Tell me again why public access stalking isn’t a viable option

A quad fitted with tracks will go anywhere an Argo will go with the obvious exception of on water 😀
And no estate will let you take either on their property without having the appropriate accredited training due to liability risks and they’d no doubt want you to have your own insurance should an accident happen and suggesting signing waivers or similar is pie in the sky territory
 
And no estate will let you take either on their property without having the appropriate accredited training due to liability risks and they’d no doubt want you to have your own insurance should an accident happen and suggesting signing waivers or similar is pie in the sky territory
And quite right too, to many all the gear and know idea about, I use both Argo and quad fitted with tracks.
 
Permit and tag based system run by regions/districts would be an easy win in my opinion. The governing body can control how many permits are issued and can stipulate rules including things like maintaining a cull record database per region, base requirements for stalkers, etc. This system works well in the states and I dont see a reason why it cant be adopted in some form that works for the UK well. Charge for the permits to offset the cost of running it and potentially make a small profit.

There really should be a cull intended requirement per-district.
Unlike the US, I dont think we'll be able to do permits and or online reporting

Instead on renewal, note what species you take and how many per year on average.

It will be inaccurate, but the same time Its still a lot bloody better than what we do at the moment it would at least give us some understanding of what's going on in each district.
 
That’s why the govt in Scotland can mandate public access , to stop private landowners shutting the gates
Oh, so you propose public stalking enforced on private land? Well there's reason #1 why it won't work.

I'm also somewhat sure that you won't find an example anywhere. Northern countries used to be like that when they were being settled upon but it's been at least few hundred years, if we're talking about large game. And even then, people didn't understand that somebody could "own" the wilderness. You "owned" only the land you inhabited, cultivated or temporarily did something upon (like tar extraction, slash'n'burn cultivation etc)

Of countries that are currently in somewhat similar state, I guess they're infused with technology (AKs) and corruption to the extent this won't happen.
 
I could see if working if the landowners could be assured that they were not liable for any potential accidents,the concept of hunters doing their culls for free would certainly hold appeal?

Even pressure by recreational hunters over a moderate period can be more effective than a "hit job" over a few nights. I have seen than after Helicopter operations in NZ,the deer just "reboot" their habits.

If we are to see the continuation of our sport we need to create as many opportunities for new stalkers as possible.The number one restraint to most new guns is finding a place to hunt. Public access via landholder booking system could change that. Stalking is not a hugley complex endevour,certainly not one that requires a pro stalker as a chaperone.
 
In Scotland any landowner would hold occupiers liability for both public open access (right to roam) - which is unsupervised day and night concurrent to public firearms use. Therefore, I suspect the stalking would have to be ‘supervised’ somehow (by the state?) from a public safety perspective.
If anything it sounds like a poachers charter.
 
Any kind of tag system would just add bureaucracy.
We're very fortunate in the degree of freedom we have as individual stalkers and land owners to manage deer on our ground in the way we see fit in the UK, with minimal government intervention.
I would be strongly opposed to anything that encroached on that freedom.
The example linked to in the opening post is an extreme case of government asserting itself with regard to deer control, not the norm, and I hope it doesn't become the norm.
Where action needs to be taken, landowners should be educated and / or incentivised, not forced.
 
Some encouraging replies there folks

My own personal opinion is that a tag system would be the preferred method.
Apply for a tag , set a time window and go shoot a deer for yourself.
I fully support this, but on public land of course, private is and should remain private . There IS one issue, in the US they limit tag numbers to protect the population, in the U.K. there’s no governing body that’s well rounded, educated and rational thinking in wildlife conservation.
 
Consider too ‘other’ access takers, and their impact on the grand plans; and before we go off ‘half cocked’ - can anyone who can actually find their way to Loch Choire care to describe it for the benefit of the aspiring managers? Or the nature of the terrain, etc? Lots of other wrinkles to consider before you jump in headlong.

