The leisure stalkers , why , how , where do we fit in ?

[baguio]

Any perm should be visited at least once a week I have 400 acres for over ten years no deer couple of foxes rabbits are making a come back.
But at least it is a perm.

Why is that? I can think of loads of reasons why that would be a very poor thing to do. Turning them nocturnal would be an obvious one!

 

[bottletopbill]

I have tried to attract deer and foxes with food but the land as poor soil ,
Sheep are grazing the land and as hops grown the farm could be used as a set for heart beat.
But at least it is a perm for me so I am happy

 

[Pete6.5]

It's always interesting when people blame everyone else but themselves because they don't have enough stalking.
There is no short cut my rule of thumb is don't ask anything of a landowner until they know your name and they would stop by choice to talk to you in a public place.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Reading with interest because in my opinion, In Scotland at least, the days of recreational stalking are numbered .
Trained , paid “Professional “ stalkers is what my gut tells me the Scottish government want.

And an end to trophy hunting.

 

[Apthorpe]

Exactly. More organisation would mean more opportunities and more security for the sport, industry.

That is not a satisfactory piece of logic. Why does more organisation mean more opportunities? It might just as well mean far fewer opportunities. An example. The National Trust is pretty much the largest landowner in the country and I don't think one could really say that the organisation of all that land into one organisation has increased sporting opportunities, far less increased the security of fieldsports.

More resilience to regulation and legislation.

More of an open target to creeping bureaucratisation and wokery.

We need a complete re think of what we know and how we do things or it will be taken out of our hands.

The best defence of field sports, as most other things, is obscurity and privacy. One must also be careful not to throw it out of our own hands with misguided "initiatives". Several of which have severely damaged the outlook for shooting sports in the UK in recent years.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Acceptance and understanding of need would be better than obscurity and privacy imo

 

[RCS Deer Management]

Why hasn’t this shooting far more widely publicised. I have voiced concerns over use of thermals and exactly this sort of accident happening, but been shouted down.

Thermals do not always an adequate image to clearly determine the target and whats behind it etc.

And what has night shooting got to do with deer management. It’s illegal unless there has been a licence issued for a particular place and purpose.

Night shooting has a lot to do with deer management. A significant percentage of the deer shot in the uk are shot under night licence, i think you are missing something

 

[Apthorpe]

Night shooting has a lot to do with deer management. A large percentage of the deer shot in the uk are shot under night licence, i think you are missing something

I didn't know that. How large a percentage?

 

[Cris]

That is not a satisfactory piece of logic. Why does more organisation mean more opportunities? It might just as well mean far fewer opportunities. An example. The National Trust is pretty much the largest landowner in the country and I don't think one could really say that the organisation of all that land into one organisation has increased sporting opportunities, far less increased the security of fieldsports.

More of an open target to creeping bureaucratisation and wokery.

The best defence of field sports, as most other things, is obscurity and privacy. One must also be careful not to throw it out of our own hands with misguided "initiatives". Several of which have severely damaged the outlook for shooting sports in the UK in recent years.

Exactly the point. Take it into our hands and be united. Deliver a more widely accepted outcome to those in power. If not sticking your head in the sand and hoping nobody notices you isn’t going to end well.

 

[Twodogs]

Myself and another couple of ‘freezer filler’ stalkers local to me would love the opportunity to shoot more.
There is a farm nearby where there is a nuisance number of deer, the farmer often heard complaining to locals, about the damage to his plantings. Yet when approached the farmer is resolutely loyal to his non-local stalker who visits, ow about, once a year during the summer.

 

[Apthorpe]

Exactly the point. Take it into our hands and be united.

Take what?

Deliver a more widely accepted outcome to those in power.

What is the outcome? One size fits all is precisely how not to do conservation.

If not sticking your head in the sand and hoping nobody notices you isn’t going to end well.

It does work perfectly in the very large majority of cases. Whereas imagining that you're going to get your way by engaging with the State is an unmitigated disaster.

 

[nun_hunter]

I have tried to attract deer and foxes with food but the land as poor soil ,
Sheep are grazing the land and as hops grown the farm could be used as a set for heart beat.
But at least it is a perm for me so I am happy

Unless the farmer wants foxes around their sheep and deer among their hops I'd suggest attracting them for your shooting enjoyment isn't the best approach to secure more favourable shooting opportunities, especially if you're hoping the farmer will put in a good word for tou.

