STRIKING THE BALANCE: A HUMANE APPROACH TO DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT

[BDS - Charity Account]

STRIKING THE BALANCE: A HUMANE APPROACH TO DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Recent articles in the media have sparked discussions around the management of deer populations, prompting the British Deer Society to reaffirm its stance on the humane culling of deer as a preferred method for population control. In response to these concerns, the Society emphasises the need for a comprehensive approach that considers ecological balance, habitat conservation, and potential human-wildlife conflicts. This article considers the charity’s viewpoint, highlighting our commitment to effective and humane deer population management.
For full post click here:

 

[308tikka]

‘In conclusion, the British Deer Society is a proponent of a balanced and humane approach to managing deer populations. By considering the broader ecological context, emphasising the importance of accurate culling methods, and actively promoting research and training, the charity aims to contribute to the long-term health and sustainability of both deer and their natural habitats.’

Would BDS support a mandatory annual marksmanship test? Conditions to reflect on FAC ?

Its harder on animals than targets, but if you cant hit targets, should you be culling deer ?

Questions-not proposals.

 

[NullMac]

Thanks for the OP

 

[Dickie]

‘In conclusion, the British Deer Society is a proponent of a balanced and humane approach to managing deer populations. By considering the broader ecological context, emphasising the importance of accurate culling methods, and actively promoting research and training, the charity aims to contribute to the long-term health and sustainability of both deer and their natural habitats.’

Would BDS support a mandatory annual marksmanship test? Conditions to reflect on FAC ?

Its harder on animals than targets, but if you cant hit targets, should you be culling deer ?

Questions-not proposals.

Why would you even put something that’s puta representative on the spot or would take a long time or consultation within the society on an open forum.

 

[Ronin]

Because the BDS current leadership and training team support training and testing that is of a reduced standard -the new revised DSC level one test for instance


Discussed at length within the forum elsewhere and is perhaps on the posters mind

Had they (BDs) questioned the lower standards and refused to implement them / provided an alternative or stood towards a stance that refused to implement these lower standards, then there may be able to say we indeed are in support or striving towards humane methods of deer management

By implementing lower standards, not providing pre DSC training and failing to support continuous professional development in terms of allowing longer range sessions to provide stalkers the opportunity to see how their weapons and themselves perform in the case of a wounded animal for instance they don’t seem to be bothered about upholding the core standards of the society

Something raised ad infinitum by some branches to fall on stony ground as being an “irritation” by the current leadership

 

[Buchan]

I am pleased to see BDS supporting more accurate shooting based on increased practice. I have a small criticism, the blog says 93% of all culled deer were killed outright. That’s true. However of the shots taken 89% resulted in an outright kill. A minor difference, but in a public statement it is important to be precise. I also wonder what media reports they are responding to

 

[Ronin]

I am pleased to see BDS supporting more accurate shooting based on increased practice. I have a small criticism, the blog says 93% of all culled deer were killed outright. That’s true. However of the shots taken 89% resulted in an outright kill. A minor difference, but in a public statement it is important to be precise. I also wonder what media reports they are responding to

Media or a timed corporate reply to recent debate within this forum given the date the report was written ….

 

[JMikeyH]

I am pleased to see BDS supporting more accurate shooting based on increased practice. I have a small criticism, the blog says 93% of all culled deer were killed outright. That’s true. However of the shots taken 89% resulted in an outright kill. A minor difference, but in a public statement it is important to be precise. I also wonder what media reports they are responding to

To clarify (for me), does that mean to say that a little over 1 in 10 deer require a follow up shot? If so, that's a little higher than I would hope

 

[Treedave]

“the British Deer Society emphasises that continuous training, increased practice, and developing experience can contribute to reducing the potential for deer being inadvertently wounded during culling operations.”

But does not provide access to a pathway for continued skills training or practice. The interval of monthly practice being used elsewhere in the documentation.


“The high miss rate of basic-level stalkers suggests that training should include additional firing practice under realistic shooting conditions.”

Despite its own findings, the BDS supports a shooting assessment of only 6 rounds across the whole of the industry standard setting qualification process.

At first reading of the precis, it has a few points that stand out. Firstly, the use of the phrase “distant deer”, hopefully the full report will attach some concrete data to that vague phrase. Secondly, that the culling of female deer was considered a cause of reduced accuracy. Last time I checked meaningful population control is achieved through the control of breeding females. If this is the case, I wonder about the 100 or so stalkers that were the source of the data.

Hopefully reading the whole report will answer the questions and concerns this has raised for me.

