Threat to Scottish Syndicates.

[Dan Newcombe]

I don’t think that syndicates will lose out long term because of COVID but in the short term I think there will be contractors brought in the deal with immediate pressure where the lease holders can’t get there as you can’t expect them just to stand and watch the damage.

The lease income is too lucrative to ignore and you still have the option of contractors if numbers are too high

 

[Freeforester]

Deer will murder Doulas fir, it's like a finest wine or whisky for them. Seen non native pines get nobbled too.

They will also eat Sitka if hungry enough. A Coillte friend told me they are having problems in Ireland with deer populations so high that in some areas they are browsing SS. Now if my word isn't good enough for you and that isn't evidence enough, pay my ferry ticket and I will bring back photos .

Anyway, we need non native trees and more of them. Otherwise you'd have nothing to wipe your sweet backside with, print your daily rag and books on, or build our houses out of.

No argument with you re Douglas fir, which isn't being planted in the scale that ss is all over Scotland, and I'm not concerned with or discussing the situation in Eire, where roe are absent. Things must be bad indeed if the red, sika and/or fallow are eating ss in Eire, but show me where it's happening here; I don't know whether messers Andrex have a production facility in Eire, or whether they have nothing 'to go on' or not, but I'm quite sure we will continue to import a variety of products ( - eg 100% of our bananas) post Brexit. I'm not at all advocating the cessation of planting of non-native species here in Scotland, but merely to address the huge imbalance in our forest ecosystems in favour of non-native against native species, especially where proximity of watercourses are concerned, as you will doubtless gather by now; as to the 'volume of vellum' we need should cellulose in the form of sitka be replaced by, eg annual crops of cellulose plants such as hemp, etc I don't have the access to that kind of stats, what I'm suggesting is that we surely should not acidify our waters and soils more than necessary when there are alternatives available which are far less damaging to our land and wildlife.

The mantra of damage by deer is overstated, especially as concerns sitka spruce in Scotland.

 

[Shabz]

No argument with you re Douglas fir, which isn't being planted in the scale that ss is all over Scotland, and I'm not concerned with or discussing the situation in Eire, where roe are absent. Things must be bad indeed if the red, sika and/or fallow are eating ss in Eire, but show me where it's happening here; I don't know whether messers Andrex have a production facility in Eire, or whether they have nothing 'to go on' or not, but I'm quite sure we will continue to import a variety of products ( - eg 100% of our bananas) post Brexit. I'm not at all advocating the cessation of planting of non-native species here in Scotland, but merely to address the huge imbalance in our forest ecosystems in favour of non-native against native species, especially where proximity of watercourses are concerned, as you will doubtless gather by now; as to the 'volume of vellum' we need should cellulose in the form of sitka be replaced by, eg annual crops of cellulose plants such as hemp, etc I don't have the access to that kind of stats, what I'm suggesting is that we surely should not acidify our waters and soils more than necessary when there are alternatives available which are far less damaging to our land and wildlife.

The mantra of damage by deer is overstated, especially as concerns sitka spruce in Scotland.

I don’t understand your point? Are you saying we don’t need to kill deer because they don’t eat Sitka or that we need to plant something other than Sitka? Will we not need to kill deer so that they don’t eat whatever alternative we plant?

 

[David Barker]

I do think FLS will look at this new development (Covid 19) and change there assessment process accordingly. If the damage is high then i am sure FLS will place Rangers on the ground to bring down the numbers.

 

[Cut+Squirt]

I work in forestry and have a lot of involvement contracting in forestry establishment and maintenance.

Although we as stalkers may feel as if we are paying a King's ransom for our stalking leases, in the grand scheme of things it is but pocket shrapnel to most clients.

Foresters and clients are far less interested in your £££s and much more interested in reducing tree damage.

I was working in a woodland recently where we counted 17 roe during the drive into the wood (few miles on forestry track) Despite there being a syndicate on the ground there will be a contractor in there soon.

