culling deer for 100K

Yes it would be the lamp holds no mercy and will indiscriminately kill all in its path. First tool in the car all that happens is the diesel bill gets higher and the local leases get hit. There needs to be an answer that will not waist millions of pound of hard earned TAX payers money.


ALLAN
 
Last edited:
I know two lads that had 800 in one month and may be the same team as the OP has spoke of. Contract stalkers and have night shooting licence. All legal and above board and VERY hard work?
 
The level of damage in the area does not merit the way the deer are being treated........

thats because the cull is working and exactly why contracters are employed to do the deed ....and as far as tax payers money is concerned at least there working hard to earn there wage and an honest wage my i add, id have thought youd have been worred more about the other tax payers money wasters theres a lot of them about and need thinned out more than contract stalkers do ..as for the rights and wrongs of it i reserve judgement
 
Deer soon get wise to the lamp. Although it is supposed to be a last resort.
I reckon it's cheaper for the taxpayer to have contractors in a lot of cases thats why they're there.
 
The level of damage in the area does not merit the way the deer are being treated........

thats because the cull is working and exactly why contracters are employed to do the deed ....and as far as tax payers money is concerned at least there working hard to earn there wage and an honest wage my i add, id have thought youd have been worred more about the other tax payers money wasters theres a lot of them about and need thinned out more than contract stalkers do ..as for the rights and wrongs of it i reserve judgement

There wasn't a level of damage which merited the excessive cull before it took place.

If you've read my previous posts you will see that I have already stated that I couldn't really care less how much contractors are earning. My problem is the level of culling they are being asked to do and the methods they are being told to use.
 
Deer soon get wise to the lamp. Although it is supposed to be a last resort.
I reckon it's cheaper for the taxpayer to have contractors in a lot of cases thats why they're there.

Because something's cheaper it doesn't make it right.

My car needs an MOT next month but I'd be cheaper not getting it done. Oh but rules are rules and they're there for a reason. Excessive unnecessary nightshooting breaks the rules in question here.
 
It is a fact that in some cases the culling is justified. In others it is not. When any target is set one area may carry a higher burden than others. Area A might be lamp shy so area B supports the cull to a greater extent. However let us not get hypocritical. In many cases we are moaning because we want the deer there so we can shoot them. Jim
 
It is a fact that in some cases the culling is justified. In others it is not. When any target is set one area may carry a higher burden than others. Area A might be lamp shy so area B supports the cull to a greater extent. However let us not get hypocritical. In many cases we are moaning because we want the deer there so we can shoot them. Jim

Cant help but agree with the above, is it the money or the sour grapes.... Rabbits are given no mercy re sex, age or season, all gods creatures n ah that:stir:
 
Well i would not lamp deer no need for it if the area is managed properly. It is breaking the law and indiscriminate and shows that the FC have lost total control of there lands.
 
Well i would not lamp deer no need for it if the area is managed properly. It is breaking the law and indiscriminate and shows that the FC have lost total control of there lands.
Hmmm not against the law at all,if you have licence
If the area is heavily shot,all the more need for a night licence actually
 
Well i would not lamp deer no need for it if the area is managed properly. It is breaking the law and indiscriminate and shows that the FC have lost total control of there lands.
With a night authorisation which law would you be breaking?

Why are people so against lamping deer, like ive said before, for the professional stalker/contractor its a valuable tool.

Stalking isnt always about wandering about a permission on a weekend listening to the birdies sing, taking in the country air and popping off the odd beast.

There are times where needs must.
 
Last edited:
rudy65,

with no disrespect , you do not live or stalk in the real world !

the lamp is an important tool for the proffessional stalker / contractor with the correct paper work , these guys work hard and shoot hard

and this is the nature of their work and their bloody good at it !

question is would i use a lamp if i COULD get the paper work ? (not a hope in hell in england as we all know !) too bloody right i would , if the numbers required !
 
this would not surprise me the fc are doing untold damage to the deer hards in Scotland but what can you do or say as the new deer commission is snh will back then all the way they seem not to realize that you cant shoot your way out of problem's as our four fathers new thats why they fenced woods and employed a work force to up keep them if the the public new the waste of grant money that is going on shooting deer on fcs ground but ask them about brown hares they don't shoot anymore but its only deer that do damage to trees
 
With a night authorisation which law would you be breaking?

Why are people so against lamping deer, like ive said before, for the professional stalker/contractor its a valuable tool.

Stalking isnt always about wandering about a permission on a weekend listening to the birdies sing, taking in the country air and popping off the odd beast.

There are times where needs must.
Absolutely
 
Because something's cheaper it doesn't make it right.

My car needs an MOT next month but I'd be cheaper not getting it done. Oh but rules are rules and they're there for a reason. Excessive unnecessary nightshooting breaks the rules in question here.

