FCS figures for 2010/11

David

I am not currently involved in night shooting and am only speaking of prior experience.
However, surely if a growing crop of timber is getting significant damage year after year, then night shooting would not be an unreasonable option as part of an ongoing deer management programme?

Fortunately, I think that most recreational stalkers, myself included, are in the fortunate position of managing deer on land where current land use and type of habitat allows effective control of numbers by utilising traditional stalking methods.

It would be a sad day indeed if night shooting was available to all if the comprehensive and exhaustive process involved in obtaining a licence at present was not in place.

Regards

BP
 
I hope your not suggesting Ben that the night licences are only used were there is a vulnerable crop because that would be way off the mark. But when lease holders are told they are not shooting enough in day light and then get removed to be replaced by a contractor using a night licence something is wrong and needs sorted why not give the lease holder a night licence and get it done for free. I would also say it dose not matter what i think its what is written down by the deer sector a lamping licence is meant to be a time limited option to resolve a problem. Not till the end of time . TIAL WAGGING THE DOG SPRINGS TO MIND. I do manage ground some private forestry as do friends of mine none use a night licence and i don't use an out of season. Seem that the public Forestry Company are the ones that cant manage deer using there own legislation.
I don't like lamping deer to me its indiscriminate and brings in problems regards hygiene. How many Contractors use members of the public who have no idea of best practice??
LAST I WILL SAY ON THE MATTER ;)
 
I hope your not suggesting Ben that the night licences are only used were there is a vulnerable crop because that would be way off the mark. But when lease holders are told they are not shooting enough in day light and then get removed to be replaced by a contractor using a night licence something is wrong and needs sorted why not give the lease holder a night licence and get it done for free. I would also say it dose not matter what i think its what is written down by the deer sector a lamping licence is meant to be a time limited option to resolve a problem. Not till the end of time . TIAL WAGGING THE DOG SPRINGS TO MIND. I do manage ground some private forestry as do friends of mine none use a night licence and i don't use an out of season. Seem that the public Forestry Company are the ones that cant manage deer using there own legislation.
I don't like lamping deer to me its indiscriminate and brings in problems regards hygiene. How many Contractors use members of the public who have no idea of best practice??
LAST I WILL SAY ON THE MATTER ;)

I have used both out of season licenses and night shooting ones , more than ten years since I last needed a night shooting license used to be only issued for small numbers and for a short time the idea being that you could remove a problem group in one go, at which it was effective if thats what you mean by indiscriminate, lamping is not really effective for large numbers as deer become lamp shy very quick.

I don't get your remark about hygiene, how is it less hygienic?
 
Boggy The contractor i have know just get help from anywhere they can and the help is cheap or free but it is not trained at all. Normally for the chance to shoot a few deer on the ground and will normally do the green gralloch and dragging while the shooter sits in his seat watching. I would make it a stick on that any one shooting and helping in the very dangerous management practice of lamping use only fully trained personnel. Accidents will happen and only then will things change.


shotdeadlamping.jpg
 
prepare for in coming because your absolutely right.

BS


Dont class all recreational stalkers the same I shoot and help
Manage deer on a couple of different areas and I'll shoot whatever deer need culling. But I also try to take the well being and genetics of the deer into account so choose the poor heads, weak and late. I also actually like to see deer around. Now posted over and over again is the FACT that there ain't so many deer seen in Scotland and to be honest although the press and government says numbers are on the up I don't believe it.

Now reading the figures of deer taken and the lack of permits doing the taking, and the amount of folk wanting stalking don't you think that BS (I'm guessing your FC or contractor) should be taking stalkers out on permits or putting them in seats to help their experience and numbers taken. As for shooting foxes at night it's fairly easy really. And seeing deer in lamps there ain't really anything sporting about it.
 
I’ll take the foresters side in this debate

Foresters need to protect trees; deer damage trees. I’veseen a lot of culling done within woodlands as a result of damage to a youngcrop and as far as I’m concerned this is bad practice as the deer should havebe shot before they were able to do damage. That way you get rapidestablishment and a good crop. Once the trees are growing well the deer canhave the run of the woodland.

