harris et al [1999]; Wise [1999]; and submissions by Geist, Denny and Marriage to the Burns Inquiry and recorded in the CD published with Burns et al [2000]). Savage et al (1993) concluded that the communal hunting methods which regard the deer as a valued and respected quarry species, should lie at the heart of the management of the herds.

Information

Type
Letters
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , February 2001, pp. 113 - 115
Copyright
© 2001 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Batchelor, C L 1968 Compensatory responses of artificially controlled mammalian populations. Proceedings of the New Zealand Ecological Society 15: 25–30Google Scholar
Bateson, P 1997 The Behavioural and Physiological Effects of Culling Wild Red Deer. Report to the Council of the National Trust. The National Trust: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, E L and Bateson, P 2000a Welfare implications of culling red deer. Animal Welfare 9: 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, E L and Bateson, P 2000b Deer hunting. Animal Welfare 9: 341–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M and Johnson, K G 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman & Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, T, Edwards, V, Marsh, J, Soulsby, L and Winter, M 2000 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales. The Stationery Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Centre for Rural Studies 1993 Economic and Social Aspects of Deer Hunting on Exmoor and the Quantocks. Royal Agricultural College: Cirencester, UKGoogle Scholar
Gladfelter, H L 1985 Deer in Iowa. Iowa Wildlife Research Bulletin No 38. Iowa Department of Natural Resources: USAGoogle Scholar
Green, P 1992 Killing deer. Stalking Magazine (November 1992): 21–23Google Scholar
Harris, R C, Helliwel!, T R, Shingleton, W, Stickland, N and Naylor, J R J 1999 The Physiological Response of Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) to Prolonged Exercise Undertaken During Hunting. (Joint Universities Study on Deer Hunting). R&W Publications: Newmarket, UKGoogle Scholar
McCaffery, K R 1984 On ‘crippling’ semantics. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 360–361Google Scholar
Noble, R E 1974 Reproductive Characteristics of the Mississippi White-tailed Deer. Mississippi Game and Fish Commission Game Division: Jackson, USAGoogle Scholar
Savage, R J G, Pearce, D G and Blok, R 1993 The Conservation and Management of Red Deer in the West Country. Report to the National Trust. The National Trust: London, UKGoogle Scholar
White, D 2000 Deer hunting. Animal Welfare 9: 341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, D 1999 The Bateson Report: Use or Abuse of Science? The Countryside Alliance: London, UKGoogle Scholar