I don't recall there being any proposal in the document to the effect that "carcasses would be strewn across the UK countryside in various states of decomposition", or even that there would be a policy to "eradicate" bambi. I think that using those kind of terms in your response is counterproductive.
UK Government Launches UK Deer Management Strategy Consultation
- Thread starter wytonpjs
- Start date
Nimrod1960
Well-Known Member
Each to his own but the “narrative” I was alluding to is not that of Government or the Deerstalker but rather an unhelpful media who wouldn’t shrink from such a strap line if thought to help shift print.
Similarly, leaving deer carcasses to rot where they fall is not a proposal of Government or most Deerstalkers but it could be an unintended consequence if managing the anticipated increased cull figure is not fully thought through and acted upon.
The thrust of all my replies was to make clear the need for Government investment in the sector and to include grants to assist small estates with setting up on-site processing larders in accordance with Best Practice and FSA sign off.
As I stated elsewhere, I’m not relying on BASC or the BDS to convey my views and if they and the SD don’t like them that’s tuff titty!
K
Ps: I wasn’t overly-prescriptive in suggesting what scope mounts for a safe thermal night shooting setup would be acceptable!
Last edited:
Suspect those doing the culling will have their own plans in place for extraction and disposal, those that chose not to shoot for financial reasons probably have it done for them in places so matters not.
Would be nice to furnish the worthy with suitable mounts perhaps for free after achieving cull targets, I hear conetrol are favoured by some.
Would be nice to furnish the worthy with suitable mounts perhaps for free after achieving cull targets, I hear conetrol are favoured by some.
Response submitted today.
What worries me most about the consultation is the lack of any real detail regarding many of the proposals. Did I miss something, and is there more detail to be found outside of what's on the Consultation page itself?
Night shooting, for example, is held up as being of particular use "where deer have become nocturnal in areas of increased public access", but surely this is both species and geography dependent? Muntjac - who seem to come across as a particular species of concern in the consultation - are notably gregarious, and I frequently see them during the day on the roads in and around Oxford. Similary roe have hardly become nocturnal round here. Perhaps they are thinking of fallow, though even with those there are areas I drive through where large herds of fallow are currently sunning themselves in broad daylight. As a result, the proposal to open up night shooting seems to be something of a blunt instrument. I wonder what vested interests have been pushing DEFRA for this?
As I mention above, the poor muntjac seems to be particularly maligned. No details are provided as to what they might mean, exactly, by "more effective control of the invasive species"? Would this be the resurgence of the old style deer drives? Or permitting the use of shotguns (where, presumably, they will also require the use of non-toxic shot)? Or are they suggesting something else entirely??
Mandatory training seems an odd proposal at the same time as they are seeking to have more deer culled. And what training, exactly, would meet the proposed minimum standard?
As to the wild venison market, why is there nothing in the consultation about increasing the demand side of the equation? How about having properly funded local co-operatives that could supply venison to schools, hospitals, council facilities, food banks, etc? Is venison on the menu in DEFRA's own offices (and those of other Government agencies)? If not, why not?? If we don't address things like that, all that will happen is that the venison market will once again be flooded with excess supply.
All in all, it seems a very poorly planned consultation, and one can't help but come away thinking this may well have been done on purpose.
What worries me most about the consultation is the lack of any real detail regarding many of the proposals. Did I miss something, and is there more detail to be found outside of what's on the Consultation page itself?
Night shooting, for example, is held up as being of particular use "where deer have become nocturnal in areas of increased public access", but surely this is both species and geography dependent? Muntjac - who seem to come across as a particular species of concern in the consultation - are notably gregarious, and I frequently see them during the day on the roads in and around Oxford. Similary roe have hardly become nocturnal round here. Perhaps they are thinking of fallow, though even with those there are areas I drive through where large herds of fallow are currently sunning themselves in broad daylight. As a result, the proposal to open up night shooting seems to be something of a blunt instrument. I wonder what vested interests have been pushing DEFRA for this?
As I mention above, the poor muntjac seems to be particularly maligned. No details are provided as to what they might mean, exactly, by "more effective control of the invasive species"? Would this be the resurgence of the old style deer drives? Or permitting the use of shotguns (where, presumably, they will also require the use of non-toxic shot)? Or are they suggesting something else entirely??
