National wild venison standard

[VSS]

Spot on, it would disadvantage hobby stalkers

Sticking my neck out here, but do think that might be the aim?
The UK has a deer problem. Government realises that. Deer "management" on private land is all in the hands of part-time amateurs. Force those amateurs out of the picture and you're well on the way to controlling all deer management.....

 

[big ears]

Sticking my neck out here, but do think that might be the aim?
The UK has a deer problem. Government realises that. Deer "management" on private land is all in the hands of part-time amateurs. Force those amateurs out of the picture and you're well on the way to controlling all deer management.....

By a QUANGO called?



Wait for it!





An initiative on deer management




Or




The Deer Initiative

 

[devon deer stalker]

By a QUANGO called?



Wait for it!





An initiative on deer management




Or




The Deer Initiative

I knew you would get there in the end

 

[baguio]

And those amateur stalkers holding 1000's of acres but only shooting a few deer per year who will only have themselves to blame if they lose the lot. Our deer population isn't how it is because those people are shooting too many, that's for certain!
The deer density around my way dictates that any stalker managing more than a 1000 acres of mixed land properly on their own is likely to be very busy and have quite a few deer to shift. If they hold the stalking on several thousand acres they're not managing it properly unless they're at it every morning and every night which few amateur stalkers are!

 

[big ears]

And those amateur stalkers holding 1000's of acres but only shooting a few deer per year who will only have themselves to blame if they lose the lot. Our deer population isn't how it is because those people are shooting too many, that's for certain!
The deer density around my way dictates that any stalker managing more than a 1000 acres of mixed land properly on their own is likely to be very busy and have quite a few deer to shift. If they hold the stalking on several thousand acres they're not managing it properly unless they're at it every morning and every night which few amateur stalkers are!

I agree that is a major problem. Stalking is jealously protected and those that hold it do not do the job they need to do.
But for us with a small permission who do a good job this is a disaster.

Reinventing the DI is not the answer.

Fine those with big permissions who don’t do the job needed would be better. IMHO.

 

[wytonpjs]

Fine those with big permissions who don’t do the job needed would be better. IMHO.

There was recognition and more than a subtle hint at the FC conference last week that grants for woodland improvements would finally be linked to active deer management. I’ll keep my powder dry but finally the pieces may be falling into place and a holistic approach to forestry, countryside, deer and other wildlife management (such as squirrel) maybe looming into view.

 

[big ears]

There was recognition and more than a subtle hint at the FC conference last week that grants for woodland improvements would finally be linked to active deer management. I’ll keep my powder dry but finally the pieces may be falling into place and a holistic approach to forestry, countryside, deer and other wildlife management (such as squirrel) maybe looming into view.

That’s good and about time. That said it’s none FC as well. I’ve seen pictures of herds of deer causing massive damage where the stalker visits once every couple of months and maybe takes a couple a year. The impact on the surrounding farms is massive.
Reduction cull is at least 40%. Were the landowner fined for not controlling deer then more would happen,
But as you say small steps.

 

[geoffw]

This was “launched” by David Hooton of the FC at their excellent “managing deer in the landscape” conference and they had a recorded video from the DEFRA minister. The pricing tier was shown on a slide which I didn’t write down the full details but for it’s based on carcasses processed and the lowest tier covers up to 300/year. I recollect that this category was over £200 but the FC would offset a £100 of this as part of an introductory scheme. Wish I could recall the exact details but @Alastair Boston hopes to make the slides available soon.

I noted £115 for producers to 300head pa, £440 for >300 pa. I didn’t catch the processor member no.s

 

[T.eddie]

If this does look to mirror the process needed to set up as a food business, does that mean thay it mau also make it easier to be signed off to actually butcher deer?
If they were the case then it would be a good idea and would get more venison out there and probably more stalkers mote money if that's why you do it. However I doubt it will

 

[VSS]

If this does look to mirror the process needed to set up as a food business, does that mean thay it mau also make it easier to be signed off to actually butcher deer?
If they were the case then it would be a good idea and would get more venison out there and probably more stalkers mote money if that's why you do it. However I doubt it will

It couldn't really be any easier than it is at present.

