You’re trolling, surely?
I’m not sure you can really compare the UK, with a deep culture of private ownership, with Romania, which has a profoundly different culture of intense collectivisation.
Tell me again why public access stalking isn’t a viable option
- Thread starter Rake Aboot
- Start date
I’m not sure you can really compare the UK, with a deep culture of private ownership, with Romania, which has a profoundly different culture of intense collectivisation.
All Forestry and Land Scotland's land is registered in the name of "The Scottish Ministers" and is managed by FLS on behalf of the Nation. Therefore by definition it is publicly owned.
Happy stalker
Well-Known Member
The trouble is, people like you always equate land ownership with wealth and privilege, which clouds your reasoning.
I'd wager that the average home-owning member of this site has a greater net worth than I do, yet because my money is tied up in land rather than bricks and mortar I'm the one who's expected to lose my rights to satisfy your ideals.
Well bollocks to that!
And besides, providing free shooting opportunities for the peasantry is hardly a societal priority. Perhaps deal with a few more pressing issues first, and see how that works?
How about all those selfish property owners living in houses with unoccupied spare bedrooms be made to open their doors and offer free accommodation to the homeless? I think that would better serve the greater good than trying to control who shoots what and when on my farm.
is it not the case that say in the states, private land is up to the discretion of the landowner to allow someone on the land to hunt, even if the person has purchased a tag, that doesnt give them the right to go hunt on someones private property
I would agree with your point having a smallholding myself and having countless friends who are farmers. Land and property carries a shed load of extra burden and cost and its not just people who use it as a tax avoidance strategy who own land (far from it in most cases). I would never buy land without the sporting rights ...maybe that makes me a rich elitist ...but I am neither of those. I know guys with farms worth £5million + who havent had a holiday for 20 years ...they are the backbone of this country IMO.
That is pretty unlikely to get the numbers required. As touched on above, it’s about taking numbers and extracting them, whenever the opportunity arises. If you have single access for a single shooter, to shoot a single deer the numbers needed aren’t going to be shot. Especially if the stalkers with the tags aren’t particularly experienced, or the ‘it’s unsporting to shoot past 100 yards’ type.
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Better than none getting shot though. It’s not a solution but no reason it couldn’t be part of one
Mick9abf
Well-Known Member
The answer to the key question I can say with a fair bit of confidence - yes the deer can and probably have done a lot of damage.
Having been in the Strath stalking quite a lot over the past 5 or 6 years it’s fair to say the whole place (not just that estate) could do with a thinning out as the grazing pressure is pretty wild but there is a lot of local politics at stake and there are also sheep on other estates to be added into the equation.
I don’t have a skin in the game however being honest there are bits that are frankly minging with deer which isn’t what a lot of people want to hear when enforced culls are spoken about.
I’d also say that people talking of going on a jolly through a tag system have maybe only looked at the place on google maps as to be have any success you really need to know the ground and where to go with whatever prevailing wind you are faced with as it’s pretty bleak with are limited access other than Argo.
The system works for everyone bar those that want but don't have.
Oh, like Communists or Nazi's
Not at all. Your view of Romania is somewhat out of date I'm afraid. If you want to see an emergent, low tax economy with high levels of private ownership Romania has to be seen to be believed.
CH
Do you own the freehold sporting rights to your farm?
Useless government jobs? Compared to where exactly? The UK? The current system, if you can call it a system, I'm sure involves untold numbers of relatively useless jobs. The wildlife rangers in RO are directly involved with wildlife management.
300 euros per year. The average salary in RO is about 900 euros per month. By the way, the tax on income is a flat fee of 16%.
No one suggested anything affecting ownership, just implementing an effective system for managing large game.
CH
So you would be happy for people you didn't know to come and shoot on your land?
jthyttin
Well-Known Member
Compared to countries where you don't need government employees to run the local hunting clubs. Like every other country in Europe?
It's about tenfold compared to yearly club fees in Finland, including the comparison to average salary. Club fee might be in the neighbourhood of 100 Euro, and salary 3000 Euro. Of course club fees have great variation, and they might also include larder, club house and so on.
In Estonia, where the system might resemble more the Romanian system, our club there has no paid personnel and yearly fee is 60 Euro. That includes larder and club house.
You said that the system works well in Romania, and that land owner doesn't have "sporting rights" for his own land.
I think the management of the "dads army" would consume more time, energy, money and come with too much risk, for a risk adverse societ. Going out and achieving high numbers of deer regularly is a whole different game, and is actually hard work, so much so it would be difficult for most recreational stalkers to even imagine. I could at times make use of 1 volunteer. He/she would have to be capable, trustworthy, a good shot, know the ground, obey instructions, but it's so difficult to get them out to hold a spotlight , never mind a rifle. I think the thing that would make more difference to the overall deer population would be if government employed rangers had authority to cull deer on private land.
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
When 80% of the annual total cull is achieved over autumn winter months, this appears to leave some room to come to terms with a few over the 6 month spring/summertime season; the roe are mainly territorial, so there would be a fair spread across the NFE. No disrespect intended, but the professional force are spread even thinner.
Every culled deer forms part of a reduction of numbers, and one has to determine whether sufficient deer are being culled to effect either a maintenance or a reduction of the population. This may be evident in dwindling numbers of culls over time; as far as can be determined, this isn’t happening, and of course there are other factors at play, though it would appear on the face of things that there is opportunity to improve the returns over the April to September period.
Every culled deer forms part of a reduction of numbers, and one has to determine whether sufficient deer are being culled to effect either a maintenance or a reduction of the population. This may be evident in dwindling numbers of culls over time; as far as can be determined, this isn’t happening, and of course there are other factors at play, though it would appear on the face of things that there is opportunity to improve the returns over the April to September period.
It’s not better than putting contractors in who’ll take multiple deer though, which is what will happen.
Similar threads
