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

[Rake Aboot]

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

Why is that relevant?

The crux of the thread is landowners not controlling deer numbers. They already have to allow access to others to control them when required, whether they like it or not, what’s the difference if it’s stalkers or contractors?

That’s kinda what the threads about.

 

[Happy stalker]

Does anyone on here really know the reason why this Estate is being targeted, is the alleged high deer numbers due to mismanagement by the owner? And or the incompetence of the stalker, it would be interesting to know.

 

[slider]

Why is that relevant?

The crux of the thread is landowners not controlling deer numbers. They already have to allow access to others to control them when required, whether they like it or not, what’s the difference if it’s stalkers or contractors?

That’s kinda what the threads about.

Yes that's what the thread is about and CH is advocating that tag system for rec stalkers is a solution to the problem. To me it's very relevant that he is prepared to practice what he preaches, otherwise is argument is not worthwhile

 

[Dunwaters]

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.

A nice idea, but why should I pay when I can get a volunteer for free?.
Most deer control is currently being undertaken by volunteers, it’s by no means a free-for-all and the system works quite well in some but not all cases. Whats being proposed is mandatory deer management areas with possible fines, withholding of state grants and payments and ultimately enforced culls.
The current patchwork approach to deer management with the individual landowner having the option of not participating is what’s causing a lot of the problems
It will ultimately come down to choice, but if half of what is being discussed here comes to fruition you’ll have fewer options, you’ll lose the option not to participate.

 

[Cloudhopper]

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).

It seems that the problem is particularly acute in Scotland and there's no solution on the horizon.

I also stated that stalkers are "allocated" to an association, they don't get a choice.

Each association is responsible for meeting cull targets, the issuing of tags is not part of the system.
CH

 

[Cloudhopper]

Yes that's what the thread is about and CH is advocating that tag system for rec stalkers is a solution to the problem. To me it's very relevant that he is prepared to practice what he preaches, otherwise is argument is not worthwhile

No, issuing tags is not part of the system I've suggested.
CH

 

[Happy stalker]

While I do agree that recreational stalkers do contribute to deer management but there is no substitute to employing good local stalkers. Sadly more and more ground is being bought up by syndicates who live miles away and that is a very real problem.

 

[jthyttin]

Multiquote below:

A nice idea, but why should I pay when I can get a volunteer for free?

VSS was talking about his own land, and I can very well understand his choice. You can get volunteers as is, and if your land is so difficult that nobody wants to volunteer now, they won't volunteer under goverment scheme either.

I also stated that stalkers are "allocated" to an association, they don't get a choice.

Of course they have a choice. If they're allocated to association / area they don't want to be part of, they can walk away. And the real system would just evolve into some kind of corruption, where "somebody is more equal than others" and gets allocated to high-end associations / areas that are sought after (by money, relations, relatives and so on)

Each association is responsible for meeting cull targets, the issuing of tags is not part of the system.

Again, of course it's a tag system. It doesn't matter whether there is physical tag or not. You said previously that the goverment employee that is managing the association / area, will come up with cull plans, puts forward the figures to individual hunters / teams (driven). Then he oversees the process and adjusts if necessary. So there is somebody managing, getting paid to do it and hunters have the "privilege" of making involuntary "contributions" (300e per year in Romania you said) to pay for the system.

Just for fun, if the contribution is 300 Euro per year, and average pay 1000 Euro per year. Don't know the Romanian salary system, but I suspect you need to add 0.5 to 1 month to the yearly pay -> it's 12500 - 13000 Euro per year. Then also add some employer contributions (pension etc) that might be 10-25%. So the direct cost for one "ranger" is about 14-16k Euro. You can probably double that to account for pickup, tools etc. So roughly 30k per year, and you need 100 hunters to cover that. And that was only the direct cost of having "ranger" per area. There's a lot of other burden, bureaucracy, supervision and so on but that might get billed from some other funds (like governments usually do).

So basically the only beneficiary is the "range", that gets paid and can do whatever he likes to large extent (like side business in farmwork, forestry...) And he's a kingpin over largish are (guessing 10-50k hectares) that brings him extra benefits in the community.

 

[VSS]

It seems that the problem is particularly acute in Scotland and there's no solution on the horizon.

I also stated that stalkers are "allocated" to an association, they don't get a choice.

Each association is responsible for meeting cull targets, the issuing of tags is not part of the system.
CH

The main deer problem in the UK is in central and southern England, not Scotland.

 

[VSS]

A nice idea, but why should I pay when I can get a volunteer for free?.
Most deer control is currently being undertaken by volunteers, it’s by no means a free-for-all and the system works quite well in some but not all cases. Whats being proposed is mandatory deer management areas with possible fines, withholding of state grants and payments and ultimately enforced culls.
The current patchwork approach to deer management with the individual landowner having the option of not participating is what’s causing a lot of the problems
It will ultimately come down to choice, but if half of what is being discussed here comes to fruition you’ll have fewer options, you’ll lose the option not to participate.

If I pay, I call the shots.
I wouldn't want volunteers turning up to shoot deer on the weekends, for example, when maybe my children or grandchildren are playing in the woods. That would immediately rule out many recreational stalkers.
And, as the carcasses would be mine, I'd would want them shot to my spec. Difficult to enforce with volunteers, but easy enough if I'm paying for them. Wrong spec = no payment. Right spec = good money to the stalker. So they've got an incentive to do a good job.

It hasn't escaped my notice that on a number of big farms and estates where deer are currently a problem they're paying for someone to come in and help them get numbers down, not opening the gates to volunteers.
Most likely for the very same reasons that I would do the same.

