# Deer Tracking, cruel or necessary?



## Sleeping_Lion

Right, a little explanation while I vent my spleen on this one. As much as those who know me, know I'm all for countryside sports, shooting and hunting, I do question the balance of some of the intrinsic parts, particularly where dogs are used in conjunction with humans and have been involved in many a healthy debate about how and why dogs are used.

Anyway, deer tracking, simply put for those who don't know, is where a dog is trained to track the blood trail of a deer that has been wounded. Having come from a working trials background, where I've seen people with dogs that can track merely the disturbed presence of a human walking over a hard surface, tracking a trail of fresh blood seems a fairly simple task to train a dog to do, particularly a breed with a nose for it. 

Somehow, this activity seems to have become in recent times almost a deer tracking cult (and I'm probably not going to make myself popular with them but...) surely, the aim of shooting a deer is to kill it, and tracking a wounded/dying deer should be the last thing you'd want? Perhaps it would be better if those with deer tracking dogs, trained to be able to shoot, and were a second shot if needed? 

I'm not out to bash all people who track deer, but there does seem to be a minority that are a little fanatical about taking part in this activity. Thoughts anyone?


----------



## Cleo38

Are they deliberately shooting to wound & not kill so they can have the 'fun' of tracking it? Or are they just missing then tracking a wounded animal with the view to killing it if it is seriously wounded?

Sorry, I'm quite tired so may not be understanding this properly


----------



## springerpete

Hi.
I'm with you on this one. I've worked spaniels and retreivers for years and I can tell you that every one I've ever worked would pick up scent and track a game bird over a hell of a distance,it's what they do. I'd be dissapointed if they couldnt. I've always believed that the point of any kind of shooting was to dispatch the quarry as quickly and cleanly as possible. For sure on any shoot the odd bird will get pricked and that's where the dogs come into their own, to find and bring in an injured bird so as to ensure that it doesn't suffer unduly. If I wanted to take up this kind of pastime I'd join a 'Drag hunting club.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal

springerpete said:


> Hi.
> I'm with you on this one. I've worked spaniels and retreivers for years and I can tell you that every one I've ever worked would pick up scent and track a game bird over a hell of a distance,it's what they do. I'd be dissapointed if they couldnt. I've always believed that the point of any kind of shooting was to dispatch the quarry as quickly and cleanly as possible. For sure on any shoot the odd bird will get pricked and that's where the dogs come into their own, to find and bring in an injured bird so as to ensure that it doesn't suffer unduly. If I wanted to take up this kind of pastime I'd join a 'Drag hunting club.


What he said


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Cleo, the aim isn't supposed to be to wound deer intentionally, and deer tracking dogs are (apparently) also used to track RTA animals, to try and despatch them as quickly as possible. But there do seem to be a fanatical few, that like to talk about tracking wounded deer that have been shot. There are two things wrong with that in my mind, depending on the situation, any deer stalker I know wouldn't let anyone take a shot at a deer unless they were sure, absolutely sure, it was a clean shot, and the person was competent. And, secondly, if, for whatever reason, something happens and it isn't a clean shot, the deer stalker is ready to take a second shot to hopefully kill the animal as quickly as possible. Anyone I know who goes out shooting on their own, doesn't take a shot unless it's a clean shot as well, and they wouldn't leave an animal to run off so it could be tracked later with a dog, they'd go after it themselves tracking it on foot. Deer tracking, as I see it, is something that was utilised when shooting skills and methods weren't as good, and a clean kill wasn't always assured, and that's when dogs came in as being useful. Today, surely it's just unecessary, and I've yet to be convinced otherwise, except as a drag sport.


----------



## grandad

Necessary in my view. When taking a shot there are always number of factors to consider. Wind for one. A clean shot is not always possible and the target area is very small at distance. Hence the use of high powered sights and night vision. Also remember where the stalker may be. They could be in a high seat, some distance from the quarry. Contrary to belief, deer do not drop stone dead on the spot (unless brain shot) and move a bit of distance. By the time, the shooter has got down from the high seat, got to the killing zone, the deer would have moved. So you set the dog on the trail. I don't know anyone who would wound an animal, just to get pleasure and so his dogs could work.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

grandad said:


> Necessary in my view. When taking a shot there are always number of factors to consider. Wind for one. A clean shot is not always possible and the target area is very small at distance. Hence the use of high powered sights and night vision. Also remember where the stalker may be. They could be in a high seat, some distance from the quarry. Contrary to belief, deer do not drop stone dead on the spot (unless brain shot) and move a bit of distance. By the time, the shooter has got down from the high seat, got to the killing zone, the deer would have moved. So you set the dog on the trail. I don't know anyone who would wound an animal, just to get pleasure and so his dogs could work.


