Britain's biggest wild animal shot dead.

[Ukwildlifeo]

And people moan about the behaviour of Wildlife photographers....

Emperor stag killed: anger after Britain's biggest wild animal shot dead - Telegraph

[STYRBJORN]

Let's get real here. No licensed hunter would shoot a Red, Sika, Fallow, or Roe deer our of season if only because to do so is a clear breach of the conditions of the licence. Nor would any serious hunter shoot such an iconic animal without making very sure that it was acceptable so to do. This was the action of poachers or some idiot Tarquin Pot-Hunter, not of a sensible shooter - and we do exist! We may be a threatened species but we still have a role to play.

Also, the largest "wild animal" ever shot in Britain was a wild boar sow weighing 518 lbs.

Trust the Torygraph or trust people who know whereof they speak. The choice is yours.

Ric

[Kayleigh]

This is disgusting and an outrage people are paying big money to have a trophy on their wall...
Why cant there be some sort of law passed as this Stag was in his prime..
It was totally legal

[Gatekeeper]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

And people moan about the behaviour of Wildlife photographers....

You seem to be suggesting that any harm done to wildlife by photographers is trivial because somebody has shot a stag; I don't see the relevance of this comment . If you're trying to make a point about the death of the stag, you've unfortunately 'muddied' it.

[RKB]

'Quarry Species Shot in Season Shocker'.

Total non-story.

I've done a quick google, and the only reference I can find of this 'iconic' animal is from last autumn, when the same photographer managed to get his rutting photos sydicated in the national and local papers. It's basically him who calls it Emperor, and him who thinks it's the biggest animal. It was a good story that he managed to sell, sexed up with hamrless claims of 'biggest land animal' etc (totally unverified).

Now it has been shot, perfectly legally, by someone else who wanted to exploit it for commercial gain in a different way from the photographer. And so the same photographer has managed to get his photos published in the nationals once again, by recycling the same story but with a twist. I imagine that he's charged a nice fee once again. I also imagine that he's quite annoyed that he wont be able to sell the same story next year.

But it's hardly a big deal. Nobody did anything illegal, I'm not sure this deer was anything special, and thousands of them are shot every year. The whole thing seems to have been craftily engineered into a 'story' by the Western Morning News, who the photographer just happens to work for, and then syndicated with typical journo
spin. I'd never heard of this animal until today, when somebody somewhere decided that it was news. Let's ask ourselves this - would it have made the papers if there wasn't an impressive seasonal photo to go with it, and the photographer didn't just happen to work for a newspaper? No, the photo is the story. The 'news' isnt news, it's just a hook to hang the picture on for a good front page image, and to sell it to other papers.

[Deb London]

I certainly wouldn't be one to trivialize this report. Whatever the motives behind the hype and then the shooting, most people who read this story will be sickened by it, I would imagine. People who write this sort of report* must know what they are doing. There might be something a bit suspect about this report, I agree. But I do not agree that it is 'no big deal'.

*I can't see the name of the reporter. I would be quoting bits of text, but I don't know who wrote this article. Don't they give their names anymore.

[Ukwildlifeo]

Wow I didn't realise so many people prefered their wildlife hanging from a wall!

The story itself maybe a non-story, but why are they hunting in the rut, and if its population control why are they:

a) Shooting the largest, strongest individuals, and not the smaller weaker ones with weaker genes?

b) Why are they shooting males? It only takes one male to fertilise 10s of females, so surely hunting females would be more effective? Could it be related tot the fact they dont have a lovely pair of antler!?

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

You seem to be suggesting that any harm done to wildlife by photographers is trivial because somebody has shot a stag; I don't see the relevance of this comment . If you're trying to make a point about the death of the stag, you've unfortunately 'muddied' it.

Admittedly it probably has muddied it a bit but although some photographers cause disturbance, most of the time the animal doesn't end up dead!

[salukiwhippet]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

Wow I didn't realise so many people prefered their wildlife hanging from a wall!

The story itself maybe a non-story, but why are they hunting in the rut, and if its population control why are they:

a) Shooting the largest, strongest individuals, and not the smaller weaker ones with weaker genes?

b) Why are they shooting males? It only takes one male to fertilise 10s of females, so surely hunting females would be more effective? Could it be related tot the fact they dont have a lovely pair of antler!?





Admittedly it probably has muddied it a bit but although some photographers cause disturbance, most of the time the animal doesn't end up dead!

It's not a beast I would have taken, but it's not an exceptional animal for an English stag. The reds have been rutting for weeks now, his genes will have been passed on already. If you reduce the female population without reducing the male one correspondingly, then the females get harrassed even more in during the rut, and there will also be more instances of stags injuring each other and dying of infection as they fight over the reduced number of hinds.

James

[RKB]

Only the photographer has said this was the "largest, strongest" individual. They also said it was about 12 years old, and they also said they had seen other large young stags. So this one has had a few years at the top, and there are replacements ready and waiting. Culling this animal gives them a chance, and may prevent inbreeding in a small population if all the fawns are fathered by one stag for several years on end!

A quick check shows that 76,000 Red Deer were shot in Scotland alone in 2000/1. So one more on Exmoor doesn't make much difference (unless you earn money by selling pictures of it).

Like it or not, shooting is legal, well-regulated, and they also have a right to be in the countryside.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

Admittedly it probably has muddied it a bit but although some photographers cause disturbance, most of the time the animal doesn't end up dead!

Again you seem to be excusing the actions of photographers who disturb wildlife because "most of the time the animal doesn't end up dead"; so does that make it OK?