Scientists recommend a 50% cull of deer in UK

How often, have we heard this?

FC out with night vision kit, finding more deer than were thought to be? BIG WOW!

I was doing this work in and around Notingham Forest 16 years ago and no one took any notice. We found 4x the deer that the locals thought there was!
I am often shocked at the amount of deer in some areas of England and the state of the woodlands, certainly wouldn't be acceptable in Scotland. Kielder was an absolute disgrace a few years back.

This highlights the importance of deer management , which is good. It also highlights just how disorganised the whole thing is.

Remember that most of the deer in England are of exotic origin!

Absolutely spot on, a large degree of responsibility for the situation today lies with the FC and BDS, who years ago made a very big deal about your 'annual census', what a waste of time. Count a quarter of the deer you have and shoot 30% of them, not difficult to see where that leads. Today the policy of reducing numbers to a level at which damage is acceptable, regardless of numbers culled may seem a bit draconian, but had that been the policy 40 years ago then we would not have this situation today. Also agree with another poster who said that fallow and muntjac are the problem species
 
I heard one of the scientists on R4 yesterday - he made the point that the 50% cull recommendation referred specifically to Muntjac.


though it turns out the recommendation for Roe is a 60% cull - so according to the science, roe are outproducing muntjac - which experience tells me is somewhat strange...

and of course the 'theoretical' %age cull figure would presumably have to include natural wastage and traffic casualties.

in fact, the more I read of it, the more I think the big flaw in this study is that it has not allowed for natural wastage and road deaths etc, and come to its conclusions based upon the theory that all animals born have survived and been 'pushed out' into the surrounding countryside.
 
Last edited:
The deer in Scotland and England could be managed with the resource that is available over the last ten years there has been a slow and steady reduction in FC rangers. The offset has been leases contractors and the new smaller control leases. The number of deer shot have not decreased but has increased in that time . Yes we have a few places were deer are numerous but no were near what is happening in England. Only a few years back i drove through cannock case the amount of deer was staggering. P Glove had let the numbers rise because he had other interests out side his work and this is the problem.
I think England and scotland should start by looking at the Aliens Muntjac England and Sika Scotland . But what should happen is the landowners that have thousands of acres should stop being so territorial and realise the deer that they make money from also create problems else were.

As a side note CF some in the DI do Arrange deer drives.
 
How does a land-owner distinguish between the amatuer, who just wants some stalking and will basically be little more than a free-loading nuisance... and the professional who will simply do the job, as required, and then leave?

i think thats a sweeping statement, some so called free loading nuisances act in a very professional manner and carry out a service like a professional. on the is point how do you tell the difference between a Pro or a nuisance. If i charge am i a pro???

i know im not a nuisance but also cant afford massive bills for stalking
outings.

Couldn't of said it better myself!
 
Just read this quote on the BBC website

"For those saying 'why not hunt them?' we do already! What would be a good idea is to reduce the calibre required for most deer. At the moment it is a .243 and considering the army only use a .223 it seems excessive! Make the minimum .22wmr for all deer species and more people can hunt on more land."

I think they are unaware of the reason for using a FMJ.223 is to wound and not humanely kill as it ties up more resources looking after an injured soldier than a dead one. Obviously someone who reads a lot of Andy McNab books but knows sod all about deer stalking!

Actually the reason why the army picked the 5.56 over the 7.62 has nothing to do with wounding the enemy. It has to do with weight and space. The soldiers can carry more 5.56 ammo than they can 7.62.

You have to use FMJ's as soft nosed/hollow points are against the Geneva convention.
 
Actually the reason why the army picked the 5.56 over the 7.62 has nothing to do with wounding the enemy. It has to do with weight and space. The soldiers can carry more 5.56 ammo than they can 7.62.

You have to use FMJ's as soft nosed/hollow points are against the Geneva convention.

It was a combination of both - weight & wounds - but you'll never see that in a published MOD document... There's nothing more upsetting for any soldier than to have his battle buddy in bits next to him, but still alive and screaming for Mum. As said, this then ties up at east one combatant in sorting that poor s*d out, which means less incoming and the ability to get boots on ground further forward of current position. Harsh reality of warfare...

Cheers
i.
 
as far as I know they started up thinking they know best and got jobs with governmant grants its yet another quango
pity true facts are not reported there are too many deer in some areas (or too many people) jo public is encuraged to roam at all hours and everwhere so deer become vertually nocternal.
Also some land owners are against culling deer .