 

[tattie]

I will stick my oar in and possibly upset a few folk.

With regard to the OPs post and the problems he highlights.

It seems to be a recurring problem but it is a problem created by the person setting up the syndicate!!

I understand the whole Covid thing has put a spanner in the works and it is difficult.

It would always be better to have someone reasonably local to attend to and react to the foresters demands and in a commercial situation that is what usually happens.

But as I have observed over a number of years on here, you see a syndicate advertised and the poster is perhaps from 200-300 miles away and the subsequent replies for filling the posts are from a similar distance from the general syndicate location, ie no local members!

You also have the "Sporting Agent" type, who swallows up vast acreages and syndicates the ground out to lads who don't know each other and who only occasionally make the trip up. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out what happens when these lads are not about!! Therefore the need to have someone local crops up again.

With this in mind I fail to see how the Forestry companies or "Sporting Agent" types are showing due diligence in syndicating ground to lads that are 4 hours away that on the whole will only make a handful of trips a year. also it is possible a percentage of these syndicate members will only interested in shooting heads!!

I do understand that a lot of folk who make the effort to travel a big distance are really keen to get a shot but as a Forester I know well said to me many years ago " We are in the business of growing trees and not providing a wood for deerstalkers to shoot in.

This is I appreciate a difficult situation for all syndicates but the suspicion of having a "local" who may be reasonably close the ground and might get a few more deer than the other syndicate members per season is one you might have to get over for your own peace of mind and the benefit of the syndicate.
Also if the "Sporting Agent" is looking or selecting members from hundreds of miles away you need to see the wood from the trees and ask yourself why?


As the foresters call the shots.

 

[Freeforester]

I don’t understand your point? Are you saying we don’t need to kill deer because they don’t eat Sitka or that we need to plant something other than Sitka? Will we not need to kill deer so that they don’t eat whatever alternative we plant?

It's about the why, and the public perception, of course I'm not saying we don't need to kill deer, deer management is part of woodland or forest management; I'm saying the damage to sitka isn't there, and it's a good thing, because if they did prefer them to other tree species, the whole letting to the highest bidder (who generally isn't the local lad) capable of getting to grips with the females, and thus both the syndicate larks and indeed the 'lone' Ranger might come under much closer scrutiny than presently. Where else might it be felt acceptable where deer are present in large numbers that one man would be thought capable of capably managing such a large area, expect in the NFE? Even deploying contractors hardly makes a dent in the recruitment numbers in many areas.

Like everything, when it comes to syndicates there's good ones and there's others, but it's generally the case that the farther the various members have to travel, the less attention the females tend to get in the short days of winter; nor is this situation helped with professionals often as not expected/tasked to cover over twenty thousand hectares of badly designed cellulose crop, which is where the problem will continue. The total cull in NFE for example, when divided into the total hectarage of deer range they operate over isn't quite so impressive as saying we cull over one third of all deer in Scotland.

We need to remove from, and plant less sitka in riparian zones, for the benefit of both the woodland design and the soil and water quality. The same riparian zones which are coincidentally the best place to get to terms with deer in a forest situation, provided of course they are sensibly designed. If more sitka is felt to be the best way forward, the it will be a case of increasingly assessing damage on everything else, you must paint yourself into a corner by planting stuff (badly) which they don't want to eat. Anyone who has taken a cursory look at how forests are laid out elsewhere in Europe can see that the forests are designed with provision to control and thus manage deer; here this concept is a very slow starter, and particularly so in the NFE, which we all contribute toward. Exclusion of deer by fencing and inappropriate and harmful planting practices only exacerbate the problem, hence the perpetual muddle. Give the ranger a say in how to lay out the forest to best deal with the deer, and you'd find an enormous improvement in the situation; but what then for the forester?

 

[slider]

I work in forestry and have a lot of involvement contracting in forestry establishment and maintenance.

