Britain’s deer are thriving. It’s a nightmare for the countryside
- Thread starter jcampbellsmith
- Start date
palmer_mike
Well-Known Member
Paywall
375win
Well-Known Member
The article gets some things right: deer numbers are undeniably high in parts of Britain, habitat damage is real in some areas, and poor management over decades has created welfare as well as ecological problems. But it also slips into a familiar media narrative where deer are framed primarily as pests, and where “more culling” is treated as the obvious solution without enough scrutiny of how, where, or by whom that culling would actually happen.
The article itself admits that nobody truly knows how many deer live in Britain and that the commonly quoted figure of 2 million is “at best an educated guess”. That point deserves far more attention than it gets. Population estimates are often extrapolated from local surveys, sightings, cull returns, or habitat models, all with significant margins of error. Yet these uncertain figures are then used to justify calls for dramatically increased cull targets. If the baseline numbers are uncertain, management decisions based heavily on them should be approached cautiously. Otherwise there is a risk of replacing evidence-led deer management with politically driven target-setting.
The first issue is the repeated assumption that bigger cull targets automatically equal better management. Welfare matters just as much as numbers. A rushed or politically driven increase in culling risks creating exactly the sort of poor practice responsible stalkers spend years trying to avoid. Effective deer management depends on skilled, local, species-specific stalking carried out over time — not headline-driven pressure to simply “double the kill”.
The article also glosses over the fact that Britain’s deer populations are not one uniform problem. Fallow on Ashdown are not the same challenge as roe in fragmented farmland or muntjac in southern coppice woods. Habitat condition, forestry objectives, public access, winter pressure, agricultural damage, and carrying capacity all differ enormously by region. Blanket national rhetoric rarely reflects that reality.
There’s also little acknowledgement that deer themselves are often symptoms of wider land-use decisions. Large-scale commercial forestry, winter crops, suburban edge habitat, fragmented woodland, and the decline of traditional mixed farming have all created ideal deer conditions. Yet the burden of “fixing” the issue is repeatedly placed almost entirely on stalkers.
The piece is strongest when discussing venison. Britain does have an oddly weak wild venison culture compared with much of Europe, and that creates a genuine bottleneck. Many stalkers already struggle with game dealer prices, processing costs, access arrangements, and carcass handling regulations. Calling for dramatically higher cull numbers without addressing the economics risks encouraging waste, which is neither ethical nor sustainable.
Some of the proposed alternatives are also treated too casually. Fertility control sounds attractive to non-hunters, but at landscape scale it remains impractical and extremely expensive for free-ranging deer populations. Likewise, predator reintroduction is often discussed romantically without confronting the social, agricultural, and welfare implications in a densely populated country like Britain.
Perhaps the biggest omission is the welfare cost of under-management itself. High-density deer populations do not simply “thrive”. In many areas they suffer poorer body condition, parasite burdens, winter stress, habitat depletion, and increased road mortality. Responsible stalking, done well, is fundamentally a welfare tool as much as a conservation one.
The article is probably right that current policy has failed. But the answer is not simply “more culling”. It is better management: more trained stalkers, better access arrangements, stronger venison markets, realistic local population objectives, and less ideological debate from people far removed from practical deer management on the ground.
The article itself admits that nobody truly knows how many deer live in Britain and that the commonly quoted figure of 2 million is “at best an educated guess”. That point deserves far more attention than it gets. Population estimates are often extrapolated from local surveys, sightings, cull returns, or habitat models, all with significant margins of error. Yet these uncertain figures are then used to justify calls for dramatically increased cull targets. If the baseline numbers are uncertain, management decisions based heavily on them should be approached cautiously. Otherwise there is a risk of replacing evidence-led deer management with politically driven target-setting.
The first issue is the repeated assumption that bigger cull targets automatically equal better management. Welfare matters just as much as numbers. A rushed or politically driven increase in culling risks creating exactly the sort of poor practice responsible stalkers spend years trying to avoid. Effective deer management depends on skilled, local, species-specific stalking carried out over time — not headline-driven pressure to simply “double the kill”.