 

[Ronin]

Data for statistic collected in 2005 ,,,


Pre changes in DSC then

 

[Dickie]

So what’s being suggested here by members of the SD is compulsory lvl 1 and annual shoot test as a FAC for shooting deer if I’m reading it correctly?
To be endorsed and pushed for by BDS because some don’t like the new DSC shooting test which has also been adopted by other organisations.
But makes no difference to anyone without DSC their own land with deer and a FAC conditioned for deer?
who enforces and pays for the range and test?

 

[Pete6.5]

I'm ok with have minimum qualifications but a yearly shooting test would be a joke. Just because some people can't shoot for toffee don't make all of us jump through ridiculous hoops.

 

[slider]

But makes no difference to anyone without DSC their own land with deer and a FAC conditioned for deer?
who enforces and pays for the range and test?

Proposed change to Scottish legislation will make DSC, or similar, compulsory for all deer control, even on your own land.

Cost of the test will no doubt fall at the feet of the controller, as it does on FLS (and I presume FE) land just now.

 

[Ronin]

In reply to post #11

I don’t think anyone has raised this in this thread

The level one test standard has been significantly lowered in recent years

BDS is a provider of level one training and testing (along with other organisations ) however these others are not soley engaged with interest in deer or deer welfare

By adopting the reduced standards or seemingly not objecting or refusing to adopt the lower standard, the folk in charge of BDS appear to be going against the very ethos of the society - deer welfare, training etc

The lower standards include coaching candidates ,,,,, through the test

They now release this article yesterday (11th jan) which includes data from a collection carried out in 2005, which is neither current or relevant to deer management in 2024

Standards should be made higher not lower

there was talk of Pre DSC training being released by BDS two years ago - it never happened

There is no perceived need for development of shooting skills As there have been many attempts from my own branch to have extended range days so folk can deal with wounded and mobile animals that require follow up

I could go on but this is being discussed in at least two other threads within this forum

In essence BDS are by their very nature the go to place for Deer Management and deer welfare matters yet the current leadership are failing in their duties to provide the very basic levels of service towards that by adopting a training module that is far below what was in place before

They could have objected and refused to adopt - yet did not

 

[devon deer stalker]

Its harder on animals than targets, but if you cant hit targets, should you be culling deer ?

Questions-not proposals.

I can tell you what I have witnessed on occasion, newly qualified deer stalkers (and some more experienced!) can be excellent marksmen, shoot tighter groups than I could, but get them in front of something with a pulse, and it all goes out the window.

 

[NullMac]

Media or a timed corporate reply to recent debate within this forum given the date the report was written ….

Give them a break. I posted orignially because I wondered why there was nothing on here from them. They take the hint and make a post and then get jumped all over ! Welcome to the site .

 

[finnbear270]

Seems to be a bit of an oxymoron contained in the direction of travel by the BDS,
"To further enhance the effectiveness of deer culling, the British Deer Society emphasises that continuous training, increased practice, and developing experience can contribute to reducing the potential for deer being inadvertently wounded during culling operations. By focusing on improving the skills of those involved in the culling process, the charity aims to minimise any potential negative impacts on the welfare of the deer population."
Improvements occur by testing skills regularly, & also by pushing the perceived, (by some) limits of extended range shooting ... that smaller percentage of deer not taken cleanly with a first shot for whatever reason that might be, would inevitably be further reduced by the stalker having trained regularly to allow for such a situation arising, I think the BDS are worrying too much about an imagined "Snipers of deer" vision developing by outsiders.

 

[NullMac]

I can tell you what I have witnessed on occasion, newly qualified deer stalkers (and some more experienced!) can be excellent marksmen, shoot tighter groups than I could, but get them in front of something with a pulse, and it all goes out the window.

Yes and there is plenty of evidence of very experience stalkers who can't shoot worth a **** either but won't shoot more than a few rounds a year to practice. Surprise. I have my suspicions these are the people that tell me there is no difference between copper and lead because the deer are shot so badly they gallop around before expiring. What was the stat 89% of deer die with the first shot. Sure but how.

Ask the pros how their clients shoot. I have

 

[Ronin]

Give them a break. I posted orignially because I wondered why there was nothing on here from them. They take the hint and make a post and then get jumped all over ! Welcome to the site .

They’ve been on the site for a long time

 

[Cris]

We need to keep in mind that the DSC or other courses, are basic entry levels.
What we fail to do is find ways to access practice. There are practice days on ranges but often not local, costly and very formal.
Access to more ranges with a less formality were people could go to check zero, practice etc, would help.