DMC Level 3

[Cris]

Training is one way forward and will now always be, but it’s not enough on its own. The circa 30k DSC1 indicates an interest in deer and deer management or to acquire an FAC. Those progressing to DSC 2 are much lower in number. PDS lower still at this point being newer I would expect. Anyone know?
Off those numbers the real questions and problems to solve are
1. How many have access to their own land?
2. Have the authority to produce their own management plan in line with the objective to reduce population and limit impact?
3. Can influence the land owner in the correct management? They may well have their own objectives of course, mine do!
4. Have the time to be on the ground.

What can be said for Mr P is that he has a framework that addresses some of these by virtue of his rather exclusive club. It hets people trained and out stalking and shooting deer.

We could do with a more sensibly costed deer stalking club framework and network along these lines throughout the county as a suggestion utilising and enabling access to the thousands of trained enthusiasts we have.

 

[DK.260]

My point being is there are over 30000 “ qualified “ dsc 1 trained stalkers yet deer numbers are too high this alone proves my point that the training system is not working I realise some may not be stalkers and have to do the course for a related job but I think these are very much in the minority

I think on the basis that most training provided is better than no training at all, one is free to take their pick of what flavour they fancy (DMQ, PDS, LANTRA, in person, online etc.) as its a free world out there and folk have different learning styles and needs.
But, is it the quality of training and CPD that is necessarily at fault here ?

If we have loads of qualified stalkers chomping at the bit to get stuck in, but cannot get a look in because for whatever reason ground isn't available even though it may be jumping with deer....... I think a large part of the issue may lie elsewhere, possibly with the manner in which land is managed.

 

[Apthorpe]

I agree witha lot of your last two posts Chris and unfortunately landowners can be the major problem. In our area of South Lincs we have a landowner who harbours in a sanctuary anywhere between 1000 and 3000 Fallow deer (allegedly). I know it's over 1000 because my wife and I counted one fieldfull on one occasion. They allow one stalker in on the odd occasion to shoot a few (and it is a few). This has an effect on the whole area and we can cull a lot of animals on local land, but the holes are immediately filled from a reservoir like this. Something needs to be done.

It seems to me (from a position of ignorance) that fallow present a particular problem owing to their forming large herds. I think perhaps the problem is that in this country we use ineffective hunting tactics and deplore people e.g. shooting at moving animals, shooting deer in small numbers because you must either eat it or sell it to a local ganme dealer who has limited capacity etc .etc.
If they’re a pest, deal with them like we deal with pests.

Effectively, sniping at one or two animals out of a large herd serves no purpose except to make them flighty. If one was serious about it, then you’d arrange to have them driven, perhaps funnelled with temporary fencing and shot en masse.

This fellow may be harbouring a very large number, but perhaps that is partly a result of them being harassed off ground where they are shot at?

 

[Ratel]

It seems to me (from a position of ignorance) that fallow present a particular problem owing to their forming large herds. I think perhaps the problem is that in this country we use ineffective hunting tactics and deplore people e.g. shooting at moving animals, shooting deer in small numbers because you must either eat it or sell it to a local ganme dealer who has limited capacity etc .etc.
If they’re a pest, deal with them like we deal with pests.

Effectively, sniping at one or two animals out of a large herd serves no purpose except to make them flighty. If one was serious about it, then you’d arrange to have them driven, perhaps funnelled with temporary fencing and shot en masse.

This fellow may be harbouring a very large number, but perhaps that is partly a result of them being harassed off ground where they are shot at?

You may be partially right but now they are getting excluded from a lot of neighbouring ground by deer fencing done by owners there. This may funnel them further afield during the hours of darkness. Certainly a lot of deer are being shot by the estates within a couple of miles and also the FC and we a few miles further on are seeing an increase in our numbers which need attention.