The article also glosses over the fact that Britain’s deer populations are not one uniform problem. Fallow on Ashdown are not the same challenge as roe in fragmented farmland or muntjac in southern coppice woods. Habitat condition, forestry objectives, public access, winter pressure, agricultural damage, and carrying capacity all differ enormously by region. Blanket national rhetoric rarely reflects that reality.
There’s also little acknowledgement that deer themselves are often symptoms of wider land-use decisions. Large-scale commercial forestry, winter crops, suburban edge habitat, fragmented woodland, and the decline of traditional mixed farming have all created ideal deer conditions. Yet the burden of “fixing” the issue is repeatedly placed almost entirely on stalkers.
The piece is strongest when discussing venison. Britain does have an oddly weak wild venison culture compared with much of Europe, and that creates a genuine bottleneck. Many stalkers already struggle with game dealer prices, processing costs, access arrangements, and carcass handling regulations. Calling for dramatically higher cull numbers without addressing the economics risks encouraging waste, which is neither ethical nor sustainable.
Some of the proposed alternatives are also treated too casually. Fertility control sounds attractive to non-hunters, but at landscape scale it remains impractical and extremely expensive for free-ranging deer populations. Likewise, predator reintroduction is often discussed romantically without confronting the social, agricultural, and welfare implications in a densely populated country like Britain.
Perhaps the biggest omission is the welfare cost of under-management itself. High-density deer populations do not simply “thrive”. In many areas they suffer poorer body condition, parasite burdens, winter stress, habitat depletion, and increased road mortality. Responsible stalking, done well, is fundamentally a welfare tool as much as a conservation one.
The article is probably right that current policy has failed. But the answer is not simply “more culling”. It is better management: more trained stalkers, better access arrangements, stronger venison markets, realistic local population objectives, and less ideological debate from people far removed from practical deer management on the ground.
Sadly won’t load for me
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
That’s well said and well presented
however, the thoughts you presented are never put in front of the public, only into the stalking community, same with the excellent article in this months Rifle Shooter by Niall Rowantree, which almost had an air of emotional plea to stop targeting the red deer so hard. Yet, as noted, these views are presented to the shooting community, not the public, and thus constructive, proper constructive views are never seen by anyone but you and II agree apart from the point where you mention " trained stalkers " if you look at the number of " trained stalkers " there should be more than enough , sadly most arent up to the job / dont like going out more than once every 3 months
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
This^^^That’s well said and well presented
The propaganda war is a broad brush one, which fails to examine the matter in specifics.
For years the political ideology has been barely concealed in Scotland: all the while much of the open hill deer have been well enough managed by DMG’s under administrative oversight, the forest populations have been less well managed, demonstrating the unbalanced approach. Terms such as ‘habitat damage’ are bandied about in order to justify the ‘do something - now!’ rhetoric, as if to suffer deer to eat anything off the hill is somehow an existential crisis, yet all the while sheep grazing at densities which deer would never be tolerated goes on without a murmur - sheer hypocrisy. The mere existence of deer seems to be anathema to the Scottish Executive, yet when one questions the mantra of ‘damage’ one learns that it is at best greatly overstated, wholly under quantified, and seldom demonstrated.
South of the border the herding species and non-native muntjac may be overdue greater attention in certain regions, but the roaming nature of the former and the wandering behaviour of the latter ensure that they continue to ‘get away with it’ whilst more obvious damaging practices for both sylviculture and agriculture - eg poor forest design and environmentally harmful non-native species choice, or in the case of agriculture further habitat loss and/or intensification -continues, leaving deer little choice but to eat what is left in woodlands or take their chance with the farm crops.
