By David Barnes

This article first appeared in Stalking Magazine

One might reasonably expect the postbag of a firearms law lawyer to contain many questions relating to the use of rifles for deer. In practice, this is not the case, and the majority of enquiries flow from problems experienced by certificate holders which have led or are likely to lead to the revocation of their certificates. Tales of human frailty, misfortune and stupidity hugely outnumber erudite queries on the legalities of rifles and ammunition. It is for this reason that these pieces so often dwell on the seamier sides of life; it is in those areas that Certificate Holders demonstrate the greatest need for assistance and, if one dare so, education. That emphasis should not however obscure the important business of stalkers having and using the right legal tools for the job.

One writes the word “stalkers” advisedly because no sooner has one put one’s head outside that door that encloses the world of responsible deer management, in which stalkers are variously trained, constrained and encouraged to operate with all due care than one sees some very different attitudes outside.

In England and Wales there are still those who, 35 years after the passing of the original 1968 Deer Act, regard a 12 bore shotgun as suitable for shooting deer. In certain, limited circumstances (where serious damage is being caused) it is of course legal to use a shotgun. S.7 of the Deer Act 1991 provides that it must not be less than a 12 bore. It may only be used by the occupier of the land and other specific categories of person when damage is being done by deer of the same species that are being shot. For example, it would not be legal to shoot roe with a shotgun if the serious damage was being inflicted by muntjac.

As to ammunition for the shotgun, this must either be rifled slug of not less than 22.68 grammes (350 grains) or AAA shot.

Within such organisations as the British Deer Society (“B.D.S.”) one rarely hears of any culling being done with shotguns and it appears to be accepted that the use of shotguns, if not always without the law, is generally beyond the pale.

If this attitude is subject to an exception it is perhaps in the case of muntjac. Now, as a matter of law, the permitted firearms for muntjac are the same as for any other deer. In addition, muntjac enjoy the “best practice” benefit of the B.D.S. recommendation that only muntjac does that are either heavily pregnant or yearlings be culled, this being to avoid orphaning dependant fawns. Be this as it may, the muntjac suffers from an extraordinarily bad press. Muntjac are of course recent immigrants that have not infrequently escaped from asylums of one sort or another and, as such, are inevitably likely to attract prejudices.

Whilst the writer’s own experiences with muntjac have led him to enthuse about their varied merits including but not limited to their fascinating physical appearance, behaviour, vocal range, breeding patterns, interest to the stalker and for gourmet food at the table, he realises he is in a minority.

Putting it bluntly, many landowners game keepers and deer shooters regard muntjac as pests and habitually organise their control by means of shotgun drives. These shotgun drives may be quite legal if the pre-requisites of the law are scrupulously observed and all the S.7 requirements are met. However, observance of the law is not the end of the matter, as it is also important for stalkers to decide whether such a modus operandi is ethically acceptable.

The fathers of modern deer management reiterate today how the 1968 Deer Act outlawed cruel shotgun drives of deer. One suspects that the deer shot or shot at in those drives were mainly roe. Whether they were roe or fallow deer they too were of course immigrants, albeit from earlier times than the muntjac. If they were deemed worthy of the law’s protection, how can any case be made for denying it to muntjac other than one based on expediency?

This is a live issue that the British Deer Society needs to address and is, one understands, addressing. Indeed, by the time this piece is published a pronouncement may have been made as to where the BDS stands on the use of shotguns for culling muntjac deer. The stance that the BDS takes on this will be a benchmark of its moral gravitas and, whatever it is, one hopes the decision will be given careful thought and consideration before it is made. Whatever that decision is, the law that now protects muntjac will remain in place until repealed or amended and it will again be most interesting to see whether the BDS supports the status quo or backs amendments to the legislation to facilitate the unrestricted or at least less restricted culling of muntjac with shotguns.

Sticking to the subject of shotguns, the shotgun ammunition allowed in Scotland is slightly different from that in England and Wales although for Northern Ireland it is the same. In the field, such distinctions may seem of only peripheral significance unless one likes to operate within the letter of the law (and as a lawyer one must recommend that) or until something goes wrong. It is when the unexpected happens, perhaps through no fault of the stalker, that he can these days easily find himself being prosecuted for some technical legal breach swooped on by some academic wildlife officer. One cannot be too careful when the law is both enforced and administered by persons who, on the whole, are wholly unsympathetic and lacking in understanding as to what stalkers actually do.

Moving on to the altogether more savoury subject of rifles for deer, readers will almost certainly be aware that there are differences between the law on this in England and Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland. If a stalker intends to purchase a rifle then he first needs to check he can lawfully use it for the species of deer he intends to shoot in his country of choice. The difference in approach between England and Wales (calibre and muzzle energy) and Scotland (muzzle energy, velocity and ammunition) may render a rifle illegal one or other side of the Border. Typically, the Scottish roe stalker’s centre fire rifle is illegal as a roe rifle in England and Wales. Long gone to his ethereal deer forest is the roguish old West Coast stalker I knew when I was a boy, whose firearm of choice for gargantuan Red deer stags from the forestry was a .22 Hornet. (The Hornet is no longer legal even for use against roe deer in Scotland)

The stalker’s bullets must be soft nosed or hollow nosed in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland and Scotland must be expanding bullets designed to deform in a predicable manner. (If there is a difference the writer would be interested to know what it is). The stalker who buys his ammunition over the gun shop counter just asks for the commercially loaded cartridges of his choice. The home loader has of course much more scope for experiment. If this all sounds very obvious the writer certainly recalls one character who habitually used solid bullets gleaned from his participation in military activities. No reliable report on their effectiveness was ever forthcoming!

S.10 The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 made legal (by exception) the use of expanding ammunition for four specific purposes including the lawful shooting of deer.

Stalkers who followed the progress of that Act, which was rushed through during the post Dunblane hysteria, may recall the attention given to this subject. As so often with gun control law one has no doubt that the time spent on imposing the minutiae could be better spent in tackling gun crime. Be this as it may, stalkers can and must shoot deer only with expanding ammunition and may also, it is submitted, zero and practice with it.

Turning briefly now from rifles to handguns, it will be recalled that the 1997 Act prohibited the ownership of these, subject to the most limited exceptions. These include humane despatch. Since the Act became law, some resolute livestock slaughterers have argued their corner with their respective Firearm Officers. They have argued that they have a need for a handgun for humane despatch in the course of stalking and/or slaughtering. The writer has handled several such cases. When the case has been a good one and the handgun restricted to a single shot .32 calibre, these have sometimes been allowed. The cases of Taylor and Newton v. Chief Constable of Derbyshire are often cited in support of this exception.

However, it is submitted that few amateur stalkers, stalking wild deer in the ordinary way, need anything more than rifle, dog and knife as tools to complete the job.

Word version of this article