Got you ... would it be easier to ban the shooting of bucks during doe season as that way bucks arent getting shot as the preference to does?
If they opened up the seasons would you ………
- Thread starter Leec6.5
- Start date
Let’s not give that idea to anyone
image young tree plantations / under planting being destroyed by the bucks, even if I’m only shooting 60-70 bucks a year, leaving them for 5 years in my eyes would cause chaos, that’s just me speaking for myself. But I’m also one for getting stuck into the doe’s and I’d happily say we havent got a big deer problem on our patch, if anything numbers are at there all time low. Going back 25 years ago there was herds of 200+ fallow, now in a lot smaller manageable numbers.
Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
Just a blanket ban and does fully open, 5 years of that and I reckon the population would be in good order, and before anybody pipes up about the calves, I go back to the original statement of no one cares about the 100’s if not 1000’s of munty kids left orphaned each year!
Sol
Well-Known Member
Except you arent a Head hunter lee your a totally different mind set, If you ban bucks and stags for five years Its going too be entirely different results your after likely a significant increase in the population.
People that go for heads will just pack it up during the ban there not keen enough on venison or cold winter mornings too go shoot a female, the way they will look at it Is 5 years down the line when the ban is lifted there will be good bucks and stags running around...
What It does effect? people like us that take animals that are in-season if there's a small stag or even a big stag standing in front of you on your way back too the vehicle why not shoot it? its still a deer gone It might not reproduce, but Its still an animal that can be in circulation for 10-15 years If its not shot or dies from a injury, they still make an impact being removed less so than a female, but when the females dont show and the stags do Its stupid not too shoot them either.
People that go for heads will just pack it up during the ban there not keen enough on venison or cold winter mornings too go shoot a female, the way they will look at it Is 5 years down the line when the ban is lifted there will be good bucks and stags running around...
What It does effect? people like us that take animals that are in-season if there's a small stag or even a big stag standing in front of you on your way back too the vehicle why not shoot it? its still a deer gone It might not reproduce, but Its still an animal that can be in circulation for 10-15 years If its not shot or dies from a injury, they still make an impact being removed less so than a female, but when the females dont show and the stags do Its stupid not too shoot them either.
The amount of threads where you have commented something along the lines of ‘if it’s getting dark then I will just leave them be, I don’t know why you lot are so desperate to kill a deer’ or ‘if they are over 200m I just let them walk, Iv killed enough deer in my time’. You are the most contradictory character on stalking directory by far. Maybe female seasons don’t need extending? Maybe what is really necessary is for people like you to start killing deer when they are out?
Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
I can kill dont you worry, but I am limited as we all are to our permissible ground, not that I want any more ground, I’ve given a heap away.
I’ve had 25 odd years of it and to be fair, I could easily quit it all tomorrow and it wouldn’t bother me one bit!
I don’t shoot over 200 because of the calibre I shoot, that’s through choice, doesn’t mean I can’t shoot over 200!
So you don’t like what I post don’t read it or unfollow not fussed!
Do it then? Stop threatening it and leave it to those who truly love it.
gelert
Well-Known Member
Maybe it's time we looked at a system more like Germany's, where those holding the hunting rights can be held financially liable for deer damage to crops and commercial forestry. That creates a real incentive to keep deer populations at sustainable levels.
Shooting heavily pregnant female deer is not something I would personally do if I'm honest, but, if it's legal, forms part of a necessary deer management plan, done humanely by a competent person etc etc, then yes.
There's also the reality of the current venison market. If demand is weak and prices are poor, it becomes harder for deer managers to justify taking animals that can't be sold or used effectively.
Any potential season change should also address the venison supply chain, because increasing cull numbers without improving the market doesn't solve the wider problem.
Shooting heavily pregnant female deer is not something I would personally do if I'm honest, but, if it's legal, forms part of a necessary deer management plan, done humanely by a competent person etc etc, then yes.
There's also the reality of the current venison market. If demand is weak and prices are poor, it becomes harder for deer managers to justify taking animals that can't be sold or used effectively.
Any potential season change should also address the venison supply chain, because increasing cull numbers without improving the market doesn't solve the wider problem.
My numbers are VERY low .
Fortunately.
I'm under virtually zero pressure just the occasional
Individual/s .
However YMMV
Metaphorically speaking they are just big rabbits.
Last edited:
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
I’m not saying that you are wrong, but your plan is going to be very expensive.
It’s the antlers that pay for the female cull.
I shoot around deer 30 per annum, around 10 males with antlers, say 2 or 3 halfway decent, the rest are just “ meats”.
Thing is, hunting for a decent stag is what I really enjoy, it’s my own personal perk that makes the whole game worthwhile. I let lots walk. It pays for the hard slog between November and March, the bad weather, short days that are just hard graft.
I’m not a professional, it’s not my job, it’s just a hobby.
Take away the best, most enjoyable bit and I might just take up crotchet instead.
Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
i encounter the buck /stag debate quite a lot, when your dealing with a tribe of female stalkers all they want to do is get a monster in the wall.
But im afraid bucks and stags dot give birth, the only way to get this population problem under control is thrash them and thrash them all year round.
shakey jake
Well-Known Member
You cant work out the sex of muntjac before you shoot them?
You do talk twadle
shakey jake
Well-Known Member
HE doesnt understand the law so wouldnt worry him
No I dont think I'd shoot Does out of season myself. Im not a slaughterman with a rifle and here on the Fylde coast the Roe population isnt massive so I dont see need here. I personally want to see their numbers increase locally so it would be counter productive to shoot them when they're most likely pregnant or have babies. On another note I'd imagine the Antis would love the content of this thread
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
I can see the headline now…
“ British deer stalkers demand to selectively cull heavily pregnant animals and to close the season on male deer for a minimum of 5 years to reduce numbers .”
You’re going to need more than a PhD in marketing to sell that package.
Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
It won’t happen, that’s almost a given!
But we’re are advised to shoot the heavily pregnant muntjac, so AGAIN what’s the difference?
Nobody has actually told me the difference between a heavily pregnant muntjac compared to the other female deer ?
Last edited:
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Because it’s the best choice under the circumstances
There isn’t one, except that the muntjac is recognised as being foreign and invasive which comes with attitudes more associated with vermin control.
Why stop with shooting? Get the long dogs and snares out too.
You want them gone? Drive them, trap them, snare them. You’ll do it.
Similar threads