 

[big ears]

As mentioned in previous post have a friend involved in the red tractor scheme. After recent discussions with them this was their response about the proposal.

“I have to work to red tractor meat production standards, As a part of my job, I have worked that standard for the last 10 years”


“The auditors will more than likely not be deerstalkers, they will be people who are just following the guidelines on those pieces of paper, and if you are not up to that standard to the letter, you will not pass, there are some auditors who are a little bit more lenient who will let you rectify that problem there, and then, or you will have a set amount of time to rectify that problem regardless of how much it costs to do and don’t forget that visit, will also cost you as well as your membership, audits, probably every 12 months along with your membership fee, what ever that is, the fees seems to be secret squirrel!”

“The standards will change over time and if the supermarkets get their teeth into it, thats when the change really will happen”

“I very much doubt it will guarantee you a better dealer price, if it costs the GD More you can pretty much guarantee you’re going to get less because they’re not going to loose money over it, and if it goes down the route that red tractor has done in the meat industry if you are not also certificated, you will not be able to supply that Game Dealer that premises is certificated.”

“Red tractor was voluntary, it is now mandatory in the farming meat production industry if you are supplying supermarkets etc, in which i can see this going exactly the same way, in my opinion, all this will do is have more people cutting their own venison dealing out of their car boot! “

As you can see he is not impressed!
This looks like a done deal BASC and BDS have gone behind the backs of their members and without any consultation signed up to this. The vast majority of their members are small time stalkers who will be forced out by larger consortiums. I have no doubt headed up by some of the present and ex officers of the BDS and BASC.

Yet again the big organisations seem to have put money ahead of their members but sadder than that it isn’t going to tackle the issue of the rising number of deer causing damage. It will make a few rich at the cost of others.

The onus should be on the landowner not the stalker. This then will put pressure on those who buy land to “protect the deer”. Make it a part of owning land that the deer must be controlled or it will cost you cash. Some wealthy landowners won’t bother but most will prick their ears up if they have to shell out to protect the deer.

This is a worrying document!!

 

[T.eddie]

It couldn't really be any easier than it is at present.

May be variations depending on councils, for example my area weren't happy for me to butcher in the kitchen and wanted a dedicated area but I've seen on here others have been able to do that etc

 

[GeorgeC]

This has been my experience for the many years of supermarket / non supermarket trade. The membership is only a small fee [well that's where it started out], the audit fee was a payable and worse still, the auditors were all tick box, black and white individuals with some having no commonsense.

Like the Red Tractor scheme this will flourish into a significant undertaking and cost. You have been warned, unfortunately.

What is more frustrating is that there has little or no communication from the key players, ie BASC, Deer Initiative etc etc.

One of the worst players in handling the deer numbers and culls is the FC

 

[VSS]

May be variations depending on councils, for example my area weren't happy for me to butcher in the kitchen and wanted a dedicated area but I've seen on here others have been able to do that etc

The new standard would be in addition to all of the hoops you already have to jump through, not instead of.

There was recognition and more than a subtle hint at the FC conference last week that grants for woodland improvements would finally be linked to active deer management. I’ll keep my powder dry but finally the pieces may be falling into place and a holistic approach to forestry, countryside, deer and other wildlife management (such as squirrel) maybe looming into view.

Indeed, but I can envisage farmers and landowners being told that in order to claim these enhancements they must use a stalker who's certified to the new National Standard. From that, it's but a short step to saying "contact us for a list of suitable service providers in your area", and hey presto! It's bye-bye to the small-scale recreational stalker.

 

[big ears]

What is more frustrating is that there has little or no communication from the key players, ie BASC, Deer Initiative etc etc.

This is a real concern. Allegedly the DI do t exist but I think we all know the truth.

 

[devon deer stalker]

Perhaps BASC/BDS/NGO and the member on here who was a member of the DI and now works for the FC can provide some more insight into this scheme.
To me, this stinks of the old DI.
Stalkers have been shafted by this, I can't believe I was actually thinking of joining the BASC again recently, the voice of shooting, what a bloody joke

 

[75]

I'm pretty hacked off by this to be honest. Feels like a completely unnecessary scheme. When was the last time anyone was asked by the game dealer to provide evidence they were a registered food business. I often voluntarily offer the info but most are dismissive and aren't interested.

