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

[25 Sharps]

I actually did like the answers , most of them differ from yours mind .
To suggest amateurs cannot make a difference with a ignoring the fact that amateurs account for the vast majority of Roe stalking so there is no reason whatsoever they cannot account for a meaningful number of Red

You keep hoping it’s pie in the sky , maybe one day it won’t be and you’ll be disappointed.

I think the majority are saying it won’t work, with a minority suggesting that it would be nice to have, but with no details of how it would work.

Why would I be disappointed? It wouldn’t affect me in the slightest, I look after 6 landowners and keep on top of their numbers, if I want to stalk deer in Scotland I pay someone and go and shoot their deer. If that was replaced with a tag system that allowed me to do it for free, I’d be delighted, but I can’t see it happening!

 

[25 Sharps]

I've suggested an alternative system that works very well elsewhere. It wasn't well received though, seems there are too many with vested interests.
CH

I don’t recall seeing a lot of detail in your post, just install a national system similar to Romania. How will that actually work?

Will there actually be enough experienced stalkers to fill the tags that are equipped for the job, particularly in far flung areas of very difficult terrain? I genuinely doubt there would be, as above, if the average distance a US hunter travels from his pickup is 200 yards, it won’t scratch the surface!

As for removing sporting rights from landowners, that is never going to happen so it really is pie in the sky!

 

[rem284]

How would a "free stalking" tag system be administered, managed and funded

 

[mudman]

Too many vested interests do not want it to happen. Principally the people earning a living from the status quo.

 

[jthyttin]

Vested interest? Like owning some land and not wanting random people there w/o any control from your part?

After all, that was what OP suggested, not US system on "public land".

 

[Cloudhopper]

I don’t recall seeing a lot of detail in your post, just install a national system similar to Romania. How will that actually work?

Will there actually be enough experienced stalkers to fill the tags that are equipped for the job, particularly in far flung areas of very difficult terrain? I genuinely doubt there would be, as above, if the average distance a US hunter travels from his pickup is 200 yards, it won’t scratch the surface!

As for removing sporting rights from landowners, that is never going to happen so it really is pie in the sky!

You don't want much do you? I've suggested a system, a completely new scheme for the job of successfully managing wildlife where currently nothing coherent exists.

How does it work? Well here's a starter for ten: the land is simply divided into a number of stalking areas, each area is placed under a wildlife ranger who compiles an inventory of wildlife on his patch and works out a cull plan in consultation with other areas/associations. Those who want to stalk are allocated to an area/association. The wildlife ranger monitors the cull against the plan and redirects and replans as required again in consultation. There could be a training element. That's the general idea which makes perfect sense to me. It works in Romania, a far wilder country of similar size to the UK, with a third of the population, many times fewer hunters and many more species to consider.

As for your final point, that's where strong governance comes in.

What's not to like?

CH

 

[VSS]

You don't want much do you? I've suggested a system, a completely new scheme for the job of successfully managing wildlife where currently nothing coherent exists.

How does it work? Well here's a starter for ten: the land is simply divided into a number of stalking areas, each area is placed under a wildlife ranger who compiles an inventory of wildlife on his patch and works out a cull plan in consultation with other areas/associations. Those who want to stalk are allocated to an area/association. The wildlife ranger monitors the cull against the plan and redirects and replans as required again in consultation. There could be a training element. That's the general idea which makes perfect sense to me. It works in Romania, a far wilder country of similar size to the UK, with a third of the population, many times fewer hunters and many more species to consider.

As for your final point, that's where strong governance comes in.

What's not to like?

CH

Any chance you could answer the question I put to you in post #114 please?
tia.

 

[Cloudhopper]

Sure, we own the sporting rights and the land, lock stock and barrel. We are not tenant farmers if that's what you're implying. There were many locally in the past, the land belonged to the Cambridge colleges but the rules around passing the tenancy down through one generation only means that most, if not all these arrangements have finished.
CH

 

[rem284]

You don't want much do you? I've suggested a system, a completely new scheme for the job of successfully managing wildlife where currently nothing coherent exists.

How does it work? Well here's a starter for ten: the land is simply divided into a number of stalking areas, each area is placed under a wildlife ranger who compiles an inventory of wildlife on his patch and works out a cull plan in consultation with other areas/associations. Those who want to stalk are allocated to an area/association. The wildlife ranger monitors the cull against the plan and redirects and replans as required again in consultation. There could be a training element. That's the general idea which makes perfect sense to me. It works in Romania, a far wilder country of similar size to the UK, with a third of the population, many times fewer hunters and many more species to consider.

As for your final point, that's where strong governance comes in.

What's not to like?