Ok thanks. I just had to google "Quango" as you can see I don't usually have much (any) interest in politics...but whilst learning what a quango is I also learned the quango is in fact a bit of an endangered species and that the government has vowed to abolish a large number of them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/22/100-quangos-abolished-bonfire


Perhaps this is the reason that scientists have "discovered" that we have a lot of work to do regarding deer in the UK.
If deer are seen by the public as a huge problem then the Deer Initiative aren't seen as useless.
 
Last edited:
I have just recieved via Email from the BDS, their press release about the Dollman report, which it appears this recent uproar about deer numbers is based on. Although they have not digested the full contents of the report, the BDS appears not to support the findings.


The report also seems to be centered on three main areas (which is what I thought) in England. Those being ARNE (the Sika population) I think this area is owned by the RSPB, National trust etc, but I might be wrong here, ASHDOWN FOREST, mostly covered by the FC I believe, and THETFORD also FC I believe owning the greater part of this area.


These are all well known areas that always have had large numbers of deer. And to base any report on just these three areas is not going to hold much water and is basically giving a false impression to the public.
 
Call me cinical but it looks like the starting point for the campaign to reintroduce Deer Predators............
 
Call me cinical but it looks like the starting point for the campaign to reintroduce Deer Predators............

Isn't that what we are as stalkers !!!

Problem is though most predators get to predate for free not pay through the nose for an animal
 
the media love these stories.....foxes eating small children, eagles
swooping on pet dogs, deer ravaging the countryside.

its taken 50 years for deer to reach my area, haven`t seen one for a fortnight.
they are still few and far between.

Obviously in certain locations they are too numerous
I would guess land owned or managed by over sentimental animal "lovers"

Its going to be a tough job culling all those deer
,......but... I guess someones got to do it:cry:
just dont enjoy the sport
 
the media love these stories.....foxes eating small children, eagles
swooping on pet dogs, deer ravaging the countryside.

its taken 50 years for deer to reach my area, haven`t seen one for a fortnight.
they are still few and far between.

Obviously in certain locations they are too numerous
I would guess land owned or managed by over sentimental animal "lovers"

Its going to be a tough job culling all those deer
,......but... I guess someones got to do it:cry:
just dont enjoy the sport

agree with you on this bob. I'd love to see deer on every bit of ground, which I know would be unrealistic and cause damage and rtc casualties. But it would also provide more meat in the food chain (giving horses a happy life) and mor stalking and work. But as agreed with most some areas are overpopulated.

On the subject of culls each year numbers must be assessed IMO with censuses as things can change quickly. Look back at the harsh winter last year and natural losses make the 50% cull too high, thus making the deer scares again.
 
I wounder what the reason for two many deer are. We have 10,s of thousands of deer stalkers most pay for stalking most drive hundreds of mile to pay some one to shoot deer. Isnt there something wrong with these statments i am making the math dose not add up.
 
Please by careful with your statement test of any sort should not be mandatory
please remember its our right to bear arms and feed ourselfs our libertys have been eroded enough with people believing via your comment that we should give any more power to the law makers
 
ianF - thank you for that link. Comments on it made a lot more sense than the 'press' coverage! The issue for us remains that the public perception will be founded upon the latter.

Time for a polite letter campaign to editors for correction or an equally polite complaint to the PCC.
 
Please by careful with your statement test of any sort should not be mandatory
please remember its our right to bear arms and feed ourselfs our libertys have been eroded enough with people believing via your comment that we should give any more power to the law makers

Who's comment are you referring to?
 
ianF - thank you for that link. Comments on it made a lot more sense than the 'press' coverage! The issue for us remains that the public perception will be founded upon the latter.

Time for a polite letter campaign to editors for correction or an equally polite complaint to the PCC.

That's right!
I've had several phone calls asking if I am going to be helping with "the 50% cull" and asking when "the cull" will take place etc etc.
Unfortunately the damage is done as far as public perception is concerned. But why would somebody want the public to think there are too many deer everywhere? I am not convinced that this is an accident:-|
 
The text of the BDS statement is on their web site...

The British Deer Society

I have just recieved via Email from the BDS, their press release about the Dollman report, which it appears this recent uproar about deer numbers is based on. Although they have not digested the full contents of the report, the BDS appears not to support the findings.


The report also seems to be centered on three main areas (which is what I thought) in England. Those being ARNE (the Sika population) I think this area is owned by the RSPB, National trust etc, but I might be wrong here, ASHDOWN FOREST, mostly covered by the FC I believe, and THETFORD also FC I believe owning the greater part of this area.


These are all well known areas that always have had large numbers of deer. And to base any report on just these three areas is not going to hold much water and is basically giving a false impression to the public.
 
Back
Top