Several members of S.W.D.P. have been involved with monitoring hunts for a number of years. Collectively we have accrued some 50 years of monitoring experience, covering in excess of 3,000 hunts.
Parliament and the media when talking of a ban, usually make reference to a 'ban on foxhunting'. This is one reason why we often come across people who are unaware that staghunting is still practiced.
So, if you are already opposed to hunting but want to know more about staghunting, or you are not decided on the issue, or have visited our website for information about deer, we can help.
If you've visited our website because you're a hunter, then you will learn why we feel that hunting should be banned.

Below are just a few comments made about staghunting by people both for and against it and by those in objective reports. All indicate how absurd, even embarrassing, it is that we are still having to debate this issue in the twenty first century.

"It took from 11am until 4.45p.m. hunting and terrifying this stag before it was killed and the ugly ceremony of disemboweling etc. finished." In another report," A more incompetent and inhumane method of killing one stag can hardly be imagined". Retired police detective inspector, 1957.

"..it is about time the public knew that most country folk think hunting is unbelievably cruel, and it only continues because of the power and influence of the hunters". Ex-gamekeeper, 1973.

."Of course staghunting is cruel.." Paddy Groves, Master of the Quantock Staghounds, 1999.

"…they [hunt monitors] have never produced evidence of hounds injuring a stag." Tom Yandle, Devon and Somerset Staghounds Chairman, 1999

An independent review of an Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruling stated that "hounds do on occasions attack deer and inflict cruelty." This was announced in 2001 after the Countryside Alliance was unable to substantiate their claims stating otherwise.

"The data on hunted deer were, in most respects, the same as data on the deer with seriously injured limbs that had been put down…" Bateson Report, 1997

"Our trespass on National Trust land was unintentional and almost unavoidable."
"We may have been on National Trust land, the boundaries are not easily determined, especially when you are in the middle of doing something." Paddy Groves, Master of the Quantock Staghounds, 2000.

"Deer were not fit or trained to run distances. Hunting them was like taking a man off the street and asking him to run a marathon." Mr. Smith, a vet specializing in horses, 1997.

"If animals don't like the way we treat them, why do they stay on Exmoor?" Hunt Official (Devon and Somerset Staghounds), Wildlife Guardian '88.

During the investigation for the National Trust made by Professor Bateson FRS and Dr Elisabeth Bradshaw in 1997, the following account was given of how a particular hunt ended:
"On 9th September 1996 a stag was shot in the head, from a distance of about 10m, again after lying down in bracken following a hunt of over 10km. The stag did not get to its feet but was still moving, and we believe the humane killer was then used. The stag was immediately bled out and samples [for chemical analysis - data used within the Report] collected in the usual way. The stag then tried to get to its feet, but was held down by three men. It struggled and bleated intermittently, and responded to touches on the eyeball by jerking away sharply, until death five minutes after the first shot."

This description, even though written objectively by the scientists involved, still conjures a clear picture of this sordid and wretched scene. Add to this the image of the fit and confident deer that started his day much like any other, gradually reduced to this pitiful state, all to provide a few hours entertainment for a small group of people actually willing to pay money to take part in this stag's torturous ordeal and eventual death. Picture this animal in its exhausted state, with its throat cut while it was still conscious, the terror, the smell and weight of humans on his body, bleating like a calf and still trying to get away from the appauling situation. Another description from the same report:

"On the 25 April 1996, a stag was shot in the left hand side of the head from close range (approximately 5-10 m) after it had lain down in deep bracken, following a chase of approximately 23 km over four hours. The shot broke the upper, vertical section of the lower jaw. The stag immediately leapt to its feet and ran off into nearby woodland. It was killed with a second shot 10-15 minutes later."

Do we really want people to be free to treat sentient creatures in this way because they find it an enjoyable activity? Or, do we want to live in a country that can show compassion towards it's wildlife?

The majority of people in this country have already answered this question, and their MP's have spoken for them, so to give official government sanction to this cruelty in the form suggested by a 'middle way' licensing option in the Hunting Bill, would not be a satisfactory way of dealing with this issue. Whether the hunt has a licence or not does not matter to the deer running in fear with its shattered jaw swinging, or to the deer with its throat cut but still finding the will to try and get to his feet because it wants to escape and live. This is hunting- the only way to 'clean it up' is to totally ban it.

These deer, and thousands like them are dead; nothing could save them from the suffering they endured at the hands of the hunt, but each one of us can help others like them. We must protect wild animals from the appalling acts of cruelty that are inflicted on them in the name of sport - please act now.