Deer "biggest threat to Scotland's native woodland"

caorach

Well-Known Member
Then we get to the crux of the matter:

"We urgently need to move from a voluntary system of deer management to a sensible, regulated approach before we lose any more of our precious native woodland heritage."

Forgot the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26025523
 
Last edited:
Wise words from Richard Cooke, the deer should not be made the scapegoat for a problem created by clearing the forests and overgrazing by domestic livestock.

atb Tim
 
Forestry commission just looking for public approval to kill more deer & make more money

maybe I'm just too cynical as I think deer have been hit too hard in some areas


Paul
 
BBC News - Deer s native woodlands

Another scare mongering tactical put through the Scottish media .

Scottish native woodland indeed crap,between SNH the John Muir trust and the RSPB would all like to see the deer numbers in Scotland slashed beyond belief .

There are more trees in Scotland now than there has ever been , and of course more sheep.the powers at be won't be satisfied until they have killed every last one, then just where will the experts turn their minds to.

Just where we're the experts when the pure bred red deer population was being interbred with the imported sika ,no war crys there . Just shortly if these clowns get there way the only deer you'll see will be in parks .

Yes I'll give Richard Cooke one thing he got all the PC words into his statement, great when you talking to the PC perfect board room .
 
Scottish sheep numbers have declined by 18% in the last 10 years... So don't start blaming them for increasing in numbers. That's just not true.

The hill flocks have declined the most too.
 
Scottish sheep numbers have declined by 18% in the last 10 years... So don't start blaming them for increasing in numbers. That's just not true.

The hill flocks have declined the most too.


Do you know why Tom ??
Blame the cheap import of lamb and mutton, it has killed off the traditional hill farm, doesnt stop RSPB moaning about sheep and deer numbers .
 
I always get suspicious when any media report manages to conflate different factors. Why does this report headline damage to 'ancient woodland' yet then segues into a load of blurb about 'native woodland'? I assume that FC Scotland know that they are two entirely different things - or does that not matter when you are pursuing a particular agenda?
 
Pursuing an agenda?
Just interested in money!

all blurb bout promoting bio diversity
Rubbish
money ! That's it
are they a public owned / government owned ??

access should be for us all via a scheme of some kind
mountain bikers get it ok we get nowt

paul
 
Forestry commission just looking for public approval to kill more deer & make more money

maybe I'm just too cynical as I think deer have been hit too hard in some areas


Paul

Running the Wildlife Ranger teams costs the FC twice as much as they get from carcass revenue. And it's diminishing returns. Just don't think making money is the reason.
 
Didn't mean to make money from carcasses
meant wipe out deer that damage the trees , the "product"

they just seem hell bent on shooting deer clean in.

if it's brown ... It's down
 
Didn't mean to make money from carcasses
meant wipe out deer that damage the trees , the "product"

they just seem hell bent on shooting deer clean in.

if it's brown ... It's down

Its control. The same as shooting pigeons on newly sown peas. Its going to get worse. Scotlands bouncing with deer and all the trees which were planted 40 or so years ago are ready to be harvested and it all has to be re-planted and that costs 2k per hectacre. Remember on a forestry permision we pay to control deer. Its a bit different from a nice wee farm which we can apply deer management to and enjoy some nice leisure stalks on.


Nutty
 
Its control. The same as shooting pigeons on newly sown peas. Its going to get worse. Scotlands bouncing with deer and all the trees which were planted 40 or so years ago are ready to be harvested and it all has to be re-planted and that costs 2k per hectacre. Remember on a forestry permision we pay to control deer. Its a bit different from a nice wee farm which we can apply deer management to and enjoy some nice leisure stalks on.


Nutty
U got it in 1 bud??
 
Its control.

I think that is the bottom line but I'm not at all convinced that the FC are pulling the strings as I suspect there are others out there with a much more loony agenda.

In terms of sheep numbers my experience is that the decline in numbers has in part been down to a change in how the subsidy, it is now more profitable and sensible to keep a few cows, is paid and also an ageing crofting community. It is an awful lot of bother to keep sheep on the moor and croft for a total income of a few hundred quid a year. My experience has been that where sheep numbers have declined the deer numbers and range have increased.
 
The agenda is 're-wilding', they want to get rid of the deer so they do not need managing and then get rid of the stalkers - Re-wild and dont touch it, they control it and expect it to return to ancient forrest. As per local area wildlife trust sites.
K
 
The agenda is 're-wilding', they want to get rid of the deer so they do not need managing and then get rid of the stalkers - Re-wild and dont touch it, they control it and expect it to return to ancient forrest. As per local area wildlife trust sites.
K

Quite right, but even though the presence of large numbers of deer will slow woodland regeneration they are an integral part of the ecosystem and at low density will increase biodiversity in relation to woodlands that have no deer at all.

atb Tim
 
Venison is worth a lot of money and at this time we are still importing .The planned 25% tree cover planned for Scotland is way behind target. The SNH budget is to be cut again by a further 5% FC losses are still up.The deer sector need money from SNH to run .LDNS , ADMG ,and many more. Of coarse there is an agenda the deer sector want a big share of the cash the people playing with there beavers want more cash and the mink culling project that seems never ending want there cash lol.
 
The agenda is 're-wilding', they want to get rid of the deer so they do not need managing and then get rid of the stalkers - Re-wild and dont touch it, they control it and expect it to return to ancient forrest. As per local area wildlife trust sites.
K

What if, the "agenda" is the depletion of the rights of owners? Big owners make soft targets for big socialists.

If re-wilding truly was the agenda the approach would not be piecemeal centred on deer it would be an holistic one taking all wildlife and man into account in a balanced way with the electorate having a direct say in the actions. There is no balance only the insidious chipping away at rights, without consulting the electorate.

Those who don't own anything may seem greatly in favour and those who only own their own homes may think it doesn't affect them... both these groups need to wake up. State control, surreptitiously, brought about by sincere, dedicated and unelected individuals is not a democratic process.
 
Removing all the politics and hidden agendas (real or imagined), I think there are several things that need to be considered:

1. There is fairly good reason to believe that, over much of Scotland, the deer population is higher than would be optimal. This is both from the perspective of maximising the quality of the animals shot by us, and from the perspective of anyone attempting to re-grow forest.

2. For many estates (possibly the majority), the economics of hind culling do not add up, so they tend not to shoot as many as would probably be optimal. So the population tends to grow.

3. In the very long term, it would actually be in our interests (as stalkers) for the populations to be radically reduced for a period, allowing forest re-growth. Then allowing the population to grow again, but in woodland rather than open moor. The available evidence tends to suggest that this would increase the quality of the beasts (meat weight and antler size).

Now re-introducing some the politics...

SNH et al are conviced that the deer population needs to be reduced. They are probably right (though maybe for the wrong reasons). The very simple fact id it that, if we (stalkers, estates etc) are not seen to be making concerted and effective efforts to reduce the deer population, the government will become more proactive with regard to legislation and dictating culling plans, possibly moving toward doing it themselves or taking deer into public ownership.

So it is in our very best interests to forestall moves by the government by finding ways to alter the prevailing attitude toward management on private estates, and to be seen to be reducing the deer population. Quite simply, if we don't do it, they will - and we will lose out, very badly.
 
Back
Top