Although we as stalkers may feel as if we are paying a King's ransom for our stalking leases, in the grand scheme of things it is but pocket shrapnel to most clients.

Foresters and clients are far less interested in your £££s and much more interested in reducing tree damage.

I was working in a woodland recently where we counted 17 roe during the drive into the wood (few miles on forestry track) Despite there being a syndicate on the ground there will be a contractor in there soon.

Yeap, the foresters interests are something that many recreational stalkers just don't seem to get.

 

[Tom D]

My suggestion to the OP is to talk to the forest manager / owner or agent, whoever you deal with. They desperately want the deer culled, and they don’t want to have to pay for it so it’s in their interest to help you make the numbers. Why not ask for a letter stating that you are ‘employed’ by them to cull the deer and that when travelling up you are ‘at work’. I think that your lease fees could be perhaps described as ‘carcass fees’ and as such you are paying for the meat rather than the stalking.
im sure with a bit of thought something can be worked out that would satisfy the ‘I’m at work’ requirement.

 

[rem284]

Forest design, access, maintenance of deer lawns and access are key factors to deer control. The more time it takes to recover deer and get them lardered then the less time you have cull more.

Sometimes forestry organisations want a job done and want someone to pay them for doing it. This is ok if all the trees in the area is beyond the age where they are susceptible to damage.

However where there are young trees and deer in any kind of numbers then the cost of the potential damage could easily outweigh any income from "sporting" leases.

 

[camodog]

Thanks everyone for your interesting and varied response to my 'post'.
As regards having a stalker local to the ground, I agree. However, I have been a member of a couple of syndicates in the past, and although not being 'local' to the ground I was fortunate, and keen enough, to stalk the ground on a weekly basis....and shoot deer ! I also took it upon myself to undertake much of, if not all of the maintenance of seats, caravans etc. Despite this, the 'green eyed monster' of envy prevailed amongst the other members who may only visit a couple of times a year. This resulted in my being forced out.
I concur absolutely with the comments regarding planting more various/native woodland/forestry, and planting it in such a way as is sympathetic to and conducive to, the stalking and management of the ground. I stalked an area of forest in the Tweed valley that had been planted in such a manner and it was an absolute joy to stalk. Deer on this ground were much more easily managed than on an area of large blocks of SS.
Although it is very frustrating not being able to visit the syndicate ground over the Border, it is 'not the end of the world' ! I was simply curious as to others thoughts. Realistically it is quite possible that it may well be Easter before any of us are back up there ! The deer will have by then had a full year off, and, the does out of season at that time, what does that say about deer numbers !!!
Thanks again for your replies so far.

Kind Regards,

'Camodog'.

 

[Shabz]

It's about the why, and the public perception, of course I'm not saying we don't need to kill deer, deer management is part of woodland or forest management; I'm saying the damage to sitka isn't there, and it's a good thing, because if they did prefer them to other tree species, the whole letting to the highest bidder (who generally isn't the local lad) capable of getting to grips with the females, and thus both the syndicate larks and indeed the 'lone' Ranger might come under much closer scrutiny than presently. Where else might it be felt acceptable where deer are present in large numbers that one man would be thought capable of capably managing such a large area, expect in the NFE? Even deploying contractors hardly makes a dent in the recruitment numbers in many areas.

Like everything, when it comes to syndicates there's good ones and there's others, but it's generally the case that the farther the various members have to travel, the less attention the females tend to get in the short days of winter; nor is this situation helped with professionals often as not expected/tasked to cover over twenty thousand hectares of badly designed cellulose crop, which is where the problem will continue. The total cull in NFE for example, when divided into the total hectarage of deer range they operate over isn't quite so impressive as saying we cull over one third of all deer in Scotland.

