Rationale for different open season dates North and South of the Border?

[Tom_Ov]

A very detailed answer by Mungo above to which can also be thrown in the mix the question as to where are deer hunted with hounds?

The fact that the Private Member's Bill that provoked the 1963 Act was sponsored by BFSS and supported by, amongst others the CLA, Devon & Somerset Staghounds and the New Forest Buckhounds, might also assist to understand why the E & W close seasons are considerably shorter for the males and red deer in particular.

Have a read through of the Hansard entry for the reading of the Bill

Thanks for posting that Orion, I'd never read it before. The reference to Scott Henderson, particularly the line I've puit in red made me smile. Some things never change...

It was largely on that account that matters were brought to a head and the Government decided that some investigation should be made. What the Government did, as hon. Members will remember, was to set up in or before 1951 a Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, a Committee which we know now generally from its chairman as the Scott Henderson Committee. That Committee produced a Report with which many hon. Members will be familiar and which, I think it is not untrue to say, constitutes now a veritable bible on the whole of the subject of wild animals, and among them the deer. A separate section of that Report is concerned entirely with deer in this country, and I think it fair to say that every aspect of the subject was exhaustively investigated.

I do not think that it is necessary that I should go in detail into the recommendations which that Committee made. The last two of them are very germane to this Bill. The first of them was that all methods of deer killing in the nature of snares, traps, poisons, and methods of that kind should be prohibited as constituting an obvious source of unnecessary suffering and cruelty. The second one was that some means must be devised of control over and prevention of long-range shooting at deer.

 

[Orion]

Thanks for posting that Orion, I'd never read it before. The reference to Scott Henderson, particularly the line I've puit in red made me smile. Some things never change...

It was largely on that account that matters were brought to a head and the Government decided that some investigation should be made. What the Government did, as hon. Members will remember, was to set up in or before 1951 a Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, a Committee which we know now generally from its chairman as the Scott Henderson Committee. That Committee produced a Report with which many hon. Members will be familiar and which, I think it is not untrue to say, constitutes now a veritable bible on the whole of the subject of wild animals, and among them the deer. A separate section of that Report is concerned entirely with deer in this country, and I think it fair to say that every aspect of the subject was exhaustively investigated.

I do not think that it is necessary that I should go in detail into the recommendations which that Committee made. The last two of them are very germane to this Bill. The first of them was that all methods of deer killing in the nature of snares, traps, poisons, and methods of that kind should be prohibited as constituting an obvious source of unnecessary suffering and cruelty. The second one was that some means must be devised of control over and prevention of long-range shooting at deer.

Yes, makes you wonder how we ended up being permitted to use telescopic sights in the first place!

 

[TomDeer]

It is a real shame. However, to cheer us up, here's a little pic of paradise from last week:

View attachment 151207

You lucky chap!

 

[Chanty Wrassler]

In my experience, a few of the more devout and rural members of the Church of Scotland . .

The Kirk's adherents are generally described as staunch , those of, ah, the diocesan persuasion are described as devout

 

[Freeforester]

Tells you everything you need to know about the govt direction vis a vis deer: the hind carries the calf, the stag earns the money for the traditional sporting estate; how best to deal with 'excessive deer numbers'? Kill the more economically viable stags at every opportunity to destroy the traditional sporting estate harvest... even a yearling staggie will mate any and all hinds he can - and will - so much for a balanced, ecologically responsible approach, never mind one with an eye to conserving rural jobs in fragile economic areas and times.

They kid themselves and everyone else who'll lend them half an ear that this strategy will work.

For whom?

 

[Island]

Tells you everything you need to know about the govt direction vis a vis deer: the hind carries the calf, the stag earns the money for the traditional sporting estate; how best to deal with 'excessive deer numbers'? Kill the more economically viable stags at every opportunity to destroy the traditional sporting estate harvest... even a yearling staggie will mate any and all hinds he can - and will - so much for a balanced, ecologically responsible approach, never mind one with an eye to conserving rural jobs in fragile economic areas and times.

They kid themselves and everyone else who'll lend them half an ear that this strategy will work.

For whom?