CH

Where would the funding come from? I think it would be more cost effective for the ranger just to cull the deer himself rather than manage, co-ordinate and train several people whom he may or may not know. To me, it would be a nightmare, so getting a ranger to do this management role would be difficult. It certainly is something I would not take on

 

[VSS]

Sure, we own the sporting rights and the land, lock stock and barrel. We are not tenant farmers if that's what you're implying. There were many locally in the past, the land belonged to the Cambridge colleges but the rules around passing the tenancy down through one generation only means that most, if not all these arrangements have finished.
CH

And you'd be happy to have one of your freehold assets taken away from you?

Sounds a bit like a turkey voting for Christmas

 

[25 Sharps]

You don't want much do you? I've suggested a system, a completely new scheme for the job of successfully managing wildlife where currently nothing coherent exists.

How does it work? Well here's a starter for ten: the land is simply divided into a number of stalking areas, each area is placed under a wildlife ranger who compiles an inventory of wildlife on his patch and works out a cull plan in consultation with other areas/associations. Those who want to stalk are allocated to an area/association. The wildlife ranger monitors the cull against the plan and redirects and replans as required again in consultation. There could be a training element. That's the general idea which makes perfect sense to me. It works in Romania, a far wilder country of similar size to the UK, with a third of the population, many times fewer hunters and many more species to consider.

As for your final point, that's where strong governance comes in.

What's not to like?

CH

People losing value on land they own?

Are you going to import the 2500-3000 wolves (apparently one of the largest populations in Europe) to do their bit for deer control as they are in Romania?

As you mention, if Romania is far more wild then it is not comparable. If it’s far more wild there are far less farming and forestry interests to take into account.

The 2 aren’t comparable at all from what you’ve said.

 

[Sealgair nam fiadh]

You don't want much do you? I've suggested a system, a completely new scheme for the job of successfully managing wildlife where currently nothing coherent exists.

How does it work? Well here's a starter for ten: the land is simply divided into a number of stalking areas, each area is placed under a wildlife ranger who compiles an inventory of wildlife on his patch and works out a cull plan in consultation with other areas/associations. Those who want to stalk are allocated to an area/association. The wildlife ranger monitors the cull against the plan and redirects and replans as required again in consultation. There could be a training element. That's the general idea which makes perfect sense to me. It works in Romania, a far wilder country of similar size to the UK, with a third of the population, many times fewer hunters and many more species to consider.

As for your final point, that's where strong governance comes in.

What's not to like?

CH

Seems very similar to DMG,s in the Highlands.

 

[Cloudhopper]

And you'd be happy to have one of your freehold assets taken away from you?

Sounds a bit like a turkey voting for Christmas

Deer management isn't really an issue in our part of the world, rarely comes up in conversation. I have some experience of stalking in Scotland, one or two weeks per year over the last 20 years. What I am aware of are the differences in approach to deer management and requirements, some estates want to grow trees, to eradicate all deer and fence them out, some want to maintain a herd for sporting purposes, others buy land with little regards for deer related issues. There are plenty of stalkers who would like to be more involved, who no doubt would be capable of a decent performance given the chance to hone their skills. I've come across guys who have worked as contractors, my old guide at Rannoch did a few seasons. He was a tough young bastard and he knew where to look on a given day and how to approach but he wasn't superhuman.

I do think there needs to be a change particularly in Scotland, I suspect some of those currently carrying the responsibility would breathe a sigh of relief.
CH

 

[Cloudhopper]

People losing value on land they own?

Are you going to import the 2500-3000 wolves (apparently one of the largest populations in Europe) to do their bit for deer control as they are in Romania?

As you mention, if Romania is far more wild then it is not comparable. If it’s far more wild there are far less farming and forestry interests to take into account.

The 2 aren’t comparable at all from what you’ve said.

I wasn't clear, I think Romania is comparable to Scotland and perhaps parts of England.

This guy certainly likes the place, I don't know if he belongs to a hunting association but he has several properties in Romania.....

King Charles III’s House in Viscri

King Charles III's house in Viscri reopened for 2025 season. "The Darkness Within" photo exhibition by Barry Lewis. Open through October. Saxon village, Transylvania heritage.

transylvaniacycling.ro

CH

 

[VSS]

Deer management isn't really an issue in our part of the world, rarely comes up in conversation. I have some experience of stalking in Scotland, one or two weeks per year over the last 20 years. What I am aware of are the differences in approach to deer management and requirements, some estates want to grow trees, to eradicate all deer and fence them out, some want to maintain a herd for sporting purposes, others buy land with little regards for deer related issues. There are plenty of stalkers who would like to be more involved, who no doubt would be capable of a decent performance given the chance to hone their skills. I've come across guys who have worked as contractors, my old guide at Rannoch did a few seasons. He was a tough young bastard and he knew where to look on a given day and how to approach but he wasn't superhuman.