Thus deer become the unwelcome ‘pest’ that are no longer welcome in the countryside, and the target for the attention of the man managerial class, and ‘the problem’ in turn becomes that of the man with the rifle, who clearly isn’t doing his job…
Big difference between "trained", "capable" and "willing"
very true if only more people realised thatBig difference between "trained", "capable" and "willing"
Compare the number of people struggling to cull enough deer with the number of people struggling to find affordable opportunities to cull any deer 
Where are all the adverts?
"urgent help needed with deer cull"
"FREE deer stalking, shoot as many as you can fit in your truck"
"deer manager needed, excellent rate of pay"
Where are all the adverts?
"urgent help needed with deer cull"
"FREE deer stalking, shoot as many as you can fit in your truck"
"deer manager needed, excellent rate of pay"
Thank heavens I meet all 3 criteria...just lack any deer close to home
I should also add "modest" to my list of traits
Fair point. The issue is £ ... the minute that comes into it then "sense" goes out the window.Compare the number of people struggling to cull enough deer with the number of people struggling to find affordable opportunities to cull any deer
Where are all the adverts?
"urgent help needed with deer cull"
"FREE deer stalking, shoot as many as you can fit in your truck"
"deer manager needed, excellent rate of pay"
An estate has an issue with muntjac....someone agrees to pay them a load of money, takes clients out and charges £100 for an outing and £50 to shoot a "cull" animal. Suddenly something worth £5 (if you are lucky) to a butcher is worth £150....
John Gryphon
Well-Known Member
The Hundred Acre Wood, Winnie the Pooh’s fictional home, was inspired by Ashdown Forest in East Sussex. Pooh’s adventures feature many creatures; noticeably missing are any deer. That would not be so were they written today. The forest is now home to 15 deer per square kilometre. Walk its hills and there’s a decent chance you’ll spot a 30-strong herd. If not, the keen-eyed can easily see signs of their presence: from bark-stripped saplings to trees nibbled neatly up to the “browsing line” some 1.6 metres off the ground, the highest point most fallow deer can reach.Sadly won’t load for me
Nobody knows how many deer live in Britain. The most common estimate, 2m, is at best an educated guess. But it is clear that their numbers are rising. Birdwatchers have reported both bird and mammal sightings to the British Trust for Ornithology since the 1990s. Over the past 15 years sightings of both fallow and muntjac deer have more than doubled; those of roe are up by 42% (see chart). The government’s recently published policy paper on deer impact says, bluntly: “It’s clear that the management approach to date has failed.”
That is a problem. Deer cause up to 74,000 road accidents a year. They destroy crops and are a nightmare for biodiversity. In 2023 Derriford Hospital, in Plymouth, had to increase security after two bucks were filmed gallivanting down a corridor.
In Britain six species act, as Jochen Langbein, a researcher, puts it, like “lots of different lawnmowers mowing at different heights”. Diminutive muntjac can reach only about 1 metre off the ground. Red and sika can stretch as high as 1.8 metres. But each species also has its own dietary preferences—picking and choosing its favourite flora in a way that can devastate the natural environment. Particularly vulnerable are woodlands, 33% of which showed signs of deer damage in 2021 (in 1971 it was 12%). That can ruin the habitats of wildlife like dormice, nightingales and turtledoves.
The covid-19 pandemic, which kept hunters inside, accelerated a long-standing problem. Milder winters and longer growing seasons have made life easier for British deer over the past 20 years. The trouble has arguably been brewing since the early 1900s, when deer-hunting aristocrats thought it fashionable to populate their estates with more exotic species.
The real culprit is underculling. Around 350,000 deer are culled each year. That probably needs to double. But deer stalking (a form of hunting) is an arduous hobby, and a dying trade. In 2022 the average age of a stalker was 58; now it is 62. A landowner’s permission is needed, which complicates culling. And deer have a knack for figuring out where they are safe.
Besides, Britain lacks the game-eating culture of many of its European neighbours. Without a strong venison market there has been little incentive for deer stalkers to go to the trouble of hunting and preparing more deer than their friends and family can eat (perhaps 15 a year). Deer-hunting estates actually benefit from overpopulation. An extra stag can add £50,000 ($67,000) to the value of a property.