Mandatory training seems an odd proposal at the same time as they are seeking to have more deer culled. And what training, exactly, would meet the proposed minimum standard?
As to the wild venison market, why is there nothing in the consultation about increasing the demand side of the equation? How about having properly funded local co-operatives that could supply venison to schools, hospitals, council facilities, food banks, etc? Is venison on the menu in DEFRA's own offices (and those of other Government agencies)? If not, why not?? If we don't address things like that, all that will happen is that the venison market will once again be flooded with excess supply.
All in all, it seems a very poorly planned consultation, and one can't help but come away thinking this may well have been done on purpose.
Totally agree and it’s why I declined to answer certain questions. I did however explain that far more detail was required.
K
I'm the same with fallow. I do the odd one for landowners or my freezer that's it. I would want paying to manage any of the smaller species
It's also interesting that in the online form, they are only asking for more information if you disagree. They're getting comments to go with all my strongly agrees anyway. But it makes you wonder if this is basically lip service or a screening to decide what topics to consult on in more detail in the future.
bottletopbill
Well-Known Member
Steve do we have any small ones around your area
Hayduke
Well-Known Member
That’s the idea.
They harbour up where they aren’t bothered, and good luck trying to challenge someone’s right in England to cull or not cull on their own land. I can imagine the headlines when the government paid guns go in, and thus the theory of ‘landscape scale deer management’ falls apart.
A clear contradiction, another barrier to entry and deer management that they put in the way. As is the push to copper ammo, and implement ever greater levels of bureaucracy.
Recreational and amateur stalkers are an inconvenience, to undermine the relationship between stalker and landowner plan.
Yes, my point being that it's counterproductive for us to be writing their strap lines for them!
The scenarios you allude to weren't in the document, so why introduce them? You're just giving away sound bites to the opposition.
You already can shoot them out of season if they are damaging crops!
No, not the ground game act, the Pests Act 1954
Section 1 of the Pests Act 1954 places a continuing obligation on occupiers of land in a rabbit clearance area (that is, the whole of England and Wales except the City of London, the Isles of Scilly and Skokholm Island), to kill or take any wild rabbits living on or resorting to their land, unless they can demonstrate that it is not reasonably practicable to do so. In the latter case they have an obligation to prevent the rabbits from causing damage elsewhere by, for example, fencing them in with rabbit-proof fencing. These obligations are continuing obligations and action to control rabbits should be taken whenever it becomes necessary to do so.
See my post above and it is still enforced, if you Google there is a form to fill out to complain about rabbit damage
Yes, and an awful lot more could and probably would be shot in daylight if those engaged in ‘deer management’ had the wherewithal to handle/process greater numbers.
I think Norfolk Deer Search summed up one of the key issues (post #144 ) and allied challenges far better than my attempt to.
K
baguio
Well-Known Member
Good point. How often do we read on here "Guide X's permissions are full of deer, including lots of trophies" Those deer are leaking out of that permission and filing the rest of the countryside. That's what is causing this whole problem!
sikamalc
Administrator
I have to say, with no disrespect intended, that this remark is the biggest joke I have heard for a long time. There are areas where NO deer are shot. Like the gold course neighboring one small area I have, which is also adjacent to an 800 acre Forestry commission wood, where NOTHING to my mind is being done. Nothing to see 50 to 60 Fallow on there early in the morning. To pin the blame on any professional or semi professional deer stalker for allowing the deer to infect the surrounding areas is absolute rubbish.
bottletopbill
Well-Known Member
Wadhurst as some large areas of land and the owners say No to shooting allowed and other parts welcome control. Nothing to do with professional or amateur stalking we all play our part in control.
Last edited:
Given we hear a lot on this site about the likelyhood of a nation-wide cull undertaken by Government vetted and engaged “contractors”, how is this to be coordinated throughout the Home Counties where there are multiple parcels of land and given of owners/custodians that will be outraged at the thought of uninvited armed deer slayers roaming their meadows and paddocks?
K
Similar threads