I agree with what you say about cheaper not always being best but a lot of posts have mentioned a waste of tax payers money and I was trying to address that point.
They are all following the rules, ie the deer are shot under authorisation by trained hunters.
In theory the licence shouldn't be issued if it's not needed, thats where the subjectivness comes in. One mans unaccepable damage is deemed not a problem by others. I think the major problem is the enclosed land license for out of season which only requires a stock fence or any remnant of a deer fence to be in place. Also the 18(2) can be issued for a whole forest block to protect a 10ha re-stock for example, when perhaps it shouldn't be.
 
"With a night authorisation which law would you be breaking?

Why are people so against lamping deer, like ive said before, for the professional stalker/contractor its a valuable tool.

Stalking isnt always about wandering about a permission on a weekend listening to the birdies sing, taking in the country air and popping off the odd beast.

There are times where needs must."


Exactly Dan, well said!
 
It is a fact that in some cases the culling is justified. In others it is not. When any target is set one area may carry a higher burden than others. Area A might be lamp shy so area B supports the cull to a greater extent. However let us not get hypocritical. In many cases we are moaning because we want the deer there so we can shoot them. Jim

But when Area A is a vulnerable area and Area B is miles away, in the same forest, with no vulnerable crop in the vicinity. Should anyone be allowed to make up the numbers in Area B with the lamp just because they're not shooting enough in Area A? In my opinion, no they shouldn't, and if the guidelines involving night shooting licences were being followed then it shouldn't be happening. But it is, on quite an extensive scale. There needs to be clearer guidelines on what is a vulnerable crop and how close to this crop that the lamp can be used. It also needs to be clear what the punishment will be if the licence is abused. Everyone knows that it happens but has anyone ever been punished for it?

I enjoy my shooting and part of the reason I want to fight this is because I'm now seeing a fraction of the numbers I seen 5 years ago in certain areas. But it goes a lot deeper than that. If this continues at this level it will have a massive effect on recreational stalking in the area and the associated tourist income. It will not only effect privately owned estates through direct stalking incomes but also through the venison incomes which they rely on.

With a night authorisation which law would you be breaking?

Why are people so against lamping deer, like ive said before, for the professional stalker/contractor its a valuable tool.

Stalking isnt always about wandering about a permission on a weekend listening to the birdies sing, taking in the country air and popping off the odd beast.

There are times where needs must.

I'm not against lamping in the slightest, and I use it myself, I am against it being abused. As you say needs must and there are some places where if you didn't use it you wouldn't have a crop left.


They're are so many flaws in the current system and that is why I feel it needs investigated and reported on. The enclosed ground for out of season is an absolute joke and is being abused on a huge scale. Is enclosed ground somewhere with a fence round it? I don't see many fences and gates around FC land here but they are shooting out of season constantly. Has the population reached a level where they should completely ignore the seasons that seemed to be sufficient for many years before?

Deer numbers are probably at their lowest in Argyll in my lifetime yet cull figures are continuing to increase. If projected cull figures are being met should FC then be allowed to shoot hundreds of deer on top of these numbers? They are a government funded body and should be looking at the overall effect they're having on neighbouring businesses and the companies that they will effect indirectly. They used to be a respected and admired organisation who people would look up to and they would be of assistance wherever they could. I'm afraid the damage they have caused and are continuing to cause through their "deer management" has lost them all that respect.
 
I agree with what you say about cheaper not always being best but a lot of posts have mentioned a waste of tax payers money and I was trying to address that point.
They are all following the rules, ie the deer are shot under authorisation by trained hunters.
In theory the licence shouldn't be issued if it's not needed, thats where the subjectivness comes in. One mans unaccepable damage is deemed not a problem by others. I think the major problem is the enclosed land license for out of season which only requires a stock fence or any remnant of a deer fence to be in place. Also the 18(2) can be issued for a whole forest block to protect a 10ha re-stock for example, when perhaps it shouldn't be.

My reason for saying tax payers money is being wasted is a lot of the deer that are being shot at say £90 are being shot unnecessarily. Contracts are being issued on a 5 year basis. It claims on the terms that the contract will be reviewed annually but it is never being reduced. They are then putting contractors into areas where cull figures have already been met so they can still get the numbers that the original contract is for. Areas where the increased cull is not required to protect crops as there is either nothing to protect or the crop is mature enough that it won't be damaged.

The rest of what you say is exactly my reasons for asking for this to be looked into. Everything is too vague and open to abuse and goes completely unpunished when people break the rules.
 
I hear what you are saying, our FC District is extremely unsympathetic to neighbouring Estates sporting interests, so much so it has made front pages of the local rag several times and several Stag forests around here have had to reduce Stag culls to accomodate the FC's over enthusiastic "deer management", unfortunately we know its not deer management, its more deer eradication!

If the FC used some of their "deer management" budget to renew/repair fences to make sure the deer DIDNT get into their plantation in the first place it would do wonders for neighbour relationships. Sadly that is too much like common sense.
 
Back
Top