Nature agency culls Highland estate deer after landowner failure

[Pete6.5]

In the thread about the sex ratio that people shoot, there were a couple of responses that suggested they thought they were shooting more does than bucks but counting up the records, it was nearer 50/50. For fallow, I thought I was shooting 10% bucks but counting up it's nearer 30%.

Some examples of why male deer (fallow) are shot before females.
1. The obvious antlers on there head
2. Longer season
3. Male deer are more likely to stand their ground.
4. For some reason when male deer are in a group they are less likely to run away on the first shot (especially young male deer)
5. After the rut and after they regain their energy they feed harder and are more active.
6. During the rut they are particularly stupid (other things on their mind)
7. When in a mixed herd they catch the stalkers eye and you are more likely to pick it to be shot
8. When in a mixed herd and they ball up more often than not the does ball up tighter and a male deer is more likely to stand slightly away from the group
9. When a group come out a stalker will often pick a male deer over a female one because it has a bigger body ( more valuable at the game dealer)
10. Some stalkers bias the male deer because they know that shooting them doesn't really effect the amount of deer they have on their ground year to year. ( And let's face it most stalkers want more deer to shoot not less)
11. The male fallow deer come into season before the does so the general herd is less educated
12. Only male deer are in season when crops are at there most vulnerable (at harvest ) and you are much more likely to get a call from the farmer moaning about the damage they are causing
13. Only male deer are in season when the day has drawn out enough to shoot before and after work
14. People are more likely to go out in the spring or autumn with better weather rather than crappy cold wet winters day
15. Stalkers are more likely to go out in the rut because of the enjoyment of the spectacle
16. The only gap in the fallow season means as you get keener because nothing is in season when they do come back in you can only shoot male deer

Now I'm sure there are more reasons but these are some that I wrote up in a report.

 

[David Barker]

Situations like Loch Choire will remain overall only a very occasional thing, simply because a Section 8 control enforcement is (quite rightly) the ultimate step that ScotGov can take. A landowner is given plenty time (years in many cases) to resolve the issue before Nature Scot can enforce an outside cull. As stated previously the oft-quoted "overpopulation problem" is a very ambiguous statement. It is a carefully massaged figure that suits ScotGov in it's crusade against absentee-Lairds (a hatred based mainly on xenophobia and political ideology) and self-titled "conservation NGO's" desperate for subsidy and the chance to virtue signal. In most areas in Scotland the Red numbers remain within the original target-densities (something that has annoyed ScotGov so much that they have drastically reduced the target density, using reforestation as an excuse)

The major problem in Scotland now is Roe. The population has exploded in the southern and central areas, allowing the Shortbread Senate to declare that we are being overrun by "deer" (generically).

The problem with knocking back Roe numbers is twofold. Firstly, every farmer now knows that they have a considerable monetary value (in ground rent) because so many people are desperate to have "their own shooting grounds"; and secondly, most recreational stalkers are keen to "maintain their sport", they will simply not shoot the numbers required to have any meaningful impact on a countrywide scale.

Not true the problem in the central belt is driven high by NGO, Local nature reserves, Local Authorities deer policy's and FLS, all do not work to the currnt deer legislation and avoid any hit by government because this is were there voters are and this is were there would be the most flack from the public. Section 8 etc in the industrialised central belt eg Ediburgh now that would be good.

 

[Pete6.5]

And one more in a mixed group when disturbed and they are heading into cover very often it's a male that's last into cover

 

[Pete6.5]

And on the point about the large and maybe problematic deer population is that the laws that we have to follow for the shooting of wild deer were wrote when we had a small and very badly treated population of deer and these laws were designed to help the deer numbers bounce back and ever since have been tweaked but no major changes made to account for their success at breeding.
I'm worried that when these changes are made ( and they are coming) they have let it go to far and the venison market won't cope with the influx of venison and you will get little or no money for your venison and this will be a major disincentive not to shoot big numbers. I've discussed small changes like increasing the hour before and after sunset to test the venison market to say 2 hours before and after sunset rather than a full on night licence to try and feather the venison into market and to give the market time to gear up to the amounts needing shooting.

 

[User00038]

Some examples of why male deer (fallow) are shot before females.

14. People are more likely to go out in the spring or autumn with better weather rather than crappy cold wet winters day

That's a good list for sure. And further to this point, the short days in the doe season mean that recreational stalkers who have 9-5 jobs are never going to be able to get many outings,

I've discussed small changes like increasing the hour before and after sunset to test the venison market to say 2 hours before and after sunset rather than a full on night licence to try and feather the venison into market and to give the market time to gear up to the amounts needing shooting.

I'd agree - an extension to 2 hours before and after would be the most sensible next step. It would make a big difference - and would potentially achieve 5o% (of more?) of the difference of a night licence, without any of the work involved in setting one up and managing it.

 

[Pete6.5]

I'd agree - an extension to 2 hours before and after would be the most sensible next step. It would make a big difference - and would potentially achieve 5o% (of more?) of the difference of a night licence, without any of the work involved in setting one up and managing it.

The cynical person in me agrees with you and what's the point in something without it creating a well paid job or jobs for administrating a licensing system ( where have we seen this before). Common sense is dead and sensible never rules now

 

[Mick9abf]

The matter of scale also needs to be borne in mind: one Grampian estate were obliged to take 1,000 head this year. This was achieved by sustained use of contracted assistance.

If it’s where I’m thinking of there were other ‘issues’ around staff that would have had a large part to play and wouldn’t be too far from your neck of the woods.

 

[Ratel]

In the thread about the sex ratio that people shoot, there were a couple of responses that suggested they thought they were shooting more does than bucks but counting up the records, it was nearer 50/50. For fallow, I thought I was shooting 10% bucks but counting up it's nearer 30%.

