Jump to content

Deer: 50% cull 'necessary to protect countryside'


halight
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just seen this on the news,

 

 

Deer: 50% cull 'necessary to protect countryside'

 

 

 

 

Around half of the UK's growing deer population needs to be shot each year to stop devastation of woodlands and birdlife, a group of scientists says.

A study published in the Journal of Wildlife Management says this would keep numbers stable.

The deer population is currently estimated at around 1.5 million.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21688447#TWEET647513

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

They have been saying that for a long time now.

I remember reading something a few years back saying on average there are 9 deaths a year on the A9 Scotland due to deer.

The Deer Commision are now giving grants and high seats to farms to cull deer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The figures are massively skewed by muntjac which are one of the main threats and need a hard line taken. Other areas need a bit more thought however the people who need the book throwing at them are those moving muntjac and encouraging their spread, that should be prison time plus revoke of fac for life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats often led by the forestry commission if there are any large scale tree plantings going on and for that exact reason a lot of places avoid the subsidies because they come with conditions to wipe out most of the deer and if you don't they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are saying 750,000 a year across the UK need to be shot just to keep the population stable never mind reducing it. Excepting the regional expansion of Sika and Muntjac, I doubt if there are more 'native' deer than there have ever been: all these figures are largely speculative. What has happened is accelerated human expansion and urbanisation which has pushed deer populations into conflict with human commercial interests. They're getting in the way more than they used to.

 

What they don't mention is that there are more 'stalkers' than there have ever been. So someone's doing something wrong. If properly managed deer control is to be achieved something will have to be done about Chequebook stalking which sees all the best males shot because some idiot with more money than sense will pay to do the shooting, and the females and also-rans which should be culled left to roam and breed because it costs money to shoot them in the numbers required.

Its a shame more landowners don't understand this. Perhaps the BDS and others should switch resources to educating farmers and landowners rather than churning out more stalkers. But then, there's no money in that.

Edited by Gimlet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two thoughts:

 

Is it not time that where deemed necessary the situation is taken out of the hands of the estates where the problem is beyond the pale?

 

Also on the news this morning was the piece about a perceived link between packaged meat and premature death. Couple this with the horse-flesh fiasco and a determined effort to overcome the reluctance to eat game for whatever reason (too strong/too rich/don't like it hung - comments from people who've never tasted it, etc, etc) and a market/jobs could be created which renders the whole situation viable for all the right reasons.

 

Not a stalker, not totally au fait with all the aspects; as said just my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are saying 750,000 a year across the UK need to be shot just to keep the population stable never mind reducing it. Excepting the regional expansion of Sika and Muntjac, I doubt if there are more 'native' deer than there have ever been: all these figures are largely speculative. What has happened is accelerated human expansion and urbanisation which has pushed deer populations into conflict with human commercial interests. They're getting in the way more than they used to.

 

What they don't mention is that there are more 'stalkers' than there have ever been. So someone's doing something wrong. If properly managed deer control is to be achieved something will have to be done about Chequebook stalking which sees all the best males shot because some idiot with more money than sense will pay to do the shooting, and the females and also-rans which should be culled left to roam and breed because it costs money to shoot them in the numbers required.

Its a shame more landowners don't understand this. Perhaps the BDS and others should switch resources to educating farmers and landowners rather than churning out more stalkers. But then, there's no money in that.

 

we have areas here with bucket loads of fallow, very hard to deal with as one shot and they are off to neighbouring ground, on ground used for game shooting so you only have a limited time to cull them. When they move about so much you can have no problem one minute then hundreds turn up so it doesn't matter what you do it can be a matter of what your neighbours miles away do, the other option is they turn nocturnal and legally you can't touch them. They get a fair bit of stick but rarely enough to stop the population growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has done the rounds before.

Funny thing about deer, there are a 'pest' right up the point you offer to shoot them, then they become 'game' that you have to pay [in some cases] silly money to shoot.

I was invited to help out with a population problem recently, on enquiring in more detail they wanted £160/day to be 'helped out' all meat staying with the estate as well.

How many people pay to shoot foxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has done the rounds before.

Funny thing about deer, there are a 'pest' right up the point you offer to shoot them, then they become 'game' that you have to pay [in some cases] silly money to shoot.

I was invited to help out with a population problem recently, on enquiring in more detail they wanted £160/day to be 'helped out' all meat staying with the estate as well.

How many people pay to shoot foxes?

 

I got a similar offer recently but for free obviously meat staying but thats whats needed more bums on seats in return I'll also be there out of season shooting foxes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we have areas here with bucket loads of fallow, very hard to deal with as one shot and they are off to neighbouring ground, on ground used for game shooting so you only have a limited time to cull them. When they move about so much you can have no problem one minute then hundreds turn up so it doesn't matter what you do it can be a matter of what your neighbours miles away do, the other option is they turn nocturnal and legally you can't touch them. They get a fair bit of stick but rarely enough to stop the population growth.

 

I understand the problem with Fallow. My brother manges an 1800 farm in Oxfordshire and his fallow situation is just as you describe. I'll have to bow to the knowledge of others on fallow, because they're not a species I shoot. But the chap I shoot deer with who is a very old hand favours going in mob-handed with fallow, hitting them very hard in one go with several rifles and then backing right off and leaving them alone to regroup instead of scattering the remainder of the herd. But that takes planning and co-ordination and usually co-operation with neighbours which is precisely the kind of approach that is lacking most of the time nowadays. It was easy in his day beacuse one man controlled tens of thousands, and often hundreds of thousands of acres. Now, as he puts it, there's a highseat in every other hedgrow and some ******* whacking over the first thing in season that sets foot on his land. And with fallow, thats hopeless.

 

This has done the rounds before.

Funny thing about deer, there are a 'pest' right up the point you offer to shoot them, then they become 'game' that you have to pay [in some cases] silly money to shoot.

I was invited to help out with a population problem recently, on enquiring in more detail they wanted £160/day to be 'helped out' all meat staying with the estate as well.

How many people pay to shoot foxes?

 

Precisely. Deer have a hallowed status which clouds the issue of management. A farmer who tried charging people to shoot rabbits would soon find himself farming more rabbits than crops. But even with rabbits, thought and planning produces far better control than an unco-ordinated free-for-all. And in that respect a lot of farmers do not help themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be happy to assist and leave the meat for the estate to sell on, that way everyone should be happy.

Quite a few estates operate like this but others just see it as an opportunity to make a bit of money, and as long as people are queuing up to pay, you can't really blame them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gimlet has it about right. Then there's the problem of the land grabbing shooter, you know the type, they brag about having several thousand acres to shoot over but only ever go out about twice a month. If you make inquiries with the landowners about culling the obviously large fallow population (or even muntjac) you're met with the response that there's already rifles on the estate. Ho hum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...