One lease we had 3 guys attending the roe doe cull. They could stay in a caravan on site, so could really be there a lot. They had to shoot a number of does, exact numbers I can't remember. So during the whole doe season they managed to shoot 1 roe, but they had made a mistake and had shot a buck. I was told to go in the last couple of hours on the 31st March and got 6. So this is just one story that explains, "why not!!!"Yes! Public land is essentially owned by YOU and ME. Private land we have no business making decisions over, that’s starting down the communism route.
If we pressured enough with petitions etc, I’m sure something could be raised to look into a tag type system in forestry commission lands etc
Why not?
The contractors will be put out of business of course, and that’s a win in my book. Sorry chaps
Tell me again why public access stalking isn’t a viable option
- Thread starter Rake Aboot
- Start date
63
Well-Known Member
Then again, this is what we are up against.
I doubt any public servants would want to deal with what they see as 'the landed gentry'.
Council rejects call to target meat and dairy farming in county
DORSET councillors are being asked to target meat and dairy farming in the county to tackle climate change.www.dorsetecho.co.uk
I am totally lost at what you've taken away from that article?
Some member of the public called Steven asked Dorset council to endorse the plant based treaty....and they said 'no'.
Then someone else asked them to do it (in the same meeting) and they said 'no' again.
Added to which, the guy from Dorset council made some vaguely supportive politician noises about the criticality of farming to the county....
Where did the landed gentry even come into this at all? Are we up against councils rejecting calls for veganism? Surely that's a good thing?
I'm not trying to pick a fight, there's just a step or two in the reasoning here that's eluding me totally.
In case you thought only Scotland had the issue
If we all form an orderly queue I reckon 1000 is not out of the question but it might take a couple of weeks
If we all form an orderly queue I reckon 1000 is not out of the question but it might take a couple of weeks
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Not really
All that explains is that someone made poor choices as to who was on that lease .
There in lie the problem with Public Procurement. Everything has the be "Scored" in a totally transparent and objective manner.
Local reputation is subjective.
If Joe from Devon say he can attend culling in Thurso every week you have to take that on trust until you have evidence that he can't (by which time the damage is done)
That was just 1 example.
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
But it was an example of a private lease, I’m not sure how it relates to this discussion
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
.. while on another ‘culling lease’ in the winter of 2010-2011 
a group of three were tasked to shoot 40 females, ‘we’ shot 42, being the only forest management unit to attain/exceed their cull target over that brutal winter.
Although we had a ‘traffic light’ agreement in place in terms of damage issues ( there were none, we even had natural regeneration occurring by the last two seasons) the FC saw fit to go in and shoot with the spotlight everything found in the concluding months of the lease, their take on it being ‘we aren’t going to be renewing the lease anyway’, it seems we were making their own look a bit lazy or less effective, despite starting our cull figures higher than had been attained in house before, and the manager continued to increase the figure each season, presumably to try to justify their preferred tactic of going in with the ‘light brigade’ anyway..
a group of three were tasked to shoot 40 females, ‘we’ shot 42, being the only forest management unit to attain/exceed their cull target over that brutal winter.Although we had a ‘traffic light’ agreement in place in terms of damage issues ( there were none, we even had natural regeneration occurring by the last two seasons) the FC saw fit to go in and shoot with the spotlight everything found in the concluding months of the lease, their take on it being ‘we aren’t going to be renewing the lease anyway’, it seems we were making their own look a bit lazy or less effective, despite starting our cull figures higher than had been attained in house before, and the manager continued to increase the figure each season, presumably to try to justify their preferred tactic of going in with the ‘light brigade’ anyway..
Chiming in from NZ. Just lately the powers that be are testing the water to have hunters whom control deer numbers pay for access. They also employ guys and pay them quite well per hour to control deer. I know a few through business connections.