We need to remove from, and plant less sitka in riparian zones, for the benefit of both the woodland design and the soil and water quality. The same riparian zones which are coincidentally the best place to get to terms with deer in a forest situation, provided of course they are sensibly designed. If more sitka is felt to be the best way forward, the it will be a case of increasingly assessing damage on everything else, you must paint yourself into a corner by planting stuff (badly) which they don't want to eat. Anyone who has taken a cursory look at how forests are laid out elsewhere in Europe can see that the forests are designed with provision to control and thus manage deer; here this concept is a very slow starter, and particularly so in the NFE, which we all contribute toward. Exclusion of deer by fencing and inappropriate and harmful planting practices only exacerbate the problem, hence the perpetual muddle. Give the ranger a say in how to lay out the forest to best deal with the deer, and you'd find an enormous improvement in the situation; but what then for the forester?

I don’t think you can compare our forests to those in Europe. Most European forests are in the same type of management that they have been for centuries. Most of our forests have only been there for 50-60 years. Most of Scotland’s Sitka forest is only just into its second rotation. We can’t be criticised for mismanagement if we haven’t yet done any management.
It would be fabulous to convert everything to continuous cover like they do abroad but most of our trees are planted on plough lines in deep peat. It’s not possible to convert the vast majority of it. You can only p1ss with the c0ck you’ve got.

We’ve had the UK forest standard to work to since the mid nineties which goes some way to address the mistakes of the past but we still haven’t got round to getting everything compliant.

The UKFS says that all forests must have a maximum percentage of a single species and there must be a minimum proportion of diverse and native species. It outlines the forest and water guidelines. By the way, removing SS from riparian areas is usually about shade, more trees means colder water. Acidification comes from young trees >15 yo ‘washing’ nitrogen out of the atmosphere. In catchments at risk of acidification, an assessment is done to make sure that the percentage of the catchment covered by trees >15yo is never more than about 30%. A felling licence won’t be granted without this.

I’ve been doing damage assessments on plantation forestry for about 25 years now. I can tell you that deer certainly will not starve to death rather than eat Sitka.
We do need to get (and keep) the numbers down, not so much to protect the Sitka but to protect the diverse species which will never get a chance to grow with current levels of deer populations. The public can either have large culls or diverse woodlands.

My personal opinion of deer management on the NFE is that it’s perfectly adequate but very let down by the absolute lack of management of land around it that is not part of the NFE. Private land owners need to be obligated to manage deer and fined if they fail to do so.

Deer stalkers all speel out the line about how deer have no natural predators and have to be managed but I’ve never met one yet who manages deer like a natural predator does. I don’t think a lynx or wolf ever thought that they might leave a buck because his head might be better next year.

 

[rem284]

I don’t think you can compare our forests to those in Europe. Most European forests are in the same type of management that they have been for centuries. Most of our forests have only been there for 50-60 years. Most of Scotland’s Sitka forest is only just into its second rotation. We can’t be criticised for mismanagement if we haven’t yet done any management.
It would be fabulous to convert everything to continuous cover like they do abroad but most of our trees are planted on plough lines in deep peat. It’s not possible to convert the vast majority of it. You can only p1ss with the c0ck you’ve got.

We’ve had the UK forest standard to work to since the mid nineties which goes some way to address the mistakes of the past but we still haven’t got round to getting everything compliant.

The UKFS says that all forests must have a maximum percentage of a single species and there must be a minimum proportion of diverse and native species. It outlines the forest and water guidelines. By the way, removing SS from riparian areas is usually about shade, more trees means colder water. Acidification comes from young trees >15 yo ‘washing’ nitrogen out of the atmosphere. In catchments at risk of acidification, an assessment is done to make sure that the percentage of the catchment covered by trees >15yo is never more than about 30%. A felling licence won’t be granted without this.

I’ve been doing damage assessments on plantation forestry for about 25 years now. I can tell you that deer certainly will not starve to death rather than eat Sitka.
We do need to get (and keep) the numbers down, not so much to protect the Sitka but to protect the diverse species which will never get a chance to grow with current levels of deer populations. The public can either have large culls or diverse woodlands.