At the risk of sounding somewhat conspirational I genuinely believe that, at the uppermost levels of ScotGov, "balance and ecological responsibility" are not a factor in the slightest. The only three factors, in ascending order of importance, are:

3. Money - Trees are a cash crop and deer damage trees. Fences cost LOTS of money, so let's just kill the deer and have done with it.

2. Prestige - Trees are trendy. Ooooh, look how green we are.

1. The fundamentally ultra-Socialist tendencies of the SNP. - Destroy the traditional economy of the estates (grouse, pheasant, stags, salmon) and you destroy the estates themselves. Take away any economic incentive and you will have a raft of estates being sold / taken back into "public ownership". It might cost the lives of a bunch of deer, and some grouse, and a few fish, and the planetary-rather-rare heather moorland but at least we will be rid of those nasty feudal-overlord estate owners......

 

[stubear]

At the risk of sounding somewhat conspirational I genuinely believe that, at the uppermost levels of ScotGov, "balance and ecological responsibility" are not a factor in the slightest. The only three factors, in ascending order of importance, are:

3. Money - Trees are a cash crop and deer damage trees. Fences cost LOTS of money, so let's just kill the deer and have done with it.

2. Prestige - Trees are trendy. Ooooh, look how green we are.

1. The fundamentally ultra-Socialist tendencies of the SNP. - Destroy the traditional economy of the estates (grouse, pheasant, stags, salmon) and you destroy the estates themselves. Take away any economic incentive and you will have a raft of estates being sold / taken back into "public ownership". It might cost the lives of a bunch of deer, and some grouse, and a few fish, and the planetary-rather-rare heather moorland but at least we will be rid of those nasty feudal-overlord estate owners......

I do agree with this.

Mrs Fish has made it very clear that she wants to break the lairds and knackering their ability to make any money off their estates is a good way of doing it.

 

[Island]

I do agree with this.

Mrs Fish has made it very clear that she wants to break the lairds and knackering their ability to make any money off their estates is a good way of doing it.

And to continue the conspiratorial theme....

Publicly owned land is then handed over to various "conservation charities" (RSPB / JMT et al) to manage and they can then subsequently apply for millions in public grants to carry out their "good work". Hence their support for the moves being made by ScotGov.

The end result? Well, instead of the current Laird footing the bill for the current conservation movements (maintaining heather moorland, higher wader numbers on managed estates, healthy deer herds, increased biodiversity on ground managed for shooting and other such scientifically verified facts) the public (read: you and I) will foot a bill for tens of millions in tax for failed conservation attempts that lead to Scotland being transformed into a tree covered wasteland top-heavy with mangy vermin and sickly predatory species.

But at least we will be rid of those nasty feudal-overlord estate owners...

 

[Moray Outfitting]

Yes Island, I have been saying this for quite a few years now. But I dare the wee weasel to try and tell an Arab land owner to get to F@ck out of Scotland. !!...J

 

[slider]

Publicly owned land is then handed over to various "conservation charities" (RSPB / JMT et al) to manage

The above is fundamentally untrue. I have reasonable knowledge of this sector and know of no publicly owned land that has been "handed over" to conservation charities or anyone else for that matter.

In fact doing so would be totally against the rules laid out I the Public Finance Manual - this lays out that is any publicly owned asset is disposed of then the "seller" must get best value for that asset.

We do have the community right to buy but transfer under this scheme have to be to a registered community group (conservation charities don't qualify) and the asset must be valued by the District Valuer. Admittedly the Community RTB process now allows a discount to be given in certain circumstance, but this has only been available for the last year or so and is rarely more that 10%.

The Community Groups can apply to the Scottish Land Fund for money but that limited and only rarely provided large payments.

Conservation Charities tend to generate funds via specific fund raising activities once a potential purchase has been identified.

 

[CarlW]

The above is fundamentally untrue. I have reasonable knowledge of this sector and know of no publicly owned land that has been "handed over" to conservation charities or anyone else for that matter.

In fact doing so would be totally against the rules laid out I the Public Finance Manual - this lays out that is any publicly owned asset is disposed of then the "seller" must get best value for that asset.