 

[Borntofarm84]

In my opinion the recreational stalker is integral to managing deer in the uk.
There are vast swaths of the county that don’t really have a deer problem an are not likely to have anytime soon. Even relatively large permissions may only require 20 or so deer to be taken off per year to keep things in check.
There seems to be a belief now that everyone needs to shoot more deer and if they arnt then they are clogging up the system for someone who wants to shoot more.
If deer were causing financial damage to landowners then they would make sure more of them were being shot!

 

[bottletopbill]

The feed for the deer was about a mile away from the hops section and the fox food was well away from the sheep.

 

[baguio]

There are vast swaths of the county that don’t really have a deer problem an are not likely to have anytime soon. Even relatively large permissions may only require 20 or so deer to be taken off per year to keep things in check.

Which county are you talking about? Do you have any evidence to back that statement up?

If deer were causing financial damage to landowners then they would make sure more of them were being shot!

What if they are damaging the crops at night that are owned by a different land owner to the one who owns the woods that they rest up in all day?

 

[Borntofarm84]

Which county are you talking about? Do you have any evidence to back that statement up?

What if they are damaging the crops at night that are owned by a different land owner to the one who owns the woods that they rest up in all day?

Apologies it was meant to say country!
I am in Suffolk. Well obviously there will be some permissions that only hold 20 deer so clearly on that permission someone who could shoot up to 20 per annum would be sufficient.

Excluding herding species I am not sure how much arable crop damage the other species do. An they are much less transient.
That isn’t to say they don’t do damage but it is not financial in a great many locations more likely to be ecological when mintjac in woodland.

 

[baguio]

Apologies it was meant to say country!
I am in Suffolk. Well obviously there will be some permissions that only hold 20 deer so clearly on that permission someone who could shoot up to 20 per annum would be sufficient.

Excluding herding species I am not sure how much arable crop damage the other species do. An they are much less transient.
That isn’t to say they don’t do damage but it is not financial in a great many locations more likely to be ecological when mintjac in woodland.

Yes there will be some permissions that only hold 20 deer but you said “vast swaths” and “relatively large permissions”.

Suddenly you’re excluding herding species. That soon changed. Are herding species not deer?

 

[Borntofarm84]

There are vast swaths. Consisting of many individual land holdings. I am a farmer and know of many thousand hectares that have no significant deer problem.
I am not sure excluding anything but if they arnt present then they arnt doing any damage.
I am not all for deer preservation by the way, if there are overpopulations in an area then they should be dealt with accordingly an that probably isn’t the best location for the recreational stalker.
My point is in relation to the thread ‘where does recreational stalkers fit in?’ An my answer was where populations are close to where they should be an only require trimming.

 

[billy_boyle_2010]

I think the stats around how many deer stalkers take can be skewed- and make the hobbyist look less useful than they actually are.

Whilst a small number of stalkers do the majority of the culling- IMO it's likely these numbers are skewed, based on the following factors-

Crazy high deer numbers in a few areas really bring the average up.
Night licences
Professional stalkers being paid to stalk full time

Professional stalkers probably are the most effective way of keeping numbers down in very dense populations- I would bet there are large areas of less productive ground that simply aren't economical for a professional to shoot on (unless they are paid a flat day rate with no real financial incentive to pull the trigger). Whilst a professional may need a 90% success rate to be happy- and to give ground much time- a hobby stalker may well be happy with a 30% success rate.

I don't have the stats to hand- and expect someone could do some decent analysis. But it's certainly not as simple as "10% of stalkers do 90% of the culling- so let's just have a few more elite stalkers and we don't need the amateurs".

 

[Borntofarm84]

I think the stats around how many deer stalkers take can be skewed- and make the hobbyist look less useful than they actually are.

Whilst a small number of stalkers do the majority of the culling- IMO it's likely these numbers are skewed, based on the following factors-

Crazy high deer numbers in a few areas really bring the average up.
Night licences
Professional stalkers being paid to stalk full time

Professional stalkers probably are the most effective way of keeping numbers down in very dense populations- I would bet there are large areas of less productive ground that simply aren't economical for a professional to shoot on (unless they are paid a flat day rate with no real financial incentive to pull the trigger). Whilst a professional may need a 90% success rate to be happy- and to give ground much time- a hobby stalker may well be happy with a 30% success rate.

I don't have the stats to hand- and expect someone could do some decent analysis. But it's certainly not as simple as "10% of stalkers do 90% of the culling- so let's just have a few more elite stalkers and we don't need the amateurs".

Very well put.
If as a landowner deer were causing thousands of pounds worth of damage, I would pay thousands of pounds to have them sorted. If not then there won’t be a reason to pay someone to stalk so there is a necessity for someone recrational.
The alternative is no stalking at all.