Strange that you didn't know the ratio of Fallow you were shooting. We stop on the bucks before the rut and have a total then hit the does as hard as possible, hence we know the exact ratio at any time. Usually end up 75 percent does in our cull.

 

[Island]

Not true the problem in the central belt is driven high by NGO, Local nature reserves, Local Authorities deer policy's and FLS, all do not work to the currnt deer legislation and avoid any hit by government because this is were there voters are and this is were there would be the most flack from the public. Section 8 etc in the industrialised central belt eg Ediburgh now that would be good.

It is true.

That aside I am not sure that I understand what you are trying to say thereafter? There is significantly more land in the Central Belt in private ownership (by orders of magnitude) than there is controlled by NGO's / Nature Reserves / Local Authorities and FLS combined. I know that Flanders Moss (a nature reserve) has been hammered over the last few years in an effort to reduce the numbers of Reds marauding over the surrounding farmland, I have several acquaintancies who shoot swathes of FLS and Privately Managed forestry throughout the Trossachs and north taking large numbers annually. I, and my syndicate, control two forestry areas on behalf of SWL and a further two estates on behalf of the landowners. If you think that the Roe population is high because Governmental and NGO agencies are "not working to current deer legislation" then you are kidding yourself. The problem lies not in large contiguous areas under the control of a single entity but in small parcels of neighbouring land all "controlled" by people with different objectives.

 

[User00038]

Strange that you didn't know the ratio of Fallow you were shooting. We stop on the bucks before the rut and have a total then hit the does as hard as possible, hence we know the exact ratio at any time. Usually end up 75 percent does in our cull.

My message might have been poorly worded.

The exchange was about the value of keeping detailed records, since I doubt that anyone would know off the top of their head the exact sex ratio of their cull to date. I was trying say that if anyone asked me during the doe season what percentage of the deer I'd shot were bucks, my gut feeling would have been about 10%. However, on checking the records at the time, it was nearer 30%. Since then it's now nearer 25%. It still feels like I've shot a higher percentage of does than that - and I wonder to what extent other people's gut feelings vary from their records.

I also keep records of the sex of the foetus, which is nearly 65% female. So that's all good.

 

[Ratel]

My message might have been poorly worded.

I also keep records of the sex of the foetus, which is nearly 65% female. So that's all good.

I don't do that but early on 30 percent were carrying twins, now only 10 percent. I've seen the same in Sika but only ever one set, half grown and following mum.

 

[David Barker]

It is true.

That aside I am not sure that I understand what you are trying to say thereafter? There is significantly more land in the Central Belt in private ownership (by orders of magnitude) than there is controlled by NGO's / Nature Reserves / Local Authorities and FLS combined. I know that Flanders Moss (a nature reserve) has been hammered over the last few years in an effort to reduce the numbers of Reds marauding over the surrounding farmland, I have several acquaintancies who shoot swathes of FLS and Privately Managed forestry throughout the Trossachs and north taking large numbers annually. I, and my syndicate, control two forestry areas on behalf of SWL and a further two estates on behalf of the landowners. If you think that the Roe population is high because Governmental and NGO agencies are "not working to current deer legislation" then you are kidding yourself. The problem lies not in large contiguous areas under the control of a single entity but in small parcels of neighboring land all "controlled" by people with different objectives.

Sorry Island your kidding your self mate. Most of the land across the Glasgow to Edinburgh area is private and is managed. That said all the public agencies in the central belt do not manage deer including FLS. Nature .scot. Sterling or north of sterling Trossach,s. ETC Isnt real the central belt. Now fact! Government Agency's councils local authorities. are not working to legislation across the central belt. We have more deer per acre in most areas than anywhere up north. I was out this morning with a trainer from the BDS to show him an area were deer had caused problems for many years. I took him to seven areas so he could choose all had massive amounts of deer damage including SSSI. All on public controlled land. One area that had a count on it had over 60 deer and was only 100 hec.
What's at play here is politics and a real push at the estates. Like i said can you imagine Nature. scot starting to serve section 8,s on public land across the central belt. If i were a large landowner i would certainly use the facts that public agency are not managing there deer why should they.

I also have lots of friends who shoot deer locally and they do a great job some against the odds as they shoot along side public lands one particular is in Bears den and the deer coming on to the farm land from the areas with no deer control is disgraceful.

 

[User00038]

I don't do that but early on 30 percent were carrying twins, now only 10 percent. I've seen the same in Sika but only ever one set, half grown and following mum.

Interesting. I've seen twice a roe with triplets inside, with the male foetus in the process of being re-absorbed and the females growing on. I've often wondered whether there is a hormonal mechanism for selecting which sex to proceed with. Similarly, I wonder if fallow often start off with twins and then usually select one of them to carry to term. But I've not actually seen fallow twin foetuses with one being re-absorbed.

 

[Ratel]

Interesting. I've seen twice a roe with triplets inside, with the male foetus in the process of being re-absorbed and the females growing on. I've often wondered whether there is a hormonal mechanism for selecting which sex to proceed with. Similarly, I wonder if fallow often start off with twins and then usually select one of them to carry to term. But I've not actually seen fallow twin foetuses with one being re-absorbed.

I used to see a lot of Roe triplets when I stalked on the Cotswolds for Lord D. Mainly in the bigger hardwood areas with plenty of briar understory.
Again when I was keeper on the edge of the Cotswold escarpment it was quite usual. Had a doe that used to have triplets each year in one of my big release pens, had to push her out before I pegged it down. Had Fallow twins twice in a deer park.

 

[MAH]

Part two...
I noticed the on the BBC today.
But it doesn't explain the background rational against* culling.

* I'm' assuming the owner doesn't want them culled, rather than can't be bothered.