It may be the case that an increased cull effort over time would manage the expectations of NatureScot, it would also most likely be the easiest option for all directly concerned, but for aspiring hunters I’d suggest their efforts would likely be of better utility if they were to apply their expertise and craft to the burgeoning deer numbers in the National Forest Estate; Loch Choire may be singled out as an outlier among open hill estates (ie making a political point/example), but generally speaking DMG’s are playing along with the SNP policy as directed by their quango of choice, however ill-named they may be, and there are fairly few examples of chronic, long term mismanagement over the open hill estates, indeed some of the more historically notable places are all but shorn of their deer. And yet, the proponents of change away from the traditional model which breathed life into far flung communities are unwilling to elaborate as to what the alternative money making land use model entails, so far it is going to be semi scrub, high fuel load and tick abundant, this much we know, but as to the income-generating prospects….

The increasing deer numbers are found in the woods, not so much with the open hill areas.

It’s a long way to go only to have your grand plans dashed by the myriad factors outwith your control, but by all means give the unplanned-for access takers a cheery wave as you ponder the clearing of your particular beat for the day.
 
Sorry but I don't accept any of the arguments I’ve heard against a tag system for public of semi-public land in Scotland. I can only assume those against have a vested interest or just pessimistic progress-resistors.

Individuals could buy a tag for a specific species and sex within a GPS defined area and timeframe. GPS would track the stalkers movements. Any violation of the tag, would result in a suspension or ban. Extraction would be up to the stalker to pack out or a market might develop for guides to help out for a fee. Cost of admin covered by the tag cost. We have a chance to democratise stalking, widen its appeal and protect the sport for the future.

Argument 1: The tag holders would be in some way unsafe.
Answer: Then have a discussion about training – DSCL2 etc.

Argument 2: Tag holders wouldn’t shoot enough deer.
Answer: There is no reason why this system couldn’t work in tandem with the existing contractors (who I severely doubt are active 365 days of the year) and many contractors only shoot easy to extract areas, near tracks etc. Not everywhere has a ‘deer problem.’ The system can develop by trial and error.

Argument 3: Health and Safety – those long lists of risk assessments, manual handling courses, quad courses etc. required for Forestry Commission stalking
Answer: I’ve always thought this was bureaucracy gone wrong. Private stalkers on private land don’t require any of this. Nor do hillwalkers / rock climbers canoeists. Clever lawyers or insurance people need to have a look at where the real liability sits here. For example the BDS have done a great job recently on cutting through the confusion around private sale of venison.
 
We have a scheme permitting deer stalking and grouse shooting access to an area of the Uplands national park in operation.
Applicants need to be a member of a club, have insurance and a deer hunting licence. You can go on your own or with others.
Theres a designated check in and check out, mandatory report/bag return and thats just about it.
The scheme works well and deer are routinely taken from some pretty remote areas. This year the stalking season has been extended by a special licence to allow hinds to be taken in April.
Theres no need for major hurdles or complications, keep it simple and they will come.
 
Liability for safe firearms use on government owned land rests with the state. That means (in lieu of any state hunting licensing training and qualification) the state gets to set whatever bureaucracy, training, standards, supervision, health and safety etc. Ask any government forestry stalking leaseholder.
At the end of the day it all boils down to ‘is it safe is it reasonable’?
 
Last edited:
Why extract whole?
Think about the numbers involved.

Sure - cutting up and extracting in bits is fine if you’re just extracting one for yourself.

But if there are hundreds needing shot, then a large proportion will need to go to a dealer - who will want them whole.

So you circle back to the ‘tag’ idea. Rather than a small number of people shooting many deer, you get many people shooting one each.

And, as I’ve pointed out, that model is hard to make work on restricted areas, with high cull numbers and open ground.

This is well established - it’s not a new problem, and there is plenty of data from around the world. If you need a reduction cull of hundreds, it just isn’t achievable using tag systems or volunteers.
 
Back
Top