I do think there needs to be a change particularly in Scotland, I suspect some of those currently carrying the responsibility would breathe a sigh of relief.
CH

The other issue that potentially upsets your plan is that deer are not included in "sporting rights" per se, unless specifically mentioned in the title deeds.
So, even if the landowner was forced to relinquish the legal title to the sporting rights, in most cases the occupier of the land (owner or tenant) would still have the right to control deer.

 

[25 Sharps]

I wasn't clear, I think Romania is comparable to Scotland and perhaps parts of England.

This guy certainly likes the place, I don't know if he belongs to a hunting association but he has several properties in Romania.....

King Charles III’s House in Viscri

King Charles III's house in Viscri reopened for 2025 season. "The Darkness Within" photo exhibition by Barry Lewis. Open through October. Saxon village, Transylvania heritage.

transylvaniacycling.ro

CH

Even then, not much of Scotland is truly wild, and there’s certainly no wolves.

Not really sure what King Charles has to do with it but I very much doubt he’d allow free access for tag holders across the crown estate.

 

[Dunwaters]

And you'd be happy to have one of your freehold assets taken away from you?

Sounds a bit like a turkey voting for Christmas

Suppose you have a situation where you’re given a target number of deer to remove from your land in accordance with a cull strategy that covers a designated landscape regardless of ownership.
Suppose that your choice resolves down to doing it yourself, hiring in a team of stalkers at your expense, or allowing stalking access to qualified stalkers at their own expense?
No one is suggesting that you have to choose uncontrolled access to your own land, you can do it yourself, you can pay others, but you must meet your cull targets.
Would you choose to pay, pay the penalty for non compliance or use the volunteer labour ?

Controlled access is just another tool in the box.
If it were to become common, it’s going to result in a lot more people having a legitimate reason to acquire a firearm and having a stake in ownership and wildlife management.
Where’s the downside?

 

[VSS]

Suppose you have a situation where you’re given a target number of deer to remove from your land in accordance with a cull strategy that covers a designated landscape regardless of ownership.
Suppose that your choice resolves down to doing it yourself, hiring in a team of stalkers at your expense, or allowing stalking access to qualified stalkers at their own expense?
No one is suggesting that you have to choose uncontrolled access to your own land, you can do it yourself, you can pay others, but you must meet your cull targets.
Would you choose to pay, pay the penalty for non compliance or use the volunteer labour ?

Controlled access is just another tool in the box.
If it were to become common, it’s going to result in a lot more people having a legitimate reason to acquire a firearm and having a stake in ownership and wildlife management.
Where’s the downside?

If I wasn't able to do it myself I'd pay someone to do it.
"He who pays the piper calls the tune".
Volunteers isn't the way forward for deer management.
Stalkers should be paid for their efforts, and be answerable to the person who pays them.

 

[jthyttin]

Deer management isn't really an issue in our part of the world, rarely comes up in conversation.
...
I do think there needs to be a change particularly in Scotland, I suspect some of those currently carrying the responsibility would breathe a sigh of relief.

Ah OK, you don't need to hand over YOUR farm / land to the goverment controlled stalking scheme. Just "those people" in Scotland need to do it.

Other problem is, like mentioned and/or hinted several times, that voluntary workforce is, well voluntary. Tag system or other government run systems are not designed to make sure certain amount of game is culled. They're designed to protect the stock, that not too many or wrong type of animals are NOT shot. There might be other "parallel" systems in place, like giving a minimum cull figure for certain area. But they won't work with volunteers, somebody needs to be responsible in given area before you can demand anything.

Estonia and Finland have this kind of systems in place, although they differ from each other. And in both countries the usage and administration of hunting grounds is on voluntary base but organized into hunting clubs not random individuals (in grand scheme of things, of course there are exceptions). So basically there's motivator for hunting club to meet their obligations; otherwise they lose the ground and/or have to pay for damages.

Back to your suggestion. Let's say there are 100 estates in Scotland and goverment is controlling the stalking / culling there with tag system. After a few years it's quite evident that certain estates are favored by "voluntary" stalkers and others are not. This is very visible in Finland, where goverment (or actually Metsähallitus i.e. "Finnish FC") is selling day based tags for mostly capercaillie and black grouse in Northern Finland.

So basically the tag system would concentrate the stalkers on easy estates and make the problem even worse on estates that already have the problem (my assumption is that not all estate problems are caused by owner negligence, but terrain etc. plays a part).

 

[slider]

Deer management isn't really an issue in our part of the world,

OK. So you don't have an issue with deer on your land but expect access on land belonging to others.
I'm still waiting on a response to my question in post #116