The result of all this is that Britain’s deer population has been doubling roughly every 20 years since at least the 1970s. Compound interest means the country is now at the acute end of a chronic problem.
What can be done? Government plans to boost demand for venison might help. Some favour more humane alternatives to culling, such as tall fences and contraceptive bait. But muntjac are notoriously hard to contain and contraceptive doses are fiendishly tricky. The sheer number of wolves (easily 15,000) needed to manage a deer population lacking any natural predators makes reintroduction, popular with environmentalists, a pipe dream.
The most radical solution would be to reform Britain’s feudal hunting laws, so that the government starts issuing licences and permits. That is hard to imagine. Roger Seddon of the Countryside Alliance says such a change “would be enormously destructive to the culture of the countryside”. ■
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
Well it’s not the farmers who are screaming out, it’s NE and such. When farmers feel they need help, they reach out and find someone who can do the work, and that’s when they either drop the lease fees to nil, or offer to pay. But as long as it’s the government or ‘bodies’ who are screamingCompare the number of people struggling to cull enough deer with the number of people struggling to find affordable opportunities to cull any deer
Where are all the adverts?
"urgent help needed with deer cull"
"FREE deer stalking, shoot as many as you can fit in your truck"
"deer manager needed, excellent rate of pay"
deer invasion help!! , and not the landowners, it often becomes a case of either the landowner doesn’t want someone dicking around on their land, want a lot of money to do it, or picks someone known and trusted locally, but who also stalks 20 other farms and therefore has t got the time to do a half decent job despite all good intentions. I know of someone, as an example - shooting 20 farms in an area full of roe, Munty, Chinese and fallow. Lots of TB problems etc. that’s a LOT of land!!! Unfortunately they have a busy day job and not much time to stalk. See what’s going on there.. they’re influential in society so have no issues sweeping up land.
Loads of other local stalkers I imagine are struggling to find a permission, but have plenty of time to stalk
Lots of very valid points and lots of people (myself included) who have ground with deer (very limited in my case due to area) due to shooting other quarry (foxes, crows, pigeons etc).Well it’s not the farmers who are screaming out, it’s NE and such. When farmers feel they need help, they reach out and find someone who can do the work, and that’s when they either drop the lease fees to nil, or offer to pay. But as long as it’s the government or ‘bodies’ who are screaming
I know of someone, as an example - shooting 20 farms in an area full of roe, Munty, Chinese and fallow. Lots of TB problems etc. that’s a LOT of land!!! Unfortunately they have a busy day job and not much time to stalk. See what’s going on there.. they’re influential in society so have no issues sweeping up land.
Loads of other local stalkers I imagine are struggling to find a permission, but have plenty of time to stalk
I think the key thing in keeping ground and rewarding the opportunity having land gives is to be responsive when the farmer has issues. I shot crows and pigeons for a couple of years on one piece of ground before the farmer asked me to shoot the fallow due to crop and hedge damage. If I get a call from them I am down as soon as I can....but having a full time job gets in the way of hobbies...and ultimately thats what shooting is to me...its not my day job.
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
The Hundred Acre Wood, Winnie the Pooh’s fictional home, was inspired by Ashdown Forest in East Sussex. Pooh’s adventures feature many creatures; noticeably missing are any deer. That would not be so were they written today. The forest is now home to 15 deer per square kilometre. Walk its hills and there’s a decent chance you’ll spot a 30-strong herd. If not, the keen-eyed can easily see signs of their presence: from bark-stripped saplings to trees nibbled neatly up to the “browsing line” some 1.6 metres off the ground, the highest point most fallow deer can reach.