Whilst private estate owners might have regard for theirneighbours sport, forest owners tend not to bother as their business is timberproduction. A well established, fully stocked woodland is worth double that ofa ropy, poorly stocked woodland. So in other words, too many deer at the timeof establishment can halve the value of the timber.

The huge planting programs of 40-60 years ago are now beingharvested and restocked. The average restock site is relatively small hence thecost of fencing per hectare is significant. For example, a 100ha block will costsay £400/ha to fence; a 10ha block will cost £1250/ha. Now you can understandwhy fencing is not the first option, even if it is the most dependable.

Deer tend to damage trees most in late winter and during theflush in spring and (surprise, surprise) they tend not to restrict theirnoshing to daylight hours. Enter out of season and night shooting authorisations,both of which are legal and in no way “bend the law”. As far as I’m concerned if a deer is to beshot, it matters not what time of the day/night it was killed or the time of year,providing best practice is followed.

I appreciate that sporting estates will lose deer during thewinter when they shelter in forestry but I would urge the estates to have agood look at their own ground with a view to creating their own winter coverand in the meantime get round the negotiating table with the forestry owners resharing the cost of strategic fencing.

So there we have it, foresters like to keep deer numbersdown in order to produce timber; sportsmen like to keep numbers up in order to producetrophies. However few of us manage deer in harmony with the environment.

Regards


 
Bambyslayer you are correct this is a job and i agree lets get it done right lets not **** about year after year conning the public that we are looking at deer welfare of sustainable management. Let not kid our selves that it is about collaboration. LETS TELL IT AS IT IS A MASS CULL YEAR IN YEAR OUT REGARDLESS OF SEX AGE OR CLASS WITH ABSULUTLY NO REGARDS FOR OUR NABOUR EMPLOYMENT INTERESTS. USEING THE NIGHT LICENCE AS A MEANS TO BEND THE LAW IN FAVOUR OF SLAUGHTER. I here me sewell has stated that the scottish deer have went nocturnal because of day time stalking activity,s .This is the reason he gives for Lamping ha ha now he is a clever man because no one has challenged him on this. In my opinion Contractors should be removed from FC ground and professional people put in there place (RANGERS) Lamping should be done to solve an immediate problem not as a means to an end. Time for change looks like Mr Sewell is not fit for purpose if he didn't know that deer were always nocturnal
Agree +1
 
BS


Dont class all recreational stalkers the same I shoot and help
Manage deer on a couple of different areas and I'll shoot whatever deer need culling. But I also try to take the well being and genetics of the deer into account so choose the poor heads, weak and late. I also actually like to see deer around. Now posted over and over again is the FACT that there ain't so many deer seen in Scotland and to be honest although the press and government says numbers are on the up I don't believe it.

Now reading the figures of deer taken and the lack of permits doing the taking, and the amount of folk wanting stalking don't you think that BS (I'm guessing your FC or contractor) should be taking stalkers out on permits or putting them in seats to help their experience and numbers taken. As for shooting foxes at night it's fairly easy really. And seeing deer in lamps there ain't really anything sporting about it.

Thats just it taking stalkers out on permit or putting them in a seat , will just never get the job done the average recreational stalker is just not up to it, there are exeptions of course but they are few and far between
You mention sporting again you are missing the point its about culling numbers its not sport if you want sport get a nice little private lease somewhere, forget commercial forestry.
 
"Love

You are quite correct ELRIG i am bonkers but have been around a long time and seen some horrendous actions by the people in power and there employees.

Merry Christmas"

cheers for the PM 6 pointer but you could have just posted it here
 
60-65 your having a laugh is that cost to tax payer? Well let's do some quick sums. 365 days in a year take off 65 leaves 300 days times two outtings at 50 equals 30000. I'm pretty sure that pays rangers wages alone, let alone venision sales and trophy fees. All these figured are GBP and make believe of course.
 