 

[Oldstalker]

See my post #133 above......... One of the other points in our thinking on the BDS Management Committee and later Board of Directors was that we were anti-state control of deer management. The USA has a quite sophisticated system of state control of culling effort BUT it tends to be lagged by at least 12 months whereas individual deer managers on their own ground can react more or less instantly to events such as a surge in poaching activity or even a local die-off (we lost a lot of roe in a series of wet summers and winters in the SE Lakes due to fluke infestations - red, and fallow with their larger livers seemed to be able to survive better). This thinking was not widely voiced outside the committee or board. In similar vein if there was a heavy calf/kid drop in any particular spring we were able to increase the planned cull after the late summer counts almost as son as the landowners agreed.
The moral arrogance of some of the anti-field/blood sports lobby is breathtaking/gobsmacking in its ignorance of the realities of nature and wildlife. I remember a debate on the use of pills in feed to control deer populations and the total ignoring of the welfare of the pigs used to produce the birth control hormones which they wished to scatter indiscriminately affecting a whole population of deer.
I hate to sound pessimistic but I do fear things will get worse before they get better and rural practitioners will be listened to by the urban majority.

 

[cjm1066]

A local estate has reduced their stalking to every 2 weeks, they now stalk on foot and get the cull hardly using H/S. Some many fallow are virtually nocturnal, hence the increasing use of night licenses.

 

[Mike1979]

The minute money comes into it the goals change and the same is true of stalking. The more people are prepared to pay the more landowners think they can get. Make a medal CWD a commodity that will fetch £500+ for someone to shoot it then people start feeding them in to increase revenue and on it goes, landowner wants more money, "deer manager" needs to make more money etc.

Im pretty sure PJ did a video going on about how some of the land they lease they are paying £10+ per acre...probably just to price it out of the reach of "normal folk" to push the aims of their club..

With regards to the cert it wont make people more effective, that's what experience and time on the ground is for.

 

[Apthorpe]

The minute money comes into it the goals change and the same is true of stalking. The more people are prepared to pay the more landowners think they can get.

Let's put it into perspective...landowning is a large opportunity cost with very low income and as taxes increase people have to be able to do something about it.
I have some land (regrettably not a vast estate) and one the things I also have is a set of particulars setting out the fact that the net income land generates was about four times higher in real terms in the past, as well as employing about 20 times more people. People have to be allowed to diversify their work and incomes, else the country becomes a desert spotted with cities.

Make a medal CWD a commodity that will fetch £500+ for someone to shoot it then people start feeding them in to increase revenue and on it goes, landowner wants more money, "deer manager" needs to make more money etc.

Im pretty sure PJ did a video going on about how some of the land they lease they are paying £10+ per acre...probably just to price it out of the reach of "normal folk" to push the aims of their club..

It's sad from the point of view of the "normal people" who had been enjoying what was in effect a massive freebie for decades. I'm not sure whether it's wrong. Time will tell if that man's club does a good job or not, but in the end the land belongs to the owner.

With regards to the cert it wont make people more effective, that's what experience and time on the ground is for.

 

[timbrayford]

Qualifications would carry more weight if those suitably qualified and experienced were allowed access to stalking on publicly owned land, albeit on an organised basis, Forestry England seem to act like the servants of the feudal overlords!

 

[Mike1979]

Let's put it into perspective...landowning is a large opportunity cost with very low income and as taxes increase people have to be able to do something about it.
I have some land (regrettably not a vast estate) and one the things I also have is a set of particulars setting out the fact that the net income land generates was about four times higher in real terms in the past, as well as employing about 20 times more people. People have to be allowed to diversify their work and incomes, else the country becomes a desert spotted with cities.

It's sad from the point of view of the "normal people" who had been enjoying what was in effect a massive freebie for decades. I'm not sure whether it's wrong. Time will tell if that man's club does a good job or not, but in the end the land belongs to the owner.

Not disagreeing with you merely putting forward my perspective. You pay your money you make your choice...whether its right or wrong is subjective.

I know land owners who have stalkers on the ground who shoot a few deer and pay a nice price for the opportunity..then the farmer moans about the deer damage...a balancing act and as you said they own the ground so can do as they please.