My personal opinion of deer management on the NFE is that it’s perfectly adequate but very let down by the absolute lack of management of land around it that is not part of the NFE. Private land owners need to be obligated to manage deer and fined if they fail to do so.

Deer stalkers all speel out the line about how deer have no natural predators and have to be managed but I’ve never met one yet who manages deer like a natural predator does. I don’t think a lynx or wolf ever thought that they might leave a buck because his head might be better next year.

I agree the lynx or wolf wont think about the "management" of the quality of animals. However I think a single man with the correct attitude and ability will be the most effective predator, when given the correct tools and allowed to get on with it.

I had a local farmer ask me to do some control work. He had had someone doing it but witnessed his efforts. He said "awk I was with him, he seen some deer and started rolling about in the mud trying to get close to it. The deer ran away and all he said was oh they are there for another day". The farmer continue to say "I've got news for him, I don't want them there for another day"

I do think some private forestry are a problem. There is one neighbour to me where absolutely no shooting has been done for about 15 years, prior to this an old guy had the shooting and he didnt do much. It is bursting at the seems with deer. Another neighbour does little control because he wants to have a large number of deer to take a the rich owner out a handful of times a year.

I have noticed an increase in Red deer over the past few years. I noticed them because there were very few on my beat to start with. When I was asked "where are all the Red coming from" I just pointed the finger. This year I have seen more deer than ever. It dosnt seem logical to have someone making every effort he can and neighbours doing nothing or not enough.

 

[Freeforester]

I don’t think you can compare our forests to those in Europe. Most European forests are in the same type of management that they have been for centuries. Most of our forests have only been there for 50-60 years. Most of Scotland’s Sitka forest is only just into its second rotation. We can’t be criticised for mismanagement if we haven’t yet done any management.
It would be fabulous to convert everything to continuous cover like they do abroad but most of our trees are planted on plough lines in deep peat. It’s not possible to convert the vast majority of it. You can only p1ss with the c0ck you’ve got.

We’ve had the UK forest standard to work to since the mid nineties which goes some way to address the mistakes of the past but we still haven’t got round to getting everything compliant.

The UKFS says that all forests must have a maximum percentage of a single species and there must be a minimum proportion of diverse and native species. It outlines the forest and water guidelines. By the way, removing SS from riparian areas is usually about shade, more trees means colder water. Acidification comes from young trees >15 yo ‘washing’ nitrogen out of the atmosphere. In catchments at risk of acidification, an assessment is done to make sure that the percentage of the catchment covered by trees >15yo is never more than about 30%. A felling licence won’t be granted without this.

I’ve been doing damage assessments on plantation forestry for about 25 years now. I can tell you that deer certainly will not starve to death rather than eat Sitka.
We do need to get (and keep) the numbers down, not so much to protect the Sitka but to protect the diverse species which will never get a chance to grow with current levels of deer populations. The public can either have large culls or diverse woodlands.

My personal opinion of deer management on the NFE is that it’s perfectly adequate but very let down by the absolute lack of management of land around it that is not part of the NFE. Private land owners need to be obligated to manage deer and fined if they fail to do so.

Deer stalkers all speel out the line about how deer have no natural predators and have to be managed but I’ve never met one yet who manages deer like a natural predator does. I don’t think a lynx or wolf ever thought that they might leave a buck because his head might be better next year.

I certainly agree that our forests are nothing like European forests, our sitka plantations are environmentally damaging!

I'm guessing you've never taken a visit to the upland sitka plantations here, otherwise you would have witnessed for yourself the repeated trashing of the watercourses emanating within the forest (over four dozen of them), I had the pleasure of the company of our local environment ranger to visit many but not all of these watercourses, she agreed with my assessment of what is here in plain sight, rather than the fine words and empty rhetoric the paying public are fed.