BTI agree some are not upto it. I also agree it is about getting numbers down and getting numbers is not easy. All I want is it to be fair on the numbers and not massacre the lot. Goin on this thread and reading various others (mainly Scotland) the number of deer is not there to sustain MANAGABLE numbers. SoI don't understand the why night licenses and out of season are needed. I understand for a purely probmatic heard causing traffic and danger to public. Then yes lamp them.
 
Night shooting certificates are supposed to be issued for specific areas that are under threat. So say for example a 40ha site in a 1000ha forest is under threat. Then surely the night shooting should be granted for the 40ha and the immediate surrounding area. But what is actually happening is that certificate is being used across the whole forest. And that is why FCS are averaging around 240 deer per licence. Now I have no problem with the use of night shooting and contractors, where it is necessary, but it is getting very openly abused. Now I can only speak for the area I live in but the deer numbers have been decimated since the increase in use of night shooting and contractors and as the numbers continue to decrease, the abuse of night shooting increases as a contractor needs to make a wage. And when they have had a good few years of personal turnover of in excess of £100k then the element of greed certainly sneaks in.

The argument for Rangers over Contractors is always going to come up and unfortunately, especially in the current climate, it's the accountant that makes the decision. Contracting is cheaper to the tax payer but as we are dealing with Scotlands most recognisable and iconic species then surely there should be other factors brought into consideration. FCS have the responsibility of managing the Scottish deer population in the national forests on behalf of the taxpayer, and this management is on the brink of being forgotten as Rangers are no longer being replaced and the cheap option is considered the best. An option that seems to be for mass cull with no consideration to age, sex, condition etc, and in my opinion this is not in the best interest of the tax payer and should therefore be investigated by the public spending watchdog with consideration of not only the forestry aspect but also that of tourism, recreational stalking, sporting estates, sustainable venison production and all other direct and indirect consequences of the methods being used and the numbers involved.

Now in my opinion a lot of the foresters and senior management are well aware of these licences being abused, and may even be encouraging it. So are FCS there to represent the best interest of the people of this country, or is their only goal to meet their targets. Well everyone's entitled to their own opinion on that one.
 
I may be being a bit naieve but this is the way I see things.
I get 7 weeks holiday plus weekends off although I do on-call.
This equates to 230 working days.
If the average contractor gets 2 deer a day then that 460 deer in the year and £46k
More than my salary.
However if the contractor is savvy and has a creative accountant (which I pressume most would do)
then they can write off alot of items that I can't - transport/fuel/equipement.
I would also guess they are paying less tax than I pay.

So you can see that when figures of £100k and contstant night time shooting are mentioned it does tend to irk some people.

Ed
 
I may be being a bit naieve but this is the way I see things.
I get 7 weeks holiday plus weekends off although I do on-call.
This equates to 230 working days.
If the average contractor gets 2 deer a day then that 460 deer in the year and £46k
More than my salary.
However if the contractor is savvy and has a creative accountant (which I pressume most would do)
then they can write off alot of items that I can't - transport/fuel/equipement.
I would also guess they are paying less tax than I pay.

So you can see that when figures of £100k and contstant night time shooting are mentioned it does tend to irk some people.

Ed

Remember thats £100k turn over, you will also have employees, vehicles etc as well not having paid holidays.
Having worked for RDC, FCS and a contractor and knowing plenty folk still in the game, I'm sure they don't really care what you think as you quickly develop thick skin, as well as not having time to bother about interweb forums. I stand by my original statement, this is all based on jealousy and a complete lack of understanding when it comes down to managing large areas of commercial woodland and deer populations. I know folk will think I'm just being a t****, but like many on here I've seen plenty folk come and go in this job as well as hear all the b******* theories. At the end of the day the only way to do it is with a large supply of Norma and dedicated staff who just do it. It is not stalking, it's killing a certain amount of deer cost effectively, as a tax payer is this not the best option and as far as welfare goes, wounded or lost deer is not good business.
 
60-65 your having a laugh is that cost to tax payer? Well let's do some quick sums. 365 days in a year take off 65 leaves 300 days times two outtings at 50 equals 30000. I'm pretty sure that pays rangers wages alone, let alone venision sales and trophy fees. All these figured are GBP and make believe of course.

