SGA campaign for female deer season succeeds.

[David Barker]

Im not sure anyone should be 'ashamed' for having a different opinion to others.

And FWIW killing a doe with a fetus inside it and worrying about the feelings of the stalker is somewhat ironic, given the same stalker is likley to kill any other deer without the same concerns.

At what age does an animal have to be before it becomes acceptable to kill an animal for sport or conservation? How old does a fetus have to be before it becomes unacceptable for the does carrying it can be culled?

If a species would go into decline if does/fetus were shot, then logically one would do all one could to support the population all things being equal, and not shoot such animals.

However, my understanding is that generally deer numbers are considered to be increasing and control is necessary.

If there was an argument based on the populations/the animals welfare then i could perhaps see this differently but the distinctions in age of a fetus seem arbitrary to me.

Deer in the north have the hardest time of any deer and by Feb early march some are close to death and need respite to recover. There is plenty of time in the current season to cull enough females. The problem is there is not real desire to sort out the deer issue here or down south. One case lately was Nature scot helping a large landowner on a large estate that has predominantly Sika deer. They pulled out all the stops many members of the deer team dropped off with others working the chill. Nature Scot were told that under no circumstances were they to shoot Sika deer for the effort that came an unbelievable cost yet to be clarified by the Nature scot hierarchy. So my feels are why should Stalkers be told to continue to cull reds while Nature scot do not follow there own advice and that is to shoot SIKA on site. I say good on the highland estates for pulling a little back from this chip chip chip at there lively hood,s. May i add to the ones that don't know the only increase in Scottish deer are Roe and the non native and very destructive Sika.

 

[Mr. Gain]

Deer in the north have the hardest time of any deer and by Feb early march some are close to death and need respite to recover. There is plenty of time in the current season to cull enough females. The problem is there is not real desire to sort out the deer issue here or down south. One case lately was Nature scot helping a large landowner on a large estate that has predominantly Sika deer. They pulled out all the stops many members of the deer team dropped off with others working the chill. Nature Scot were told that under no circumstances were they to shoot Sika deer for the effort that came an unbelievable cost yet to be clarified by the Nature scot hierarchy. So my feels are why should Stalkers be told to continue to cull reds while Nature scot do not follow there own advice and that is to shoot SIKA on site. I say good on the highland estates for pulling a little back from this chip chip chip at there lively hood,s. May i add to the ones that don't know the only increase in Scottish deer are Roe and the non native and very destructive Sika.

Forgive me, David, but I couldn't understand your post without asking ChatGPT for help. It explained it as follows:
"This forum post is discussing deer management in Scotland, particularly the challenges deer face in the north during late winter (February–March) when they are at their weakest. The author argues that there is sufficient time in the current hunting season to cull female deer (presumably red deer), but they believe there is little real commitment to addressing deer overpopulation, whether in the north or the south.

The post specifically criticizes *NatureScot* (the Scottish government agency responsible for nature and wildlife management) for allegedly favoring large landowners and not following its own culling policies. The author gives an example of a recent case where NatureScot assisted a large estate dominated by Sika deer. Despite what seems like an intensive effort and high costs, NatureScot reportedly prohibited the culling of Sika deer, which the author sees as a contradiction, since official policy supposedly dictates that Sika should be shot on sight due to their non-native and destructive status.

This leads to the author's broader frustration: if *stalkers* (deer hunters or managers) are expected to cull red deer as per policy, why is NatureScot not doing the same with Sika? The author expresses sympathy for Highland estate owners who are resisting what they see as relentless pressure on their livelihoods from increasing restrictions and regulations on deer culling. Finally, they note that the only deer populations increasing in Scotland are Roe deer (native) and Sika deer (non-native and destructive), reinforcing their argument that Sika should be actively managed."

I found this helpful and - if this is accurate - something worth knowing.

 

[South of the M4]

Throughout this discussion, it seems nobody has mentioned the viability of a foetus.
We all know female deer are pregnant after the rut takes place, and if left to their own devices, a calf/fawn or two will be born the following spring/early summer. So throughout much of the doe/hind season you'll be shooting pregnant deer.
If a female is shot in March, the foetus may have developed a coat and look ready to live outside the womb, but the internal organs and musculature will not be sufficiently developed to sustain it. Only in the very latter stage of pregnancy will an early birth result in a calf/fawn surviving, hence the seasons.
However extending the doe/hind season a month into mid March will not result in a survivable foetus being terminated, any more than it would survive outside the womb in December.
On this basis it seems arbitrary at best to keep the doe/hind season as it is, if the aim is to reduce the overall deer population by allowing more time to cull.