Nobody knows how many deer live in Britain. The most common estimate, 2m, is at best an educated guess. But it is clear that their numbers are rising. Birdwatchers have reported both bird and mammal sightings to the British Trust for Ornithology since the 1990s. Over the past 15 years sightings of both fallow and muntjac deer have more than doubled; those of roe are up by 42% (see chart). The government’s recently published policy paper on deer impact says, bluntly: “It’s clear that the management approach to date has failed.”
Chart: The Economist
That is a problem. Deer cause up to 74,000 road accidents a year. They destroy crops and are a nightmare for biodiversity. In 2023 Derriford Hospital, in Plymouth, had to increase security after two bucks were filmed gallivanting down a corridor.
In Britain six species act, as Jochen Langbein, a researcher, puts it, like “lots of different lawnmowers mowing at different heights”. Diminutive muntjac can reach only about 1 metre off the ground. Red and sika can stretch as high as 1.8 metres. But each species also has its own dietary preferences—picking and choosing its favourite flora in a way that can devastate the natural environment. Particularly vulnerable are woodlands, 33% of which showed signs of deer damage in 2021 (in 1971 it was 12%). That can ruin the habitats of wildlife like dormice, nightingales and turtledoves.
The covid-19 pandemic, which kept hunters inside, accelerated a long-standing problem. Milder winters and longer growing seasons have made life easier for British deer over the past 20 years. The trouble has arguably been brewing since the early 1900s, when deer-hunting aristocrats thought it fashionable to populate their estates with more exotic species.
The real culprit is underculling. Around 350,000 deer are culled each year. That probably needs to double. But deer stalking (a form of hunting) is an arduous hobby, and a dying trade. In 2022 the average age of a stalker was 58; now it is 62. A landowner’s permission is needed, which complicates culling. And deer have a knack for figuring out where they are safe.
Besides, Britain lacks the game-eating culture of many of its European neighbours. Without a strong venison market there has been little incentive for deer stalkers to go to the trouble of hunting and preparing more deer than their friends and family can eat (perhaps 15 a year). Deer-hunting estates actually benefit from overpopulation. An extra stag can add £50,000 ($67,000) to the value of a property.
The result of all this is that Britain’s deer population has been doubling roughly every 20 years since at least the 1970s. Compound interest means the country is now at the acute end of a chronic problem.
What can be done? Government plans to boost demand for venison might help. Some favour more humane alternatives to culling, such as tall fences and contraceptive bait. But muntjac are notoriously hard to contain and contraceptive doses are fiendishly tricky. The sheer number of wolves (easily 15,000) needed to manage a deer population lacking any natural predators makes reintroduction, popular with environmentalists, a pipe dream.
The most radical solution would be to reform Britain’s feudal hunting laws, so that the government starts issuing licences and permits. That is hard to imagine. Roger Seddon of the Countryside Alliance says such a change “would be enormously destructive to the culture of the countryside”. ■
Open public land and get rid of the contractors. Issue a guaranteed minimum price per kg for venison, subsidies from government via game dealers of say £6/kg.
Make it illegal for landowners to take payment for deer leases. Landowners must report deer cull numbers annually or face fines.
Government initiatives to provide venison to prisons and schools, military, etc and other large consumption bodies via supply cm tracts.
Rejoin the EU
Allow stalking related costs to be tax deductible even if hobby basis
palmer_mike
Well-Known Member
Realistically is the £6/kg part of your idea was fulfilled there most likely wouldn’t be a need for the rest.
NoIDeer
Well-Known Member
As a recreational stalker the biggest barrier to culling more deer is moving on the carcass. If it was easy to drop a carcass off at a larder I would go out more.
For me the financial aspect is secondary to that. We need a joined up route to turn deer into meat and dispose of the waste.
Setting cull targets and management would be easy if the whole process was easy too.
For me the financial aspect is secondary to that. We need a joined up route to turn deer into meat and dispose of the waste.
Setting cull targets and management would be easy if the whole process was easy too.
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
Not sure. You might see some shoot their ground out, and those with 20 farms and a full time job in investment banking still do nothing
Similar threads
