Why is no one talking numbers?

oneeyedanddeaf

New Member
Can I start by quoting from a government debate:

Sir Charles Walker MP for Broxbourne said in a February debate in 2023 on the future of deer management in the UK that:


‘At around 2 million animals, the UK’s deer population is estimated to stand now at its highest level for 1,000 years; there are more deer now than when William the Conqueror arrived. Our immense national herd keeps on growing. To put that in context, to keep it stable at 2 million, we would need to cull between 500,000 and 750,000 deer each year—that is just to keep things stable. At present, however, we are culling only about 350,000 animals, so each year the national herd keeps growing, and more trees and crops are nibbled away. We always say in this place, “Something needs to be done” but clearly it does need to be done in this case.’

During the winter nights I wrote a long paper (3000 words) setting out what I think is at the heart of the 'deer issue'. No one was remotely interested in publishing the paper. Following the publication of the DEFRA/government strategy paper in February I tried pitching the article again - with precisely the same result - no one wants to know or hear about the scale of the problem. My conclusion is that 'the powers that be 'are scared witless' by the numbers - they are terrified that the public will simply not understand/tolerate the fact that in order to protect the environment successfully it will be necessary to shoot hundreds of thousands of deer on an annual and ongoing basis. The 2003 debate I quoted indicates that the government knows the scale of the problem. The February strategy paper will help (night shooting will be beneficial) BUT to tackle the scale of the problem much bolder approaches are needed. I am close to Kielder where the rangers do great work culling 3000 deer annually and the head man there has said 'it's not enough'.

I don't like the term 'recreational stalker', because it sounds like we are doing it solely for fun. Yes, I and many like me enjoy it - however most are serious and committed to carrying out the job professionally. Unfortunately we 'rec's' cannot even begin to tackle the numbers required. Maths was never my strong suit but I calculated when writing my article that in order to make a difference a cohort of 1200 full time, fully paid stalkers would be needed to work annually for at least three generations in order for a balance (whatever the hell that means) to be achieved. I have great sympathy with the guy who responded to the 2022 consultation saying that he had shot 374 deer during the last year and he didn't think it had made any difference. The scale of the issue is MASSIVE and we do ourselves no good in pretending otherwise. We live in an age of fact checking - the facts are out there, we don't need a ten year strategy to ascertain numbers and which deer are causing the most damage and where etc etc - WE NEED ACTION.

Coming to the end of a 50 year stalking life will I apply to renew my firearms certificate when it expires in 2027? or will I ride off into the sunset. What I do know is that I look forward to hearing what the directory thinks about what I have said.
 
The problem is that the "issue" with deer numbers is at a local level and therefore a "one size fits all" approach isnt practical.

If you look at some of the 1,000 + herds of fallow in areas of England they need a different strategy to Sika in Scotland. Shooting deer at night is purely a means to an end with reducing deer numbers as part of a management strategy but if you only have 300 acres and do this 3 or 4 times in a month the fallow will go elsewhere.

The other issue is it requires collaboration and that is not likely where you have mixed land ownership.

Not to mention that most of the general public dont want us to kill anything....

No easy answers to my mind....
 
Probably a change to the deer legislation might be a start to allow for night shooting and to possibly remove the current open and closed seasons. If numbers you have stated are true, the risk of hunting deer to extinction is possibly low and might start to look similar to kangaroos in Australia in maybe a decade or so if the current practices were to continue. Also with the number of firearms owners/ stalkers potentially going down year after year, the problem might become even higher. With the government wanting to discourage farmers from cultivating, this might be a silent strategy to continue the stance and leave the problem for a future generation to deal with. I might be wrong but feels like its not far from reality.
 
It's reached the point where discussions about the numbers that need to be culled are going to be unpalatable to many people, including many stalkers.

Isn't this similar to what has happened in the Kruger National Park, which is being decimated by elephants? They used to cull a few each year to keep the numbers in check, then that was stopped, and now the population is so high that they daren't start again because the public backlash over the scale of the cull required would be massive.

Maybe best if we just keep our heads down and get on with doing what we can. And work from within to get more youngsters into stalking. Let the government get to work on venison marketing strategies, without talking too openly about numbers.
 
Interesting debate. Scotland is probably ahead of the rest in terms of Deer management groups which actually talk about numbers and target culls etc.
 
People need to accept a shoot on sight principle for all deer and stop the misguided “I’ll leave that for next year” approach much favoured by those who take out clients.
We can return to those times when the numbers are better controlled.
Game dealer rates also have an impact for the larger species. Hauling a red out of a wet field for £1.40/kg is not an incentive
 
Unless there is a drastic change to how we deal with deer, and soon, the numbers will be beyond control if not already so.
Government to pay a ‘bounty’ on every deer shot ? Proved by a tail/head being deposited somewhere ?

