Syndicates

It's all down to market conditions. If folk are prepared to pay a couple of grand a year to stalk and can only take home two deer, there's a market for that. If there were no takers, it'd soon stop.

There are, of course people who don't have that much time to spare and to whom a few grand is pocket change.

75 said:

I do agree to a certain extend but it also depends a lot on how much investment has gone into the operation. If you have to invest in a quad for extraction, a dozen hightseats and a chiller back at home then it's going to set you back north of £20k before you've shot a deer. Versus free use of someone else's facilities and an easy route to dispose of as many carcasses as you need. Which shouldn't be underestimated for larger deer.



I'm playing Devil's advocate to a degree but there is a counter argument here that a professional larder installed and properly maintained by an estate, with onward refrigerated transport to the gamedealer before being cut and packed by a professional butcher in an inspected premesis is "better for the image of stalking and deer" than a "Fred in a shed" operation with an old coke fridge in the corner of a garage and some freezer bags labelled with marker pen...

Click to expand...

I dunno, its a point of principle aswell as an economic one. Stalkers shouldn't be prevented from eating/buying what they shoot and bragging about it round the BBQ to their mates. Its democratises and normalises stalking and brings in more supporters. Even then how many deer can the weekend warrior actually shoot? The additional revenue from say 10 roe deer is pretty meaningless in the scheme of things and comes with the hassle of policing and potential for a whole batch to be condemned. Just charge accordingly and ensure the stalking tenants are suitably qualified to avoid poisoning his mates at the BBQ or bringing the estate into disrepute. I know plenty of lands where syndicates are totally self sufficient from the estate - retrieve/sell/eat what you kill.

Syndicates are a way to make money. a way to control deer numbers, a route into deer stalking for some etc etc. A lot depends on how they are run, who by and for what purpose etc etc. To me if they are clear and transparent then fair enough ...you pay your money you make your choice. As I have said before the minute money comes into it the dynamics and expectation level changes. If you had a mate who said go out on their ground 6 times and you have blank outings ....oh well one of those things. Pay to undertake the same thing and you will (likely) be annoyed as you are paying for a result that is not guaranteed.

Ref the aspect of taking what you shoot and how many deer "hobby" stalkers can kill it really depends on species. I live in a very deer sparse area so have to travel a few hours to shoot deer. I shot around 50 last year and most were fallow so I need an outlet before I will pull the trigger. My wife and I eat maybe 5 fallow a year which is a decent amount ...but in the majority of cases I need a method of moving the carcass on (which I have no issue doing).

Like all things stalking...lots of differing opinions

Paying to be a syndicate member where you only retain a few carcasses isn't any different to paying for individual stalks where you have to pay extra for the carcass. If the cull figures and the syndicate membership cost work out it could be a more attractive option, especially if the syndicate is flexible about access.