Let us leave it that your assessment is at odds with what can be seen and shown tombe the case on the ground, despite water guidelines being available from, er, HMSO and via local forest offices for around thirty years. Second generation replanting was often as environmentally damaging as the first, and nothing is done to remedy the situation, indeed in some stands here the trees are long overdue for removal, yet still remain in situ, right on top of the burns. All where the wildcat clings on in its last stronghold, in spite of a largely trashed range: value for our money?

It's not been getting much use, that c0ck.

 

[Shabz]

I certainly agree that our forests are nothing like European forests, our sitka plantations are environmentally damaging!

I'm guessing you've never taken a visit to the upland sitka plantations here, otherwise you would have witnessed for yourself the repeated trashing of the watercourses emanating within the forest (over four dozen of them), I had the pleasure of the company of our local environment ranger to visit many but not all of these watercourses, she agreed with my assessment of what is here in plain sight, rather than the fine words and empty rhetoric the paying public are fed.

Let us leave it that your assessment is at odds with what can be seen and shown tombe the case on the ground, despite water guidelines being available from, er, HMSO and via local forest offices for around thirty years. Second generation replanting was often as environmentally damaging as the first, and nothing is done to remedy the situation, indeed in some stands here the trees are long overdue for removal, yet still remain in situ, right on top of the burns. All where the wildcat clings on in its last stronghold, in spite of a largely trashed range: value for our money?

It's not been getting much use, that c0ck.

I don’t really know what you’re saying.
How are the watercourses ‘trashed’? Are you talking about shade or acidification?

I’ve done a lot of work in catchments at risk of acidification in Galloway and totally agree that there are continuing problems with SItka regeneration after restructuring. It’s very difficult to maintain regen free riparian areas in some cases but I don’t know that I would consider them ‘trashed’.

We absolutely need more diversity in our forests, P ramorum in larch should show us that, but we also have to accept the fact that Sitka Spruce pays the bills. Without it, we wouldn’t have a forest industry.

I would personally like to see the numbers adjusted in the UKFS. If a condition of a felling licence was that you had to have 50% diversity, then land owners would take deer management a lot more seriously.

 

[Border]

Can someone give me a quick lesson on scottish/northern english forestry and sitka problems? What issues with watercourses? What is the crop used for, pulp or timber. Only used to how things are here in Scandinavia. TIA.

 

[Dunwaters]

Interesting to note that where sitka spruce is the main timber crop, vanishingly little to no evidence of browsing damage has ever been quantified. The deer would prefer to starve rather than eat them, and did so in large numbers in the winter of 2010/11. Native deer not naturally given to nibbling/nobbling non-native trees

Try finding any papers or evidence of this - good hunting

I’m not sure you’re right about deer starving rather than eat Sitka.
It’s not too long ago that our group were advised that damage was running at an audited 70% of replant in a particular forest in Wicklow.
It’s surrounded on 3 sides by national park and you just can’t empty it.
Sika will damage trees at every stage of development and the population densities are eye watering, up to 60% of the grass crop is going into venison production too, plus disease transmission and RTA’s, It’s a real mess with no likelihood of a solution because of the resistance to allowing hunting in the national park.
I can’t see any changes coming until we get to a crisis point, and that may be too late, herd quality is already in free fall.

 

[Freeforester]

Headwaters of the Corshalloch Burn, nearby. Sufficiently shady?

Can you advise me whether any private interest would be permitted to so 'trash' riparian headwaters?
There's a world of difference between dappled shade (with invertebrate and nutrient advantages), as is seen elsewhere, and here. I won't bore the readers with the rest of the inventory, but you hopefully get the idea. Not sure what age you might say the trees in the second pic might be?

..And yet, they're meant tae gie tae us 'Bio-diversity';
But talk is cheap, upo' their bus; for noo, best 'wait and see'...