 

[Mungo]

Throughout this discussion, it seems nobody has mentioned the viability of a foetus.

Probably because the primary argument used to prevent the season extension was based on stalkers mental health rather than anything to do with deer.

It was an effective but transparently cynical short term tactic that will come back to bite them.

 

[David Barker]

Probably because the primary argument used to prevent the season extension was based on stalkers mental health rather than anything to do with deer.

It was an effective but transparently cynical short term tactic that will come back to bite them.

I don't think so the convenor of the recent deer panel. Suggested to Nature Scot quite clearly why change w3hen those that need it only need to ask.

 

[Tim.243]

Throughout this discussion, it seems nobody has mentioned the viability of a foetus.
We all know female deer are pregnant after the rut takes place, and if left to their own devices, a calf/fawn or two will be born the following spring/early summer. So throughout much of the doe/hind season you'll be shooting pregnant deer.
If a female is shot in March, the foetus may have developed a coat and look ready to live outside the womb, but the internal organs and musculature will not be sufficiently developed to sustain it. Only in the very latter stage of pregnancy will an early birth result in a calf/fawn surviving, hence the seasons.
However extending the doe/hind season a month into mid March will not result in a survivable foetus being terminated, any more than it would survive outside the womb in December.
On this basis it seems arbitrary at best to keep the doe/hind season as it is, if the aim is to reduce the overall deer population by allowing more time to cull.

I still think the season should be brought fwd a month based on what I see in Essex, also pre rut then the doe most lightly won't be pregnant but with young following. Come November I have seen a number of late born (seasons changing) young who are tiny, so if the mother is shot (possibly pregnant) and have late young then you would then shoot the youngster.
Many times the young will just stand or at best move then stop, people use this reaction to shoot 2/3/4 deer out of a group.

Getting deer back when the land is dryer often headlands are left so makes better access than the stuck trucks/quads in a wet spring as this is the part that eats into your day. It seems a lot like the xmas shopping scramble with people wandering around Dec 24th because they left it to late year in year out.

 

[Mungo]

I don't think so the convenor of the recent deer panel. Suggested to Nature Scot quite clearly why change w3hen those that need it only need to ask.

This is a much more interesting question.

Based on talking to people at NatureScot, they themselves were not well prepared for the change, and it came as a surprise to most of them. It was very much driven by the Greens (and in particular Lorna Slater) as part of the power sharing agreement.

I think some degree of deregulation is ultimately a positive thing for deer management: I think few of us would disagree that the best people to decide on extent and timing of culls are those on the ground. The ecological conditions and management objectives vary so much that rigid one-size-fits-all rules are just too blunt. Flexibility and landowner autonomy is surely to be desired?

But both sides here have been very disingenuous. The government pretending that it’s about ecological restoration, when it’s probably as much about attacking the sporting estates. And the SGA pretending it’s about stalker welfare when it’s probably as much about protecting stalking income.

Anyway - as you say, if you really need it, you can get OOS, and the bar for acceptance is very low.

 

[T.eddie]

If it's so easy to get an oos licence, it begs the question, why have the process around it, surely the time for the additional red tape and the cost associated could be better allocated?

 

[Mungo]

If it's so easy to get an oos licence, it begs the question, why have the process around it, surely the time for the additional red tape and the cost associated could be better allocated?

This was one of NatureScot’s arguments.

 

[T.eddie]

This was one of NatureScot’s arguments.

Can see the reasoning in that, in my opinion

 

[Mungo]

Can see the reasoning in that, in my opinion

My impression is that in this particular case, they were largely trying to be reasonably sensible, but were being put in a difficult position by the politicians.

They are extremely short of cash and staff, so anything to reduce admin burden would be very appealing to them.

 

[David Barker]

My impression is that in this particular case, they were largely trying to be reasonably sensible, but were being put in a difficult position by the politicians.

They are extremely short of cash and staff, so anything to reduce admin burden would be very appealing to them.

I do not think they are hard of cash. I think they are spending money like its going out of fashion. Trying to get rid of a couple of hundred grand in the last two months of the financial year. The 300.000 spent on the failed pilots had to be rerouted. Some of it went to play time up north for the staff to have there Jolly,s. The rest is on a scheme to give Rec Stalkers a fridge if they need one to increase there cull by over a thousand deer. All this with public money and no exit for the venison. There entrenchment up north to get rid of highland estate reds is now glowing so bright and even ministers are looking on in dismay. There is no need for a change in seasons unless its to bring back a season for males. That change has indirectly increased the number of Roe deer. My big question is this do Scottish gov real want a nation wide reduction or is this just a play on numbers to increase effort up north. Because were the biggest number of deer are gets no support. LDNS what a joke a hard w3orking single person running an imaginary collaborative deer forum.