I have my own ideas on what/could be done, but it would be impractical to some stalkers and would undoubtedly be met with resistance by landowners. I’ll keep my counsel on that, but without some sort of ‘official status’ being associated with stalkers allowing some access to land I fear we’ve lost the battle already.
 
Professional stalkers and guides, and those holding large swathes of land are the problem. They want as many deer as possible for clients, or have so much ground they’ll never manage it properly.

I think guides should be required to be registered and submit cull records with data on land they manage

Similarly, I think landowners should be banned from receiving payment for stalking rights
 
People need to accept a shoot on sight principle for all deer and stop the misguided “I’ll leave that for next year” approach much favoured by those who take out clients.
We can return to those times when the numbers are better controlled.
Game dealer rates also have an impact for the larger species. Hauling a red out of a wet field for £1.40/kg is not an incentive
Instead of the government paying contractors £100 per animal shot, they should consider offering £60 per animal shot by anyone, anywhere in the U.K., with the money exchanged for the ears at the post office. There are still a few rifles in the country, but once the freezer is full there isn’t quite so much incentive for the stalker to set the alarm clock and put a litre in the vehicle.

Venison incentives are all well and good, but there’s a butcher needed after the deed is done, and last time I looked comparatively few are keen to roll up their sleeves in this respect, having a use for the carcass is laudable indeed, but the issue comes down to the economics as seen by the man with the bead on the beast. Below £3/kilo for most it’s not an attractive proposition, but that could be changed.
 
I get where you're coming from but that isnt true for all of us. Some have the commitment and put the effort in...just might live in areas where there a sod all deer...like me :lol:
Yes I fully understand that but there’s also a lot of so called stalkers out there who are A, useless or B want to go out once every couple of months and take one , don’t get me wrong that’s all well and good and up to them but don’t kid yourself it makes the slightest bit of difference to deer numbers
 
- And how is our beloved government responding to this onrushing crisis?

  • REACH restrictions on popular propellant powders
  • Banning conventional bullets
  • Insane delays in granting, renewing and varying FACs
  • More intrusive enquiries into FAC holders and applicants
  • Increasing licensing fees
  • “…BASC survey of stalking members in 2006, the average age was 48, but when we did the same survey in 2020, it had risen to 55. We’ve got an ageing stalking population…”

Etc.

lt’s like the old office poster, isn’t it? “No-one notices what l do until l stop doing it.”

Still, when the last stalker has been forced into retirement and the goobermunt takes over deer management, just imagine how quick, cheap and efficient it will become…

:rofl:

maximus otter
 
Yes I fully understand that but there’s also a lot of so called stalkers out there who are A, useless or B want to go out once every couple of months and take one , don’t get me wrong that’s all well and good and up to them but don’t kid yourself it makes the slightest bit of difference to deer numbers
Dont disagree there mate...just dont want to be put into that category myself. Most of the stalking I do is 3-4 hours from home and I go as often as I can and get as many deer on the deck as possible and worry about the extraction later. I shoot as many as I can closer to home, have a chiller to make things easier and always try and do a tidy job for the landowner. But as we all know ...I also on a Creedmoor ...but we cant all be perfect can we :lol:
 
- And how is our beloved government responding to this onrushing crisis?

  • REACH restrictions on popular propellant powders
  • Banning conventional bullets
  • Insane delays in granting, renewing and varying FACs
  • More intrusive enquiries into FAC holders and applicants
  • Increasing licensing fees
  • “…BASC survey of stalking members in 2006, the average age was 48, but when we did the same survey in 2020, it had risen to 55. We’ve got an ageing stalking population…”

Etc.

lt’s like the old office poster, isn’t it? “No-one notices what l do until l stop doing it.”

Still, when the last stalker has been forced into retirement and the goobermunt takes over deer management, just imagine how quick, cheap and efficient it will become…

:rofl:

maximus otter
We will be on PDS level 16 by that point and AI will have replaced our ability to learn anything or do anything....thermal deer management drones will control deer...
 
Dont disagree there mate...just dont want to be put into that category myself. Most of the stalking I do is 3-4 hours from home and I go as often as I can and get as many deer on the deck as possible and worry about the extraction later. I shoot as many as I can closer to home, have a chiller to make things easier and always try and do a tidy job for the landowner. But as we all know ...I also on a Creedmoor ...but we cant all be perfect can we :lol:
You had me right up until creedmoor 😔😂😂😂
 
Professional stalkers and guides, and those holding large swathes of land are the problem. They want as many deer as possible for clients, or have so much ground they’ll never manage it properly.

I think guides should be required to be registered and submit cull records with data on land they manage

Similarly, I think landowners should be banned from receiving payment for stalking rights
Sounds like someone’s struggling for stalking ….
 
Back
Top