Worrying Scottish Red Deer Article from Guns On Pegs

Stewarty69

Well-Known Member
Just received my usual email update from Guns on Pegs and noticed this worrying article on Scottish Red Deer:

http://www.gunsonpegs.com/shooting/...medium=email&utm_campaign=GunsOnPegs-B-Winner

Why is it that everything we read these days about deer numbers seems to be contradictory. One minute we are over run with deer and the next they are about to become extinct. I'm sure the true position is somewhere in the middle but all these extreme reports in the press or wherever it may be are simply not good for our beloved sport.

What are evryone elses thoughts on the matter ?

ATB

Stewarty
 
Just received my usual email update from Guns on Pegs and noticed this worrying article on Scottish Red Deer:http://www.gunsonpegs.com/shooting/...medium=email&utm_campaign=GunsOnPegs-B-WinnerWhy is it that everything we read these days about deer numbers seems to be contradictory. One minute we are over run with deer and the next they are about to become extinct. I'm sure the true position is somewhere in the middle but all these extreme reports in the press or wherever it may be are simply not good for our beloved sport.What are evryone elses thoughts on the matter ?ATBStewarty
Thanks for the post. This is terrible news its time for action. I was sure this kind of crap only happened in Ireland.
 
It is a rehash of the article set out by SGA. There are estates shooting out deer. Forestry culls numbers but have better feeding so the vacuum draws in from the hills. Access to low ground is denied, so deer die on the hill stuck against a forestry fence. The habitat is constantly changing. We seem set to return to a Scotland 200 years ago. Wolves, beaver, forests of pine, we had a thread on compassion during deer dispatch. Why do we dig deep to fund trusts set on creating a habitat to the exclusion of deer.
 
You can't create a blanket statement for the whole of scotland as that's just nuts. Deer numbers are being reduced in some areas which is obvious especially when there are financial considerations but across many areas the numbers remain stable or actually increasing because of the new provision of habitat. It's way more complicated than just what the article tries to stab at.
 
Its a bit one sided that article, personally I'd like to see more tree cover in the highlands, and heavier deer control is a part of that, remember once the new woodlands are established and providing they are well designed they will hold more deer than the open hill, and those deer will likely be of better quality due to better feeding and shelter. They will just be harder to find!
 
Perhaps the author of this piece should be advised to go off and check on the accepted definition of the term deer forest
 
He might have a few points wrong, but generally the article is correct. We have an estate locally that employ 'contract killers' only we call them 'the assassins' (600 yard gut shots to drop beasts, then walk up and finish them off, allegedly. ) this is on a 5000+ acre newly planted native woodland, that is not totally enclosed and mostly just normal stock fence !
 
He might have a few points wrong, but generally the article is correct. We have an estate locally that employ 'contract killers' only we call them 'the assassins' (600 yard gut shots to drop beasts, then walk up and finish them off, allegedly. ) this is on a 5000+ acre newly planted native woodland, that is not totally enclosed and mostly just normal stock fence !

If i wanted to drop a deer one of the last places i would shoot it would be the gut.Can you explain why this would be their recommended shot placement?
 
He might have a few points wrong, but generally the article is correct. We have an estate locally that employ 'contract killers' only we call them 'the assassins' (600 yard gut shots to drop beasts, then walk up and finish them off, allegedly. ) this is on a 5000+ acre newly planted native woodland, that is not totally enclosed and mostly just normal stock fence !

Paying the "assassins" as you call them will be a lot cheaper than deer fencing off 5000 acres, I actually have a lot of respect for the new breed of estate owners who are re-planting some of the boreal forest, there will always be plenty of other estates where stalking is the priority and deer numbers are kept higher. If we had a decent network of boreal forest across the highlands with some decent wildlife corridors in a few years time we could have not only a more beautiful place but also somewhere that offers a much better stalking experience. Some may not live long enough to see it, such is the nature of re-forestation.
 
I agree that more woodland will be beneficial to wildlife in future, but I fail to see the sense in not totally fencing an area that is going to be planted. Some areas of the aforementioned woodland suffered up to 60% loss of trees through browsing, these trees will be replanted so as not to lose the grant money for the original planting. It just seems like all that has been created is a sink hole for Red Deer.
 
A very imotive subject here and one that I doubt we will ever all agree on.
Speaking of Scotland here, there probably were some places carrying more deer than perhaps they should have been but I'd say over the last 10 yrs this has reduced considerably to very few if any now. As for forestry, at the end of the day its a cash crop in the main so why would you want it eaten before you can get your crop. But on that note, I do think that it should be a stipulation if there are deer in the area that it is fenced properly at the very start, before planting. Deer from a wide area will congregate in an area during bad weather for shelter so if theres a forestry plantation nearby with easy access then they will go there. These may very well be animals from several estates if its the only shelter in that location. Another point thats been missed here are the so called sporting estates that have wiped out their entire populations of deer all in the name of Grouse repopulation. By all accounts these estates have re populated their grouse moors by using sheep as tick mops to reduce the burden of tick on he ground, whether this is right or wrong ie completely removing one population for the benefit of another more cash lucrative animal is debatable. I for one do not agree with this. I know of many estates that have both good grouse numbrs and a healthy deer populations. If they can do it why cant others.
Moving back to forestry plantations, surely after a certain time the trees will be large enough that any damage done to them by deer ie scraping etc would have a minimal impact in the overall health of the forest, perhaps even thinning it to allow better growth for surrounding trees, but surely there is a point when deer could be allowed back in.
We also have people that would have the entire north of Scotland returned to what they deem it should look like ie with the old caledonian Pines covering the hills. They have to realise that quite a few folk actually like the landscape we currently have, and some people actually think stalking on an open hill is far more enjoyable to woodland stalking. The thing is we have both at the moment and we seem to be doing fine. The natural regenaration argument is another thorn to argue about. We have seen the abject failure of what went on at Mar Lodge by SNH, which at the end of the day we as tax payers have paid for! I'm sure if you Ask Peter Fraser ex Invercauld how much their stalking chaged during that time period you'd here how managing land in one area certainly affects a far larger area and generally not to their bennefit and thats only one of the neighbouring estates to Mar.
In closing, all I'll say is this argument will never go away. In the main the word thats missed nearly always is ballance and thats a word that brings its own arguments also.
 
Back
Top