Sitting in a tree waiting for deer to pass by is different, in my mind, to stalking. I can't admit to having personal experience, but having been fascinated and kept up with several accounts of deer stalking, it seems rarer for the deer to move much at all from where it was shot than to run any great distance, although I'm sure that does depend on a number of factors, from the type of rifle, to the type of deer and weather conditions. Some deer present much larger targets than others, but I don't know many people who have permission to shoot who have deer stalking dogs. If the deer moves from where it was shot, they track it themselves, and I don't know anyone who wouldn't take what they would consider to be a clean shot, where they believe they have the best chance of shooting the animal dead.


----------



## Amethyst

How on earth can it be considered cruel? If a deer must be shot, then while an outright kill should be the way to do it, if it doesn't happen ... tracking and killing ~ putting it out of it's misery is the LEAST that should be done.

If you are suggesting some of the hunters make the tracking as protracted as they can, to get their kicks, then yes, it should go without saying, that to those of us who respect our wiildlife, that it is cruel ... very cruel.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Amethyst said:


> How on earth can it be considered cruel? If a deer must be shot, then while an outright kill should be the way to do it, if it doesn't happen ... tracking and killing ~ putting it out of it's misery is the LEAST that should be done.
> 
> If you are suggesting some of the hunters make the tracking as protracted as they can, to get their kicks, then yes, it should go without saying, that to those of us who respect our wiildlife, that it is cruel ... very cruel.


What I am suggesting, if you read my posts, is that deer tracking for the most part using dogs, is most likely outdated, as modern rifles are much more effective. And why, if an outright kill is not the likely outcome, take the shot at all? It goes against the principles of anyone *I* know who is involved with hunting and shooting.

Where have I suggested that people would shoot an animal to wound it just for the fun of it? I think you need some glasses hun


----------



## Amethyst

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Where have I suggested that people would shoot an animal to wound it just for the fun of it? I think you need some glasses hun


You were not clear and I was not the only one to be puzzled by your post 

And to be honest, nothing would surprise me when it comes to people who enjoy killing animals ...


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Amethyst said:


> You were not clear and I was not the only one to be puzzled by your post
> 
> And to be honest, nothing would surprise me when it comes to people who enjoy killing animals ...


I thought it was pretty clear really, I outlined what I thought in the first post, surely it's better for those who enjoy tracking their dogs, to learn to shoot, and be a second shot in case the deer isn't killed outright. I can see some merit in tracking injured deer from things like an RTA, or if one's been spotted that is ill/injured and they need to track it with the use of a dog, but other than that, it seems a bit pointless running around the countryside with buckets of deer blood teaching your dog to track deer exclusively.

What a ridiculous sweeping generalisation about people who hunt and shoot, I can't be bothered to even answer as it's nothing to do with the question I asked in any case.


----------



## shortbackandsides

when out on a shoot with my two terriers,i brush the woods and marshes.Ducks which have been winged(wounded)are often picked up by my dogs,its then up to me to finish them off,either that or leave them kicking in a heap! (there are a small minority of people who seem to do this)i dont particually relish this job,and if i left the dogs to it i probably wouldnt have to..i enjoy seeing my dogs working,they love it
my opinion is a tracking dog is more likely to find a wounded deer than a hunter alone,so i have no problem with it.


----------



## Amethyst

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I thought it was pretty clear really,


Only to yourself it seems, but never mind ... Pretty horrible subject however you choose to look at it *shudders* :frown2:


----------



## shortbackandsides

Amethyst said:


> Only to yourself it seems, but never mind ... Pretty horrible subject however you choose to look at it *shudders* :frown2:


i think your in the wrong section then:biggrin:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Amethyst said:


> Only to yourself it seems, but never mind ... Pretty horrible subject however you choose to look at it *shudders* :frown2:


The only people who don't seem to understand the question posed are those who have no knowledge of hunting and shooting activities, and I've happily explained any queries people may have had. To be honest, your comments aren't anything to do with the subject matter, and it just seems you're trying to provoke a comment on something you personally don't agree with


----------



## grandad

Amethyst said:


> You were not clear and I was not the only one to be puzzled by your post
> 
> And to be honest, nothing would surprise me when it comes to people who enjoy killing animals ...


There is an estimated over-population 800,000 deer in the UK. So they have become a pest species.


----------