Look at compliance with the current regulations rather than bring in something new.

 

[wytonpjs]

I'm genuinely surprised by some of the comments on this thread. I am relatively new to stalking having "started" in the late 90s but not doing my DSC1 until 2015, DSC2 in 2017 and DMC in 2018. By doing my DSC1 in 2015 I gained my Large Game certificate and became a "Trained Hunter" and, if I didn't personally elect to periodically refresh my skills and understanding of legislation relating to the processing and handling of a wild food product, that would have been it for the remainder of my stalking "career" moving venison into the local food marketplace. The DSC1 course was completely theoretical and DMQ's change to moving it into DSC2 has IMHO provided a much needed practical aspect of demonstrating best practice and hygienic meat handling. However, the issue remains that this too is a "once in a lifetime" qualification unlike my Local Authority Food Business certification which is based upon both assessment and regular re-inspection. I understand that DEFRA has been concerned for some time over this aspect of "once in a lifetime" certification of food production and I can recall both DMQ and BASC sources both commenting on this being an issue. As a small venison producer handling well under the BQWV Scheme minimum threshold of 300 carcasses I welcome the introduction of this scheme as a move in the right direction to better assuring and promoting wild venison as a healthy and nutrious product that frankly at times, I currently struggle to even give away. Yes, it comes at a cost but as a responsible stalker, I should have nothing to fear if my standards conform to DEFRA policies and best practice guides. For me, this is a step in the right direction.

 

[VSS]

I'm genuinely surprised by some of the comments on this thread. I am relatively new to stalking having "started" in the late 90s but not doing my DSC1 until 2015, DSC2 in 2017 and DMC in 2018. By doing my DSC1 in 2015 I gained my Large Game certificate and became a "Trained Hunter" and, if I didn't personally elect to periodically refresh my skills and understanding of legislation relating to the processing and handling of a wild food product, that would have been it for the remainder of my stalking "career" moving venison into the local food marketplace. The DSC1 course was completely theoretical and DMQ's change to moving it into DSC2 has IMHO provided a much needed practical aspect of demonstrating best practice and hygienic meat handling. However, the issue remains that this too is a "once in a lifetime" qualification unlike my Local Authority Food Business certification which is based upon both assessment and regular re-inspection. I understand that DEFRA has been concerned for some time over this aspect of "once in a lifetime" certification of food production and I can recall both DMQ and BASC sources both commenting on this being an issue. As a small venison producer handling well under the BQWV Scheme minimum threshold of 300 carcasses I welcome the introduction of this scheme as a move in the right direction to better assuring and promoting wild venison as a healthy and nutrious product that frankly at times, I currently struggle to even give away. Yes, it comes at a cost but as a responsible stalker, I should have nothing to fear if my standards conform to DEFRA policies and best practice guides. For me, this is a step in the right direction.

I would agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that the new scheme simply duplicates what is already required by law, and standards which are already subject to inspection. So it's unnecessary, and will disadvantage some producers who are nonetheless fully compliant with the law.

 

[wytonpjs]

I would agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that the new scheme simply duplicates what is already required by law, and standards which are already subject to inspection. So it's unnecessary, and will disadvantage some producers who are nonetheless fully compliant with the law.

Its early days yet but anything that promotes venison to the British consumer is progress in my mind. Yes, if the scheme is successful it might disadvantage some who elect to not to participate in it but that's entirely their choice. Given the FC are subsidising the introduction bringing the lower tier producer's cost down to £115 (if I recollect correctly), are they really that short-sighted? IMHO, this equates to 2 x fallow or 4 x roe carcasses and for me, that's an acceptable cost if the public elect to buy more of my venison. I'm going to give it a try and will form my own opinion downstream. Those naysayers decrying it now are potentially doing a "King Canute" in my opinion. The venison market doesn't work well for the majority of small producers now and given the explosion in deer numbers and the need to more proactively promote increased public consumption, an initiative like this could be a very positive step in the right direction.