Determining Deer Priorities.

As I was walking along Church Lane today a Roe deer buck ran past me along one of the public footpaths crossing a corn field. When I got back I checked the website of the British Deer Society to be sure that I’d correctly identified the species. (I had.)

Now, call me naïve if you like, but I tend to the presumption that an official body representing a particular species of animal would take the ethical aspect as presumptive and consider protection of the animal to be its predominant position.

But the article came to the question: Is it a good or a bad thing to have Roe deer in our landscape? The answer was that it’s both – it’s bad because they can damage the farmers’ crops, but it’s good because they provide an opportunity for stalking and their meat provides a valuable addition to the farmers’ incomes.

And so the practical and pecuniary benefit takes precedence over the fact that a deer is a sentient, emotional animal with as much right to its life as any other. That surprised me coming from the British Deer Society.