The ones that administer it call themselves the Departmant of Conservation, created a permit schme they said to help them allocate resources and study deer. Yep well a high hunting zone I go to;
The DoC Hunting permits which have no practical value will be used to coerce payment for public hunting access. $17 was allocated for track maintenance off Clements road one of NZ most hunted spots shows Doc doesn't refer to them for statistics to improve hunting and by extention pest control.
The quarry road, a multi million $ investment if created today has been abandoned to deteriorate into unuseable. If it was too some fancy place for foreigners would it be treated the same? They never replaced the hut up Te Iringa in the high hunting zone yet are happy to build cabins for tourists whom do nothing to control pests not to mention Doc themselves using shanks's pony to do some work needing access and a place to rest. All they'll do is take your hard earned $ and fly in more 1080.
Say NO to hunters paying for access – Submit by this Friday the 28th February 2025.
https://www.deerstalkers.org.nz -access-to-some-public-conservatiion-land
One of the last qustion was would you like to pay to access council land, walkways and such.
One of the rediculous features of their permit system is you can register your cat. There is no bar or ID check. Non whatsoever. If you want to find your history of permits write to them and there will be no reply.
The whole jig is really another tax.
Meanwhile here are some of the joys of hunting in the US, a tags lottery..
Despite it all these guys have some great videos of bow and Elk.
The ones that administer it call themselves the Departmant of Conservation, created a permit schme they said to help them allocate resources and study deer. Yep well a high hunting zone I go to;
The DoC Hunting permits which have no practical value will be used to coerce payment for public hunting access. $17 was allocated for track maintenance off Clements road one of NZ most hunted spots shows Doc doesn't refer to them for statistics to improve hunting and by extention pest control.
The quarry road, a multi million $ investment if created today has been abandoned to deteriorate into unuseable. If it was too some fancy place for foreigners would it be treated the same? They never replaced the hut up Te Iringa in the high hunting zone yet are happy to build cabins for tourists whom do nothing to control pests not to mention Doc themselves using shanks's pony to do some work needing access and a place to rest. All they'll do is take your hard earned $ and fly in more 1080.
Say NO to hunters paying for access – Submit by this Friday the 28th February 2025.
https://www.deerstalkers.org.nz -access-to-some-public-conservatiion-land
One of the last qustion was would you like to pay to access council land, walkways and such.
One of the rediculous features of their permit system is you can register your cat. There is no bar or ID check. Non whatsoever. If you want to find your history of permits write to them and there will be no reply.
The whole jig is really another tax.
Meanwhile here are some of the joys of hunting in the US, a tags lottery..
Despite it all these guys have some great videos of bow and Elk.
As a Romanian hunter, I must say that this is somehow inaccurate.
Our system here is far from perfect. Why we have it like this would be a long story.
Yes, the state "owns" the game.
The entire land is organized in large hunting areas (5-15000ha) that are clearly delimited by natural barriers (rivers, ridges, peaks) or visible artificial ones (roads, railways).
The hunters are organized in non-profit associations and, once every 10 years, they will bid and buy the hunting rights. The organisation will have to do the game management but will not be able to do anything they like, they will have to have some annual quotas approved.
How they will share the quota is something private to that association.
Some of those hunting areas will remain as managed by the RNP (an entity that is managing the public forests). They have a list of prices for all the species and is the same for citizens and foreigners (this is not fair in my opinion!!!) .
So, the access is public only for the hunting areas managed by the RNP. And even that is limited by their annual quota.
The average hunter that wants to stalk and hunt a deer will first try to buy a tag from his association. If not available or too expensive, he could try at another one or at RNP. With the tag paid, he has the right to hunt but only accompanied by the gamekeeper representative. The only exception is for some small game where they could organise themselves in groups of 2-5 and hunt without the gamekeeper.
Also, there is sport shooting. Not everyone must be a hunter to shoot.
Gamekeepers could not do effective predator control due to the quotas and all sort of restrictions (especially for big carnivores).
The system is prone to all kind of abuses in terms of allocating enough quota and somehow overregulated.