 

[Freeforester]

I’m not sure you’re right about deer starving rather than eat Sitka.
It’s not too long ago that our group were advised that damage was running at an audited 70% of replant in a particular forest in Wicklow.
It’s surrounded on 3 sides by national park and you just can’t empty it.
Sika will damage trees at every stage of development and the population densities are eye watering, up to 60% of the grass crop is going into venison production too, plus disease transmission and RTA’s, It’s a real mess with no likelihood of a solution because of the resistance to allowing hunting in the national park.
I can’t see any changes coming until we get to a crisis point, and that may be too late, herd quality is already in free fall.

I'm sure this is the case in Eire, Dunwater, I knew about the problem there back in the '90's when Barry Coad headed up the Coillte Game dept.

I guess you have a problem when a non-native deer tackle and injure non-native trees. This isn't the case in the red and roe range here in Scotland. Might the troubled past be exacerbating the problem with you (the lack of legally held firearms)?

 

[Shabz]

Can someone give me a quick lesson on scottish/northern english forestry and sitka problems? What issues with watercourses? What is the crop used for, pulp or timber. Only used to how things are here in Scandinavia. TIA.

Our silvicultural systems are completely different here, we grow trees on a relatively short rotation. A Sitka rotation here will be 40 years which is probably half (at least) the time of a rotation in Scandinavia. Sitka Spruce is (usually) so well suited to our conditions that it grows twice as fast. It’s frost hardy, relatively unpalatable and will grow with minimal effort by the forester. In short, it’s a safe bet. If you plant 100ha of SS, you’re quite likely to grow at least 80ha of viable product with minimal intervention and minimal risk. The main risk is windblow, so the intention is usually to let the tree get to MMI (maximum mean increment) and then fell it. That is, once it stops growing optimally, we clearfell and replant.
I don’t know much about Scandinavian forests but I think you have much smaller coupes to fell, much longer rotations and much older forests on much more stable ground.
Because we started off with mass expansion of forestry in the way that we did (finding a super fast growing crop and then treating it as you would a field of wheat) we’ve painted ourselves into a corner with what we can do with these forests. We’ve developed a processing industry that relies on uniform, quickly grown Sitka Spruce (which is used predominantly in building but also in paper, biomass etc) and it has shed (or never developed) the ability to process other species.

The silvicultural system that we use and the processing industry (demand for timber) means that we are (historically) driven to produce more and more of the same thing. This has numerous issues. Pests and Diseases are rife when you establish monoculture. A far bigger problem than deer for Sitka is pine weevil. A large clearfell area is ideal for promoting and sustaining very large populations of weevil and we have clearfell areas of 100ha in some parts. There is a risk of acidification of watercourses if too much of the catchment is planted with conifer forests because they take nitrogen out of the air and it washes off them into the watercourses. Too much shading of the riparian areas because of Sitka makes the water too cold and is thought to inhibit the success of fish populations.

I think the main issue with Sitka Spruce forestry is that it’s too profitable. It’s too much of a sure thing and it means that forestry investors want to maximise profits by maximising Sitka. It’s very hard for a forester to persuade a faceless investment company to reduce their profit and risk more of their capital to improve the diversity of their woodland. The investor will just move on to the next forestry company who will fight for every inch of Sitka that they can get. Even on the national forest estate, where diversity is actually very good, there is immense financial pressure to make profits.

As for how deer management fits into the picture, deer are a very immediate problem. You’ll have a forest sit for 30 years, accumulating a deer population because it isn’t at immediate risk, notwithstanding sika deer which can make a mess at any stage in the rotation as pointed out above.
The forester will only really ever consider the deer a problem when it comes to felling and restocking. We need to address the underlying high populations on a landscape scale.

Perversely, all of these factors are sometimes used to promote Sitka Spruce as the only thing that should be grown.
Deer will eat anything else that I plant.
I can’t sell any other type of timber.
Sitka Spruce is the only thing I can grow here.
As I said, painted into a corner.