Steyr,
Seeing as I'm having a laugh.perhaps you can humour me, and tell us just what it costs to keep a Ranger in Employment
 
It might be time for all lease holder to apply for a night licence also. There are no qualifications and the head of the fcs has stated that the reason for issue of a night licence is because deer have went nocturnal. So any one that has a lease and is worried about how many deer they have don't they are there they have just changed there habits and are now only ever out at night. GET A LAMP AND STOP MOANING. All you need to do i s apply others already do it.;)
 
Night shooting certificates are supposed to be issued for specific areas that are under threat. So say for example a 40ha site in a 1000ha forest is under threat. Then surely the night shooting should be granted for the 40ha and the immediate surrounding area. But what is actually happening is that certificate is being used across the whole forest. And that is why FCS are averaging around 240 deer per licence. Now I have no problem with the use of night shooting and contractors, where it is necessary, but it is getting very openly abused. Now I can only speak for the area I live in but the deer numbers have been decimated since the increase in use of night shooting and contractors and as the numbers continue to decrease, the abuse of night shooting increases as a contractor needs to make a wage. And when they have had a good few years of personal turnover of in excess of £100k then the element of greed certainly sneaks in.

The argument for Rangers over Contractors is always going to come up and unfortunately, especially in the current climate, it's the accountant that makes the decision. Contracting is cheaper to the tax payer but as we are dealing with Scotlands most recognisable and iconic species then surely there should be other factors brought into consideration. FCS have the responsibility of managing the Scottish deer population in the national forests on behalf of the taxpayer, and this management is on the brink of being forgotten as Rangers are no longer being replaced and the cheap option is considered the best. An option that seems to be for mass cull with no consideration to age, sex, condition etc, and in my opinion this is not in the best interest of the tax payer and should therefore be investigated by the public spending watchdog with consideration of not only the forestry aspect but also that of tourism, recreational stalking, sporting estates, sustainable venison production and all other direct and indirect consequences of the methods being used and the numbers involved.

Now in my opinion a lot of the foresters and senior management are well aware of these licences being abused, and may even be encouraging it. So are FCS there to represent the best interest of the people of this country, or is their only goal to meet their targets. Well everyone's entitled to their own opinion on that one.
x1 Agree with you Westcoaststalker
 
Jealous?!! Bambislayer you disappoint me! It is clear to me you think of deer as rats. FCS and contractors are nothing to be jealous of. Nobody has a good word to say about FCS and contractors at the moment ( except of courses them themselves and expert ex forest rangers). I remember as a youngster looking up to forest rangers and hoping one day I would be one. Nowadays I would hate the thought. Its not the rangers its the people in charge that make me sick. I will never be convinced on the use of contractors when there is rangers on the beat. So dont wast your time trying to justify it to me.

Quick question, if culling is going to be done by contractors and contractors alone (which in my mind is the way things are going) who is going to maintain the forests? Build bridges on ATV tracks? Brash deer lawns? Put up bird boxes? Build diver rafts etc? Not contractors thats for sure. Rangers are not only deer killers, they are wildlife managers. Management are forcing them to shoot themselves out a job.
 
Jealous?!! Bambislayer you disappoint me! It is clear to me you think of deer as rats. FCS and contractors are nothing to be jealous of. Nobody has a good word to say about FCS and contractors at the moment ( except of courses them themselves and expert ex forest rangers). I remember as a youngster looking up to forest rangers and hoping one day I would be one. Nowadays I would hate the thought. Its not the rangers its the people in charge that make me sick. I will never be convinced on the use of contractors when there is rangers on the beat. So dont wast your time trying to justify it to me.

Quick question, if culling is going to be done by contractors and contractors alone (which in my mind is the way things are going) who is going to maintain the forests? Build bridges on ATV tracks? Brash deer lawns? Put up bird boxes? Build diver rafts etc? Not contractors thats for sure. Rangers are not only deer killers, they are wildlife managers. Management are forcing them to shoot themselves out a job.

Bambislayer, I will leave you to persuade him of the error of his ways:rofl:
 
Back
Top