 

[Mungo]

. The 300.000 spent on the failed pilots had to be rerouted.

What was the failed pilot?

By and large I agree with you - I should have said ‘they have less money than they think they need, and are under pressure to make savings’.

 

[Tim.243]

I do not think they are hard of cash. I think they are spending money like its going out of fashion. Trying to get rid of a couple of hundred grand in the last two months of the financial year. The 300.000 spent on the failed pilots had to be rerouted. Some of it went to play time up north for the staff to have there Jolly,s. The rest is on a scheme to give Rec Stalkers a fridge if they need one to increase there cull by over a thousand deer. All this with public money and no exit for the venison. There entrenchment up north to get rid of highland estate reds is now glowing so bright and even ministers are looking on in dismay. There is no need for a change in seasons unless its to bring back a season for males. That change has indirectly increased the number of Roe deer. My big question is this do Scottish gov real want a nation wide reduction or is this just a play on numbers to increase effort up north. Because were the biggest number of deer are gets no support. LDNS what a joke a hard w3orking single person running an imaginary collaborative deer forum.

Small change...sounds like 1 grain of sand rattling around in a tin bath.
An update from ministers put the budget at building the line from London to Birmingham at between £54bn and £66bn, quoting figures supplied to the Department for Transportby HS2 Ltd. The figures are in 2019 prices, which adjusted for inflation would now be between £67bn and £81.7bn.

 

[Camdig]

Small change...sounds like 1 grain of sand rattling around in a tin bath.
An update from ministers put the budget at building the line from London to Birmingham at between £54bn and £66bn, quoting figures supplied to the Department for Transportby HS2 Ltd. The figures are in 2019 prices, which adjusted for inflation would now be between £67bn and £81.7bn.

That is money laundering, there is not a chance it would cost that much if it wasn't a public funded project.
This country is spiralling rapidly into insignificance.
Throw in hinkly point and Ukraine we could of paved every road in Britain and stopped taxing pensioners pensions might of even been able to build a couple hospitals.

 

[63]

That is money laundering, there is not a chance it would cost that much if it wasn't a public funded project.
This country is spiralling rapidly into insignificance.
Throw in hinkly point and Ukraine we could have paved every road in Britain and stopped taxing pensioners pensions might of even been able to build a couple hospitals.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your first point, but neither of the projects you mention are significant nor terribly bad ideas. Set against Government spending writ large, the £12.8 billion given to Ukraine and the ‘maybe up to £10 billion’ Hinkley point spend are drops in the ocean….

 

[Tim.243]

I don’t necessarily disagree with your first point, but neither of the projects you mention are significant nor terribly bad ideas. Set against Government spending writ large, the £12.8 billion given to Ukraine and the ‘maybe up to £10 billion’ Hinkley point spend are drops in the ocean….
View attachment 404380

Is one of the black lines the 300k Dave was moaning about?

 

[63]

Is one of the black lines the 300k Dave was moaning about?

I think it’s one of the particles making up one of the pixels in the third black line from the left.

 

[Tim.243]

I think it’s one of the particles making up one of the pixels in the third black line from the left.

Thanks for clearing that up..... @David Barker

 

[63]

Thanks for clearing that up..... @David Barker

That's quite all right.

For those that haven't had the privilege of working in (or near) the public sector, the annual scramble to spend money before the end of the FY is driven by Treasury rules that, in simple terms*, mean that if you come in under budget you not only lose the underspend, but you also typically don't get as much next year. It's basically taking the kids pocket money away on a Friday because they haven't spent it since the last weekend. Not only does this discourage financial prudence, it also prevents departments from 'saving up' for future/bigger projects and creates a whole industry of rapid spending in Q4 every year. It is not, however, really the fault of individual departments or non-treasury leadership.

*Before any mandarins jump on me, I appreciate that this is a simplification and it is possible to roll over spending and move money between RDEL and CDEL etc.etc. etc. but the point still stands, and I'm not sure most folk away from government appreciate that the rush to get rid of underspend at the end of each FY is not an entirely childish exercise on the part of the budget holders directly responsible for doing it.