Old Pultney
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the reminder, sounds a great initiative, will make sure I down load their book.
I’d be happy with the humane annihilation of muntjac but an impossible task.
UK Government Launches UK Deer Management Strategy Consultation
- Thread starter wytonpjs
- Start date
I’d be happy with the humane annihilation of muntjac but an impossible task.
Sorry I didn't answer your question first time.
You need everything sorted before you start.
1. A signed letter from the land owner asking for this to be done.
2. Work out what you are going to do with them.
3. Cull records for proof that you have tried to sort the problem in season.
4. Proof the deer are causing the damage.
5. Proof non lethal means have been tried.
6. Only shoot them whilst in the act of damaging the crop. ( Not in the woods next door)
That's all I can think of at the moment but remember it's for you to defend yourself that it was truly necessary if law get involved. I would get all the necessary in a folder before even thinking about pulling the trigger.
Maybe circumstances in England might be a little different than in the Highlands.
What kicked this off apparently is the England Trees Action Plan. England Trees Action Plan 2021 to 2024
We are therefore developing a deer management strategy, as we committed to do in the England Tree Action Plan. The strategy will aim to ensure that new and existing woodlands are resilient, sustainable and that wild deer populations do not cause unacceptable levels of impact to them. As part of this work, we are reviewing the evidence base, current barriers to effective management, relevant legislation, regulation and incentives as well as developing sector capacity, skills and markets. While seeking to increase the effectiveness of management, we will maintain high standards of animal welfare, humaneness, and public safety.
The design of proposals for the strategy have been guided by the broad consensus across all stakeholder audiences from the England Tree Strategy Consultation in 2020, that the deer population is a major challenge to protecting and improving our trees and woodland. All agreed that long-term sustainable solutions are required to ensure that an action plan for trees, woodland and forestry is successful in its aims.
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
aye i kow about that act.
But wot i was reffering to was really the oppisate MAFF could come onto ur land to control rabbits/ragwort even if u owned it and didn't want them there or to kill the rabbits and charge u for it..
Really they should be excercising there powers to control himalayan balsam and jap knotwood not to mention greys, but thats completely of topic
I am not aware that proof of non lethal methods, e.g. fencing, is relevant. Agreed re cull records, records on unproductive outings, evidence & evaluation of damage and culling the same species in the area of damage. The other aspect would be welfare but that would only be in the case of orphaning fawns, not in your cases of males. All of that is record keeping to show that you are doing it for good reason.
Given the above, Section 7 should be OK. Regarding the matter of game dealers potentially not taking carcasses out of season - I think this consultation is a good opportunity to ask for clarity via organizations and individual responses.
The situation you describe, @Pete6.5 , highlights the need for landscape scale co-operative management over all land-uses and, again, this consultation is an opportunity to press Defra for support.
Amendments to the deer seasons should be made for good reason to improve deer management nationally and any local issues that may arise from changes are likely to be down to other deer management issues. I am strongly in favour of fallow buck season being 1 April-31 October. Any overlap with the doe season will potentially lead to failure of this whole exercise.
I would support extending the fallow doe season to the end of April at least but at the moment it is not a topic being consulted on and I wonder if it is a battle worth fighting at this stage. Do you think it is winnable at the moment?
Would you like to expand on the 'mandatory training No older stalkers have hands on experience'? Is there an odd comma or full stop missing?
Everyone is allowed their opinion but as Ive said before the best bit about male and female fallow being in season together is that when you're on a roll and they just stand all you have to do is check safety and then keep putting them on the deck. And as I also said I have ground with only bucks on it and it would be a nightmare to work under sec 7
bottletopbill
Well-Known Member
Why should any one be forced to DSC1/2 just to shoot yes many have years of shooting behind them.
Not just come out of a classroom and think they know best.
Not just come out of a classroom and think they know best.
StephenToast
Well-Known Member
You used the word "Should" personally if I was exercising sec 7 "should" isn't enough for me.
From a welfare point of view there is no reason not to shoot males all year round. Ironically the time when males are at their lowest, and dopiest and probably when their welfare is the worst it will be is during the rut, and yet "stalkers" go ga ga for it.
Why is it that it's fine for me to shoot half a dozen roe does and kids stood in a field in winter but I have to leave the adult buck that is inevitibly standing there gormlessly looking at me to wander around browsing and fraying my hedge rows as they flush until April?
I don't buy the argument that being able to shoot males all year round will lead to less does being shot. irresponsible deer managers will continue to be irresponsible sure, but why restrict responsible ones?
Is the doe season extension winnable now? It's as winnable as it will ever be. How long ago was the last ammendemnt to the deer act? Might be a decade or more befire this is revisited. I'm dissapointed the question hasn't been asked. There is no welfare issue with shooting does/hinds in April or even early May. Once again. Leave it up to shooter discretion.
Would be interested to know what numbers and where are predicated to need culling over say a decade and the male female ratio, and who is doing the counts to base figures on if no regulating body with boots on the ground to have a accurate picture and impartial.
Are deer management groups going to be formed with cull figures set or is land owner ship that fragmented only the larger players can be regulated, or just a case of there is to many oopps , better shoot some, but how?
Are deer management groups going to be formed with cull figures set or is land owner ship that fragmented only the larger players can be regulated, or just a case of there is to many oopps , better shoot some, but how?
StephenToast
Well-Known Member
In reality I imagine... I've got too many... Oops better shoot them.... Day and Night.... Summer and winter....
The greatest effect that will have for me is being able to displace deer as much as actually reducing the population. Especially with fallow and red.