The best thing I could see in our way of hunting management is that the management is done on very large areas. This has some advantages in terms of valuable genes conservation.
Sounds like a nightmare system to me!
As I said, is not great. For me, as a land owner, I have mixed feelings about it.
On the other hand, you may not be forced to not hunt on a property that is owned by a "green". You could hunt on any land that is not fenced, is outside the inhabited areas and is in your hunting area. For sure, while hunting you are not allowed to damage crops or property.
On the other hand, you may not be forced to not hunt on a property that is owned by a "green". You could hunt on any land that is not fenced, is outside the inhabited areas and is in your hunting area. For sure, while hunting you are not allowed to damage crops or property.
I'm a landowner too. No "mixed" in my feelings: I'd be bloody livid about it!
jthyttin
Well-Known Member
Now that you give the more accurate description of the system (compared to previous thread), it resembles more the Estonian system I'm familiar with.
Also there are similar elements to Finnish system in the RNP controlled areas. Difference being, in Finland you "buy the opportunity" not the tag (mostly small game and there are quotas). For large game, practically moose, you must form hunting party before applying. In north of Finland you basically apply for tags and have largish area to use. In central Finland you might exclusively rent certain area and apply for tags either for that area or combined with other privately owned area(s). In southern Finland there are only small areas owned by state (and managed by Metsähallitus, "our RNP"), they're rented by hunting clubs/parties and I think exclusively combined to private areas since there is minimum requirement of 1000ha for moose.
Also there are similar elements to Finnish system in the RNP controlled areas. Difference being, in Finland you "buy the opportunity" not the tag (mostly small game and there are quotas). For large game, practically moose, you must form hunting party before applying. In north of Finland you basically apply for tags and have largish area to use. In central Finland you might exclusively rent certain area and apply for tags either for that area or combined with other privately owned area(s). In southern Finland there are only small areas owned by state (and managed by Metsähallitus, "our RNP"), they're rented by hunting clubs/parties and I think exclusively combined to private areas since there is minimum requirement of 1000ha for moose.
Out of interest, is this gamekeeper representative a government employee? So even when your hunting association has rented out certain area, they must have "apron" for large game hunting/stalking?
I think that I was not clear enough. Once an association is buying the hunting rights, that association is the "gamekeeper".
So, when you hunt for large game (roe, fallow, mouflon, red deer, bear, wildboar + capercaille) you are with a representative of the gamekeeper. For associations this is a person that is hired to do the game management work year round in each hunting area. For state managed areas this is the same, only that the person is hired by RNP (state owned company)
So, in both cases, the representative is not a direct government employee. The government employees working in this domain are organized per county and also at national level and they have nothing to do with the hunter that is in the field. To be honest, probably they could be reduced by 50-70% if the state would invest in digitalization of the activity
Thanks for the detail.
So, any Romanian citizen who wants to hunt can join an association. He pays his share of the associations bid to buy the hunting rights as his annual membership fee. If he wishes he can also hunt on government (RNP) managed forestry land. The point is, any stalker has the basic right of access to land on which to hunt and everyone who takes part has the same choices and pays the same fees. The quotas are set by the government. It's a coherent system. If a problem arose, for example, an explosion in deer numbers, the government would simply adjust the quotas and the problem would go away.
Contrast this with the UK. Here all land is owned, by individuals/families, trusts, financial institutions, the Crown (state land) and no doubt others that I've overlooked. There is no public access hunting land. All these landowners have different views and motivations regarding deer management. No one owns the wildlife or is responsible for controlling population levels. There are no meaningful quotas set by anyone and not surprisingly there are far too many deer in certain parts of the UK with no management plan to solve the problem.
CH
Yes, it is coherent in the entire country. Not perfect but coherent.
"Explosion in deer numbers" is something very very rare here
(Mostly due to the exaggerated protection of the large carnivores)
"Explosion in deer numbers" is something very very rare here
(Mostly due to the exaggerated protection of the large carnivores)Similar threads
