Scottish government accused of leaving young deer starving to death

aris

Well-Known Member


Scottish government accused of leaving young deer starving to death​


By Jamie Johnson 31 August 2022 • 3:53pm


A controversial early cull of female deer ordered by the SNP government's forestry agency will leave orphaned fawns to starve to death, Scotland's gamekeepers have warned ahead of it starting on Thursday.
Peter Fraser, vice chair of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA), said red deer calves and roe fawns between six and 12 weeks old are so small and fragile that they are entirely reliant upon their mothers’ milk and guidance for survival.
Although the marksmen hired to conduct the cull are trained to kill the youngsters before their mothers, he said thick ground vegetation and bracken that can grow more than 6ft tall often conceals them.
He warned this means they will escape being shot but will be left to starve instead, suffering a slow and lingering death.
The official season for shooting female deer starts on Oct 21 but it is the third year government agency Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) has ordered an early cull to try and reduce extensive tree damage.
However, Mr Fraser said the only reason that forest damage was so bad in Scotland was the agency's "mismanagement" and particularly shooting "the wrong animals at the wrong time".

Deer being culled to protect trees​

Around a fifth of Scotland's wild deer population will be culled over the next five years as part of a blueprint to protect up to 150 million trees in national forests and land that FLS has said are vulnerable to damage.
Deer numbers across Scotland have doubled to more than a million since 1990 and the annual economic impact of deer damage on FLS-managed land is estimated at £3 million.
Officials have awarded a five-year tender worth between £25 million to £31 million for 10 regional culling contracts, which will be licensed by government agency NatureScot.
But the SGA said several of the marksmen contracted to carry out the shoots have contacted the organisation anonymously to state they were "uncomfortable" with the policy.
Mr Fraser said: “I have been managing deer a long time and youngsters will be left, no question. In forestry, even in a clearing, you will get one shot and the mother will be off into cover.
"In areas like the west, deer managers will be encountering bracken 6ft or 7ft high regularly. It is very difficult to get deer out of cover like that."

'Wait until fawns can fend for themselves'​

He argued the agency should wait a "few weeks more", until the young deer could fend for themselves, so the cull could be conducted "more effectively, without the animal welfare implications."
Mr Fraser said the extent of the deer damage to forest trees has been caused by the agency cutting the number of full-time wildlife rangers and "indiscriminate culling of males around the year".
When a master buck is killed, he said there is an influx of young bucks challenging for the vacant area, resulting in more damage such as bark stripping.
He contrasted FLS's approach with the management of deer on open hills, where he said the Scottish Government's target of 10 animals per square metre has been achieved in most areas.
An FLS spokesman said: "We are not aware of any evidence ever having been presented to support the assertion that young deer being left to die as a result of our culling operation.
"As responsible land managers we would be amongst the first to encourage anyone with any evidence of best practice not being followed to report this to deer management regulator, NatureScot.”
A NatureScot spokesman said: "Deer welfare is key and NatureScot takes into account the period of greatest welfare risk based on the dependency of young, which in Scotland is the period between Apr 1 to Aug 31."
 
Between £5 million and £6 million being spent per year on culling to prevent £3 million per year of deer damage to trees? How is that justifiable? Or is it just a smoke screen for a policy of getting rid of deer at all costs to put the traditional sporting estates (and their perceived elitism) out of business?
 
And who was saying about killing pregnant does/hinds or does/hinds with fawns at foot all year round on another thread recently.

Already the media have taken this up by the looks of it. One can imagine the public outcry in England should god forbid they make this part of the deer act in future, to try and reduce numbers.
 
Between £5 million and £6 million being spent per year on culling to prevent £3 million per year of deer damage to trees? How is that justifiable? Or is it just a smoke screen for a policy of getting rid of deer at all costs to put the traditional sporting estates (and their perceived elitism) out of business?
There's protection of timber crop, all intertwined with the will of our vile little left wing trolls in Holyrood. So, yet another example of gross mismanagement of the public purse (you're all paying for it, wherever you live in the UK).
 
1. As above:-
“the annual economic impact of deer damage on FLS-managed land is estimated at £3 million.
Eejits Officials have awarded a five-year tender worth between £25 million to £31 million for 10 regional culling contracts, which will be licensed by government agency NatureNot NatureScot.”.

2. Soo - spend £5-£6m per annum for the next five years in culling contracts to save £3m per annum in tree damage. Hmmm.
Meet the new Holyrood Treasury Minister who, building on her recent success in policing matters down sarf, did the sums cos Mrs Krankie was far too busy being ignored…. The lovely, the one and only (thanks be to God), Diane Abacus, taaaarrrrraaaaah!

1661962393021.jpeg
 
I wonder where they could find people who would do deer management for free - or maybe even pay for the privilege 🤔
Aye and I wonder if any be-kilted Diane Abacus types have calculated the lost opportunity costs of culling 20% of the deer population which as well as saving the £5m plus pa could otherwise attract substantial revenue from stalking activity?
But nae - far easier to throw money (which they cannot afford) at “the problem” whilst estates just wither on the vine, Professional Stalkers suffer, estate workers lose their jobs/careers, hotels go bust etc…..
You really couldn’t make it up.
🦊🦊
 
To be realistic, recreational stalkers just wouldn't cut it. They/we are just that, recreational. I wouldn't want a contractor/sub contractor job, even if I did agree with the policy.
Agree - as a one off. But if they actively promoted and encouraged recreational stalking - perhaps they wouldn't have a problem in the first place and/or keep it under control. Kill two birds with one stone - keep deer population under control + increase tourism.
 
