WHAT’S IN A NAME?

FEATURE Ken Slee

Back in the 1950s and 1960s when the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, Field and Game Australia, Para Park Cooperative and Australian Deer Association were just starting out there was clearly a lot of catching up to be done to establish shooting and hunting on a firmer footing in this country; shooting ranges to be established, wetland to be protected and enhanced, game species to be managed, hunting popularised and hunters educated regarding both the game available, how to hunt it and their responsibilities to both the game and the wider community.

Thinkers in the early deer scene such as Arthur Bentley and Geoff Moore saw a need to lift the status of deer around the country after many years of neglect following their introduction and establishment during the 19th century.

As could be expected this required work on a number of fronts; through meetings, via publishing newsletters, magazines and books and by working with bureaucrats and politicians.One perceived need was to educate hunters and the community to respect our deer species. Language and how we refer to deer in conversation and in print is a powerful tool in this regard.

Unfortunately, a poor choice of words, words that denigrate deer, can also be powerful tools in the hands of our enemies.This magazine tries to be very careful with the words that are used in any article that it publishes and we edit to maintain what we consider the most appropriate terminology to maintain and enhance the image of wild deer and hunting in this country. Naturally, we hope that some of this will rub off on our readers…

Bucks, Does and Fawns

Throughout much of its recorded history Great Britain had three species of deer: red deer, fallow deer and roe deer. A rich hunting tradition saw different names adopted to describe the different sexes of each and also age classes within them.

The terms ‘buck’, ‘doe’ and ‘fawn’ came to be widely applied to male, female and young fallow deer. When the British colonised North America and came into contact with its whitetail deer, which are similar in body size and habits to fallow deer, it presumably seemed reasonable to apply the same names to the new species so they too became ‘bucks’, ‘does’ and ‘fawns’ and remain so 400 years on.

When fallow deer were first introduced to Australia by a landed gentry that still yearned for ‘The Old Country’ they undoubtedly referred to them by their proper British names, but given 100 years of official neglect and changing times this traditional terminology tended to fall out of use.

This was particularly the case in Tasmania, so that fallow bucks there are almost universally referred to as stags. Australian Deer has been subtly trying to wean Tasmanians towards the ‘proper’ terminology for fallow bucks over the past 40 years but with little to show for our efforts. However, fallow deer hunting stories that appear in this magazine will always feature bucks, does and fawns!

Stags, Hinds and Calves

When it came to red deer the British settled on the names of ‘stag’, ‘hind’ and ‘calf’ when referring to male, female and young animals. This terminology seems to have pretty much stuck in their new home in Australia although there are certainly some hunters who will apply ‘doe’ to females and ‘fawn’ to youngsters of this species.

Four of Australia’s wild deer, the rusa, chital, sambar and hog deer, are from various parts of Asia with the first three given names from a local language in their countries of origin and the last probably named by and Englishman because its hunch-backed profile resembled that of a pig (‘para’ is another name for the hog deer that apparently is one of its native names). Although these four species undoubtedly have native names describing the different sexes and age classes they never made the transfer via the British Raj to their new homes in Australia.

In fact, a reading of old books by the likes of Sir Samuel Baker (The Rifle and the Hound in Ceylon) or even the more recent Schaller (The Deer and the Tiger) will show that the authors over these years were all over the place with their deer terminology.

Australian Deer made the decision many years ago to standardise on ‘stags’, ‘hinds’ and ‘calves’ for all of the Asian species established in Australia. This terminology has been widely adopted across the country although it is still very common to hear and see females referred to as ‘does’, particularly when it comes to sambar.

Does it matter? Probably not greatly, but as a hunting tradition develops in Australia it would be good to see hunters, at least, standardise their language when referring to deer.

North America have standardised their terms for deer to bucks does and fawns when discussing whitetail and mule deer, and bulls, cows and calves when referring to elk and moose. This adoption is so complete that referring, for example, to an elk ‘stag’, seems ignorant and just a bit ridiculous, even to an Australian ear.

Feral Versus Wild

The growing band of those who want deer right across Australia declared as ‘pests’ and controlled or eradicated are very keen to label all deer as ‘feral’ to denigrate them and to thereby further their agenda. As with many words there is more than one meaning attached to ‘feral’, which has its origins in the Latin word for ‘wild’.

Many greenies attach the word to any introduced species so you end up with the slightly ludicrous situation of having feral goats and feral pigs…as well as feral rabbits, feral foxes and feral deer. When I was a kid they were just wild goats, wild pigs (to distinguish them from those that were ‘owned’) and rabbits, foxes and deer.

So, what is the alternative to the green terminology?  One definition, and the one that I prefer, is from the highly respected official body, the World Organization of Animal Health:  Wild animals are those animals that do not live under human supervision or control and do not have their phenotype selected by humans.

Captive wild animals are those animals that live under human supervision or control but their phenotype is not selected by humans. Feral animals are those animals that do not live under human supervision or control but their phenotype is (or has been) selected by humans.

By this definition most of Australia’s deer populations (perhaps with the exception of a few recently established fallow and red deer herds) that have never been farmed are ‘wild’ not ‘feral’.

Australia’s hunters should never refer to our deer as ‘feral’ as this is playing right into the hands of those that would denigrate them to our disadvantage. They are ‘wild deer’ and always will be!

Mongrel Heads

How often do you hear reference to a ‘mongrel head’ or a ‘mongrel stag or buck’? Pretty often I would suspect as whenever a stag with poor antlers or deformed antlers is seen or shot that is the term that is commonly used to describe it.

Mongrel in my Concise Oxford Dictionary is ‘a dog of no definable breed, a plant or animal from crossing different breeds or types or a person of not pure race’.

By these criteria a stag with non-typical antlers is not a ‘mongrel’ but rather should be referred to as showing poor or malformed antlers. Australian Deer routinely edits any story that it receives to change ‘mongrel stag or buck’ to ‘stag or buck with malformed antlers’ or similar.

Does it really matter? In my opinion it does – if hunters don’t respect all deer, even those with poor antlers, why should the non-hunting fraternity respect the animals that are close to our hearts?

Thirty Inch Stags

We are really getting a bit picky here, as members of the Editorial Panel of Australian Deer tend to refer to stags by their antler length and bucks by their antler points on occasions too, particularly in conversation with other like-minded hunters.

Nevertheless they really ought to be ‘stags with thirty inch antlers’ or ‘bucks with 20 antler points’. I guess what all of the above is pointing out is that language, and the way it is used, are both powerful tools that can either assist in furthering our interests as deer managers and hunters or can be used against us to denigrate and destroy both the deer and our opportunity to enjoy hunting them.

To reverse the usual saying it would be great if all hunters made the effort to ‘talk the talk’ as well as ‘walk the walk’.