there are proven alternatives to culling them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aANcNyYbLpw

not from what ive heard on another forum.....apparently trophy hunters legally pay big money to landowners/farmers to kill these prime specimins.

Posting and dashing as I've got a ton of work to get on with, but was chatting to the head keeper of a grouse moor yesterday, he used to work on a large estate in Scotland as a professional keeper, part of which included deer stalking.

Deer are counted after the rut, and numbers submitted to the Deer Commission, who provide a cull number, so that part is nothing to do with the land owner/estate manager. Deer stalkers take out guests who pay to shoot the stags, any hinds are usually shot by the stalkers. If the estate doesn't manage to cull the number set by the Deer Commission, they will send in their own team, who are much less humane in their methods, and will bill the estate for the time and money involved. It's really quite simple then to see the estate/land owner can either benefit financially, and so put money back into the land, or they actually have to pay the deer commission, whose employers do not have the same knowledge as their own staff, and may not cull the most appropriate animals.

Interestingly, switch tops, where the antlers lack tyne's that will lock when fighting other stags, are to be shot on sight, they are considered such a danger to other deer.

Oh dear oh "deer!"

Nope, their main food source is us! Chicken farms, pet kept animals, dustbins etc.. (Foxes that is)

It is very interesting to see the different views on this thread. My phone/internet has been down for a few days and so I have not kept up with this thread.
In reply to Borderdawn, I did say a van was reported taking the Exmoor stag away, but it did not say if it was headless or not.
Also on Thursday last week the killing of this stag was briefly discussed on Autumnwatch. For what it is worth they confirmed my cynicism and suspicion about this kill saying the animal was a trophy animal and was taken by a hunter. The programme also added that they felt it was insensitive and not necessary and if the reasoning was for a cull then they could have taken a lesser animal as this animal was not past its prime. It was also added that stags can go up to 18 years.
I am not against culling suitable deer or limiting the numbers of vermin in this country - it is necessary. However, lets be honest about it. Some folks get quite a thrill hunting and shooting deer and other animals for sport, etc. etc. Don't justify or disguise this desire to hunt by saying it is always done to put food on the table or for the good of the species and they are doing the countryside a favour. Many are simply satisfying their lust to hunt and avarice for a trophy stag's head.
Rats, and other vermin are another example, where it is necessary to limit the overpopulation of these creatures, but the people who take their dogs out to do this work are not doing it purely for the good of the countryside, or to put food on the table - they are doing it for recreation and their own pleasure of seeing their dogs hunt and kill. If a dog is a good ratter, its owner takes pride and pleasure in that dog working and it being better than another dog. The dog is doing what is perfectly natural and I have no argument with this - it is the owners motives that maybe a bit unacceptable to many people as they get pleasure (dare I even say gratifiication and a thrill) out of participating in it.
BD asked me what was my point and I have tried to explain that it is not the hunting, but rather the thinly disguised motives behind the killing of this stag, which I believe was for the killing and possession of an exceptional animal - not for food or a cull. By the sounds of it this animal was not even hunted with any degree of skill if it was semi-tame and used to humans. It's the dishonesty that I take issue with.
Folks should also be honest and say I like the thrill of a kill - it is satisfying for some people. After all we were originally hunters as well as gatherers.

What a sense of humour!

What you're refering to is legitemate paid stalking.When people dont have their own land to shoot over they pay the BDS or experienced stalkers so they can be taken out and theres nothing wrong with that.To the larger estates its a buisiness to generate money.

Dont confuse trophy hunting with paid stalking!

So Pidge, would you be happy for your home to become infested with Rats, mice, your dogs pick up diseases and die from something vermin carry, what if you or your hubby contract such a disease, and died (a case recently in the paper) because we stopped controlling vermin.

What if there was no control over wild life, and crops became short supply, would you be happy to not be able to purchase A/B/C in the supermarket because crops have suffered.

Deer are magnificent creatures, I love to see them when we walk in the deer park, but they are ALL healthy, even our 3 legged stag is fit and healthy and has a few adoring females to his harem.

The rutting season is something to behold, when walking you can hear them on a cold misty morning........nothing better to hear or see it brings the countryside into real life..I love it.

But our park is landlocked by 4 major roads, the deer have only so much space to cover, if we stropped "managing" them, they would not be the fit health heard we have today, they would overpopulate, and starve, the old, weak would suffer and die from a harsh winter....

You may call those who manage the park, trophy hunters, enjoying shooting an animal I dont, I would rather an old stag be given a swift death, than see him suffer and starve from lack of food and ability to survive.

So Pidge, what would your alternative be???

Would be interesting to know how many of you how think we should not kill any animal...are vegetarians???

Which goes back into the estate to help manage said estate and their animals!