Sounds like a plan and every little helps where crop damage ongoing with the big boys, wonder if everyone gets on board in terms of local land ownership they end up behaving like wood pigeons with large flocks been knocked from pillar to post, bang, bang, gone and so on certainly works if everyone takes bite in the short term in displacement as long as no weak links that harbour large numbers as now. Interesting times ahead for the southern counties deer numbers and land ownership.
Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
I tried that once, absolute carnage, people couldn’t be bothered because they wouldnt bust a gut for £1/kg!
Then you get a hole for them to hide in!
On top of that land owners who don't want them shot!
This list goes on and on
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
You only need look North of the border to see that
a) the shooting of males on sight does nothing in terms of overall deer population reduction, but devastates traditional deer management practices and the socio-economic values of same over areas where neighbouring interests are not secured by deer-proof perimeter fencing,
b) government agency types are too dim/uncaring/insincere to recognise the above, and
c) being seen to be doing something - shooting males is easy, is felt (erroneously) by those in positions of authority over these matters (ie ALL other considerations viewed as of secondary importance, including employment and downstream activity/economics) to be better than nothing - demonstrably wrong, as if they were sincere they would at least grasp the basic tenet of deer populations being dictated by the number of breeding potential females.
Nowhere else in Western Europe are deer so mindlessly mismanaged, and we taxpayers foot the bill for such idiocy.
Idiots driving around in the dark banging away at deer only serves to make the whole job a lot more difficult, turning them into ghosts, and educating them into finding the places and times where and when it is safe - it’s been tried up here for years and has absolutely failed to deliver the desired outcome.
Id like to know adequate commercial insurance wasnin place for night shooting with a guide...Glad to see some one agrees with me on question 2/14/19/21
What is the opinion of professional stalkers about night shooting with clients as i was not sure
Personally Id night shoot only on ground I was extremely familiar with.
Hayduke
Well-Known Member
They see us as part of the problem. These 'consultations' are usually a foregone conclusion.
They seek to introduce more barriers to deer management - mandatory qualifications, non lead, more bureaucracy and form filling. Not make it easier. The 'deer managers' who taught me the most and had the best field craft didn't have a DMQ between them.
As for the basic premise "we have two million deer in the UK" is a finger in the air and guess nonsense, they really have no idea. Some of the southern counties have big herds of fallow that we should do better to get to grips with, and muntjac expansion is a problem. But there are also large areas that don't have or have too few of our native deer.
Overstretch, more authority and another stick to hit us with. Divide and rule to drive a wedge between landowner and stalker. Same old "If it's red it's dead, if it's brown it's down" from them.
They seek to introduce more barriers to deer management - mandatory qualifications, non lead, more bureaucracy and form filling. Not make it easier. The 'deer managers' who taught me the most and had the best field craft didn't have a DMQ between them.
As for the basic premise "we have two million deer in the UK" is a finger in the air and guess nonsense, they really have no idea. Some of the southern counties have big herds of fallow that we should do better to get to grips with, and muntjac expansion is a problem. But there are also large areas that don't have or have too few of our native deer.
Overstretch, more authority and another stick to hit us with. Divide and rule to drive a wedge between landowner and stalker. Same old "If it's red it's dead, if it's brown it's down" from them.
Last edited:
Pretty much agree.
To what extent is guided stalking for trophies and income effecting numbers? Lots of established syndicates get outbid and then accompanied stalking business model gets put in place. Fine, IF more deer are shot. I have my doubts.
Id like to see 223/22-250 allowed on larger deer in England and Wales, especially Roe, to align with Scotland. But since this will be focused on non-native species, cant see it. The delays for variations and renewals is having an impact - could easily go 1-1 variations.
As for night shooting, I dont mind it, especially if licensed. I wont be poking around at 2am... but can see merit in 2-3hrs after sunset.
As for minimum standard to shoot deer - Id have to agree. A little bit of regulation if other areas relax isnt necessarily a bad thing, and DSC1 is easy, DSC2 is highly achievable. Enforcement is the issue, and Im not a fan of another govt quango though some would clearly like to get on the taxpayer gravy train with their preferred hobby. What I dont want to seenis Mr Clipboard going round stating landowners need to cull x deer per year. We know where the problem areas are and it really is down to bad management (and possibly the pay to play model).
Gamedealer gluts-it is going to happen and the price will be low. So low it will be a disincentive, especially with NLA. With the cost of living issues only going to get worse Id like to think venison was a good option, but it is marketed as higher end and price in retail.
I suspect a lot of deer will be petfood.
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
Are u sure syndicates are being out bid by private commercial stalkers?
I'd say north of the border the rates syndicates are paying are far higher than a commercial individual could pay and still make a profit with his overheads and time.
Infact i'm pretty sure individuals are getting ground and feel its more profitable just to throw a syndicate on, money for shuffling a few forms about.
No early mornings and late nights chasing bucks, esp in this area where very few good heads/trophy class animals so not great money
Im sure it goes both ways but my little syndicate had managed a WT area for years very effectively. We didnt pay and a financial offer was made during our lease. We left the roe as they are in tiny numbers in this area and that is what WT wanted. Muntjac and CWD were hammered. We have retained one area from next door farmer. Im led to believe the WT area was taken on by a well known commercial operation. Now we get overspill on to the farm from the area we used to manage.
If a good commercial outfit is outbid by a syndicate who dont turn up and dont take deer in the numbers required it should be part of the lease the landowner can take action.
The only way I can see deer numbers being drastically reduced and maintained is to put a bounty on them. That way people will spend more time out after them. Night shooting/out of season would only be a temporary fix
Similar threads