We do have the community right to buy but transfer under this scheme have to be to a registered community group (conservation charities don't qualify) and the asset must be valued by the District Valuer. Admittedly the Community RTB process now allows a discount to be given in certain circumstance, but this has only been available for the last year or so and is rarely more that 10%.

The Community Groups can apply to the Scottish Land Fund for money but that limited and only rarely provided large payments.

Conservation Charities tend to generate funds via specific fund raising activities once a potential purchase has been identified.

I don't think @Island was talking about handing over ownership of the property; but rather outsourcing its management.

Kind regards,

Carl

 

[slider]

I don't think @Island was talking about handing over ownership of the property; but rather outsourcing its management.

Kind regards,

Carl

Don't happen very often either and the public body would need good rational in proving the public benefit of doing so.

 

[CarlW]

Don't happen very often either

Hospitals, prisons, schools, ferries, trains, social services, etc....

 

[slider]

Don't happen very often either and the public body would need good rational in proving the public benefit of doing so.

Yeah grant you that but Island's post was about publicly owned land and conservation charities

 

[CarlW]

Yeah grant you that but Island's post was about publicly owned land and conservation charities

Operationally, 'wild' land is significantly simpler to manage than, say, a prison or a hospital. Why wouldn't Nicola et al outsource its running to a tame conservation charity if they can do it more cheaply and (in her opinion) better than an overstretched FLS, particularly if it carries the added benefit of irritating the toffs?

 

[Primate]

And to continue the conspiratorial theme....

Publicly owned land is then handed over to various "conservation charities" (RSPB / JMT et al) to manage and they can then subsequently apply for millions in public grants to carry out their "good work". Hence their support for the moves being made by ScotGov.

The end result? Well, instead of the current Laird footing the bill for the current conservation movements (maintaining heather moorland, higher wader numbers on managed estates, healthy deer herds, increased biodiversity on ground managed for shooting and other such scientifically verified facts) the public (read: you and I) will foot a bill for tens of millions in tax for failed conservation attempts that lead to Scotland being transformed into a tree covered wasteland top-heavy with mangy vermin and sickly predatory species.

But at least we will be rid of those nasty feudal-overlord estate owners...

Spot on. They will end up lifeless baron moorlands managed by total muppets, just like the RSPB, Peak Park, and National Trust moors in Staffordshire and Derbyshire. All were thriving former shooting estates many years ago. Now just a place for townies to take their dog for a sh!te, and admire the seas of rank heather and abundance of vermin, too many deer and no grouse or waders. Desperately they are trying to claw it back on the quiet employing contractors using keepering techniques in a desperate attempt to reverse their own failures in managing these areas. It's just 1 BBQ away from another Saddleworth. You'll not tell em though. In their eyes they are doing a fabulous job. Depressing but a sign of the times I'm afraid!

 

[slider]

Operationally, 'wild' land is significantly simpler to manage than, say, a prison or a hospital. Why wouldn't Nicola et al outsource its running to a tame conservation charity if they can do it more cheaply and (in her opinion) better than an overstretched FLS, particularly if it carries the added benefit of irritating the toffs?

Probably because the last time "privatisation" of public forest and land was mooted the public , rightly, went ballistic. So would be a vote looser

 

[CarlW]

Probably because the last time "privatisation" of public forest and land was mooted the public , rightly, went ballistic. So would be a vote looser

In @Island 's riff, this is not existing public land we are talking about: it is the stuff that would be mopped up from the collapse of the estates.

The outcry you mention was related to a sell-off; not an outsourcing of its administration.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of this nonsense. However, it is all scarily possible.

For Christians, WWJD (what would Jesus do?) guides their actions. For Nicola, the acronym is WWMD:

"What would Mugabe do?"

 

[Island]

For Christians, WWJD (what would Jesus do?) guides their actions. For Nicola, the acronym is WWMD:

"What would Mugabe do?"

I was thinking more along the lines of "What Would Marx Do"...?

 

[Orion]

I was thinking more along the lines of "What Would Marx Do"...?

Rely on the consensus of his brothers, who would all voice an opinion ........ (apart from Harpo)?