 

[Dickie]

You cannot say 30000 DSC 1 level holders mean we shouldn't have a deer problem, when I did mine there were 2 local FEO or whatever they were called back then on the course they had no interest in shooting but were sent by the boss both are probably long gone now but definitely not in the job, so how many others have had it for their job and retired or have had it for stalking but have given up or gone to the stalking grounds in the sky or emigrated etc etc.

 

[Chris Richardson]

You cannot say 30000 DSC 1 level holders mean we shouldn't have a deer problem, when I did mine there were 2 local FEO or whatever they were called back then on the course they had no interest in shooting but were sent by the boss both are probably long gone now but definitely not in the job, so how many others have had it for their job and retired or have had it for stalking but have given up or gone to the stalking grounds in the sky or emigrated etc etc.

i did say not all were stalkers , but theyre a very small minority , ok lets say theres 20000 active stalkers who have dsc thats still a hell of a lot , which shows me such courses dont solve the deer problem

 

[Dickie]

i did say not all were stalkers , but theyre a very small minority , ok lets say theres 20000 active stalkers who have dsc thats still a hell of a lot , which shows me such courses dont solve the deer problem

But to go with that how many even after the watering down have level 2 because that actually involves killing deer.
There are many issues with why we have huge population problems in different parts of the country and qualifications aren’t one of them.
So DMC 3 won’t change f@&k all.

 

[Dickie]

Qualifications would carry more weight if those suitably qualified and experienced were allowed access to stalking on publicly owned land, albeit on an organised basis, Forestry England seem to act like the servants of the feudal overlords!

You can you just have to be part of a group/syndicate that pay them the money and have level 1 & 2, insurance and any other hoops that you have to jump through.

 

[Chris Richardson]

You can you just have to be part of a group/syndicate that pay them the money and have level 1 & 2, insurance and any other hoops that you have to jump through.

I don’t do syndicates never have just private land , I’m my opinion syndicates are another part of the problem, I’m sure there are a few good ones but many members just aren’t killing enough deer regardless of being “ qualified “

 

[timbrayford]

You can you just have to be part of a group/syndicate that pay them the money and have level 1 & 2, insurance and any other hoops that you have to jump through.

That's only on selective areas , but to give an example: best practice in deer management requires it to be on a landscape scale, however when I took part in such a coordinated cull on some private estates in the New Forest a large herd of fallow simply took off into the sanctuary of a neighbouring Forestry England wood and thus escaped being culled. DSC 1 and 2, proven experience and insurance I don't have a problem with, but public sector attitudes leave a lot to be desired.

 

[Cranborne]

The high deer population sounds more like the result of landowners' attitudes than anything to do with training.

 

[yellow belly]

That's only on selective areas , but to give an example: best practice in deer management requires it to be on a landscape scale, however when I took part in such a coordinated cull on some private estates in the New Forest a large herd of fallow simply took off into the sanctuary of a neighbouring Forestry England wood and thus escaped being culled. DSC 1 and 2, proven experience and insurance I don't have a problem with, but public sector attitudes leave a lot to be desired.

Interesting.....did you try to collaborate with the FE on your cull plan?!

 

[timbrayford]

Interesting.....did you try to collaborate with the FE on your cull plan?!

I wasn't directly involved in the planning but understood from the organiser that FE weren't interested and had told him that we weren't to go onto public land.

 

[wytonpjs]

I wasn't directly involved in the planning but understood from the organiser that FE weren't interested and had told him that we weren't to go onto public land.

Sadly, I suspect this was "fear" of outside members of the public shooting on Crown land and all the issues that would entail (liability, etc). I was on standby with a Team of 3 other DDM members to assist in the deer management of an FE wood down South a number of years ago. Seemed a no-brainer to us as FE/DDM's governance, the fact that we are insured by the BDS as a special-interest deer group within BDS, SQEP tests are extremely similar, but sadly it never came to pass. Getting that first step is always the hardest and it's so dependent upon "the people, the place and the time". One day perhaps..................

BTW: Given FC's CEO is an ex-DDM Chairman, most of us thought the planets would align - sadly not