If you want your driveway tarmacced, do you go with the chap who knocks on your door out of the blue with a bit left on the wagon from another job who offers to tip it and spread it for a few quid cash and no comebacks, or do you do your research and get a reputable company in to do the job and pay them properly when you're satisfied that the job is up to standard?

 

[25 Sharps]

It seems that the problem is particularly acute in Scotland and there's no solution on the horizon.

I also stated that stalkers are "allocated" to an association, they don't get a choice.

Each association is responsible for meeting cull targets, the issuing of tags is not part of the system.
CH

The main deer problem in the UK is in central and southern England, not Scotland.

You beat me to it…..

 

[slider]

No, issuing tags is not part of the system I've suggested.
CH

So what exactly are you advocating as I don't follow how you can have rec stalker access without some form of control.

 

[JTO]

A bit extreme, but perhaps deer number would/could be controlled if poachers were not prosecuted.

 

[slider]

It seems that the problem is particularly acute in Scotland

You are completed wrong here.
Yes there is a big stramash about ONE estate that aren't meeting NatureScots objectives yes there are SOME other highland areas where overpopulation is a problem but the noise is mainly a political thing driven by a left wing Govt that hate the land owning sector.
The bulk of Scotland deer overpopulation is roe in urban and other highly populated ares.
Even then we have nothing anyway near the issue of large herds of fallow and reds roaming ovr arable land. As we see in cental and southern England.

 

[JTO]

the noise is mainly a political thing driven by a left wing Govt that hate the land owning sector.
.

Seems to sum it up, to an outsider.

 

[Dan Newcombe]

I’m not just entirely au fait with other countries intracies when it comes to public land hunting but - say America, every farmer (and farmers mums) has a gun and therefore there are loads of people to take up the public hunting. As far as I understand, the seasons are very very short and specific (bow, flintlock, rifle, open etc etc) and you each person is only allowed to shoot one or two animals and has to in many cases enter a lottery to get a chance.

Would we have enough people to actually do it on a decent scale?

 

[VSS]

but the noise is mainly a political thing driven by a left wing Govt that hate the land owning sector.

Steady on there, otherwise we'll lose this interesting thread to the hidden part of the site..

 

[jthyttin]

When talking about tags, many people are not familiar with the system. Neither am I, but many years ago I followed US forums etc. and have some idea of the system(s since there's no single way of doing it).

Many places in US, you can buy decent amount of tags over the counter. Maybe even unlimited amount, or you can get relatives etc. to buy them and transfer to you. These would usually be doe tags, and AFAIK spikers are many times counted towards the doe tags not buck tags.

It's only the most coveted ones that are restricted and maybe even lottery. And then there are "commercial tags", i.e. outfitters and guides might be able to purchase some amount of tags to guarantee that they have clients. Also some game seasons and tags might count only towards public land, so you might have lots more freedom in private land. And then there are "exotics" i.e. imported species that might not have any closed season depending on state. These would mostly be private land.

 

[Dunwaters]

If I pay, I call the shots.
I wouldn't want volunteers turning up to shoot deer on the weekends, for example, when maybe my children or grandchildren are playing in the woods. That would immediately rule out many recreational stalkers.
And, as the carcasses would be mine, I'd would want them shot to my spec. Difficult to enforce with volunteers, but easy enough if I'm paying for them. Wrong spec = no payment. Right spec = good money to the stalker. So they've got an incentive to do a good job.

It hasn't escaped my notice that on a number of big farms and estates where deer are currently a problem they're paying for someone to come in and help them get numbers down, not opening the gates to volunteers.
Most likely for the very same reasons that I would do the same.

If you want your driveway tarmacced, do you go with the chap who knocks on your door out of the blue with a bit left on the wagon from another job who offers to tip it and spread it for a few quid cash and no comebacks, or do you do your research and get a reputable company in to do the job and pay them properly when you're satisfied that the job is up to standard?

The problem with managing deer populations perfectly illustrated.
If entire deer populations are going to be managed, you can’t have individual landowners making up their own rules, its the patchwork of small land holdings with each landowner applying their own individual idea of what’s required and who it can be done by and when and where it takes place is precisely what’s got us into the present mess. Your requirements seem eminently reasonable, but opposition to any deer culling seems entirely reasonable to many people too.
If we are to manage population effectively we’re going to need agreed objectives and methodology. Something between the shoot on sight policy of some re-wilders and ‘ the let nature find its own balance”view that forces others to live with uncontrolled burgeoning deer populations with sanctuary every half kilometre.
If you can do it yourself, fine, if you can’t, or won’t, then someone else will have to do it for you and you may have to pay.

 

[VSS]

The problem with managing deer populations perfectly illustrated.
If entire deer populations are going to be managed, you can’t have individual landowners making up their own rules, its the patchwork of small land holdings with each landowner applying their own individual idea of what’s required and who it can be done by and when and where it takes place is precisely what’s got us into the present mess. Your requirements seem eminently reasonable, but opposition to any deer culling seems entirely reasonable to many people too.
If we are to manage population effectively we’re going to need agreed objectives and methodology. Something between the shoot on sight policy of some re-wilders and ‘ the let nature find its own balance”view that forces others to live with uncontrolled burgeoning deer populations with sanctuary every half kilometre.
If you can do it yourself, fine, if you can’t, or won’t, then someone else will have to do it for you and you may have to pay.

I agree with you in so far as collaboration between neighbouring landowners may be essential.
However, that doesn't mean that the whole business needs to be taken out of their hands.