Agree - as a one off. But if they actively promoted and encouraged recreational stalking - perhaps they wouldn't have a problem in the first place and/or keep it under control. Kill two birds with one stone - keep deer population under control + increase tourism.
Unfortunately that would go entirely against the grain. They (Scotgov) want zero fieldsport tourism, zero public firearms ownership.
 
"the Scottish Government's target of 10 animals per square metre has been achieved in most areas."

Who will take notice of someone getting it wrong by 1,000,000 times?
 


Scottish government accused of leaving young deer starving to death​


By Jamie Johnson 31 August 2022 • 3:53pm


A controversial early cull of female deer ordered by the SNP government's forestry agency will leave orphaned fawns to starve to death, Scotland's gamekeepers have warned ahead of it starting on Thursday.
Peter Fraser, vice chair of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA), said red deer calves and roe fawns between six and 12 weeks old are so small and fragile that they are entirely reliant upon their mothers’ milk and guidance for survival.
Although the marksmen hired to conduct the cull are trained to kill the youngsters before their mothers, he said thick ground vegetation and bracken that can grow more than 6ft tall often conceals them.
He warned this means they will escape being shot but will be left to starve instead, suffering a slow and lingering death.
The official season for shooting female deer starts on Oct 21 but it is the third year government agency Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) has ordered an early cull to try and reduce extensive tree damage.
However, Mr Fraser said the only reason that forest damage was so bad in Scotland was the agency's "mismanagement" and particularly shooting "the wrong animals at the wrong time".

Deer being culled to protect trees​

Around a fifth of Scotland's wild deer population will be culled over the next five years as part of a blueprint to protect up to 150 million trees in national forests and land that FLS has said are vulnerable to damage.
Deer numbers across Scotland have doubled to more than a million since 1990 and the annual economic impact of deer damage on FLS-managed land is estimated at £3 million.
Officials have awarded a five-year tender worth between £25 million to £31 million for 10 regional culling contracts, which will be licensed by government agency NatureScot.
But the SGA said several of the marksmen contracted to carry out the shoots have contacted the organisation anonymously to state they were "uncomfortable" with the policy.
Mr Fraser said: “I have been managing deer a long time and youngsters will be left, no question. In forestry, even in a clearing, you will get one shot and the mother will be off into cover.
"In areas like the west, deer managers will be encountering bracken 6ft or 7ft high regularly. It is very difficult to get deer out of cover like that."

'Wait until fawns can fend for themselves'​

He argued the agency should wait a "few weeks more", until the young deer could fend for themselves, so the cull could be conducted "more effectively, without the animal welfare implications."
Mr Fraser said the extent of the deer damage to forest trees has been caused by the agency cutting the number of full-time wildlife rangers and "indiscriminate culling of males around the year".
When a master buck is killed, he said there is an influx of young bucks challenging for the vacant area, resulting in more damage such as bark stripping.
He contrasted FLS's approach with the management of deer on open hills, where he said the Scottish Government's target of 10 animals per square metre has been achieved in most areas.
An FLS spokesman said: "We are not aware of any evidence ever having been presented to support the assertion that young deer being left to die as a result of our culling operation.
"As responsible land managers we would be amongst the first to encourage anyone with any evidence of best practice not being followed to report this to deer management regulator, NatureScot.”
A NatureScot spokesman said: "Deer welfare is key and NatureScot takes into account the period of greatest welfare risk based on the dependency of young, which in Scotland is the period between Apr 1 to Aug 31."
"the Scottish Government's target of 10 animals per square metre" Ye Gods, you really have got a problem up there! :oops:
 
Hmmm. Sort of straying off the the thread a little but let’s let go the sides for a moment….
Soooo 20% reduction of the national herd - quoted as 1,000,000 beasts so let’s say equals 200,000 to be culled over five years so let’s say 40,000 to be shot per annum. If the mid-point of £5-6m p.a. culling cost is used that works out at £137:50 per shot beast net cost to the taxpayer - i.e. presumably without any return on carcass value(?). Deep breath, I have no idea of the number of stalkers using Scotland p.a. but let’s say 5,000 p.a. Sooo by simple arithmetic each shooter would have to shoot 8 beasts p.a. If only 2,500 stalkers then 16 beasts and so on…. With me so far? Now then (on a roll here) - let us move to a utopian position whereby there were no charges for beasts shot anywhere rather the only financial outgoings were outing fees, accommodation, travel etc… which are constants in both the current and utopian position, what would be the impact? My head is hurting already but there is an immediate saving of £5.5m p.a.; charges for shot animals would disappear and I suspect the number of people engaging in stalking would increase significantly. Downsides of course would be loss of revenue per beast shot charges to Estates and Professional Stalkers so outing fees would need to be increased but by how much? Running out of steam now but there are bound to be many other angles many of which will require taking a broader view on the entire culling initiative.
Class discuss, helmet on - incoming!
🦊🦊
 
I asked this question on cost per beast to the public purse of a sub contractor just yesterday, and their estimated figure in reply was well in excess of £137.50.
 
I used to live in Zambia and in the early 1990’s was serious about making my life in that part of the world. I chose not too, mainly because of the ineptitude and political corruption and basically have to use brown paper envelopes to get anything done. So I came back to the UK.

Fast forward to today the only real difference is that our politicians and agencies just speak with different accents.

I have a friend who is a Procurator Fiscal. She has looked into a number of the government agencies and her view is that they are all either incompetent at best, or fundamentally self serving and corrupt or very much a mafia. Challenge is getting someone prepared to shine a light and for sufficient whistle blowers to provide evidence. However if you whistle blow that is then the end of your career.
 
I think one of the biggest stumbling blocks regarding allowing recreational stalkers to help with the cull on FLS ground is the members of the public who use the forests for their forms of recreation.
 
Back
Top