Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Geographical areas of DMG's

  1. #1

    Geographical areas of DMG's

    Should deer management groups hold areas on a first come first served basis. Having been approached about problems about joining an adjacent group and the politics within that group being contrary to ours I got to thinking. (A) sould that person (who has the knowledge and experience) be able to set up a credible alternative DMG giving a choice of provider for that area. or (B) should our group be able to overlap and basically swallowing up the ground claimed by our neighbour. One thing is certain until we sing from the same sheet we will be looked on as a group looking for free stalking. Nobody has set up a policy document to the functions of a DMG. That is the vital next step and I believe the way LDN will approach the problem. Jim

  2. #2
    First off it will depend on the landowners. Our deer group SLDG has only 1000 acres directly given to the group this i am sure will change. But the group members cover an area of 20,000 acres this is with the kind permission of the farmer landowners in our areas and some out side our boundary,s. Now if some one else wanted to set up a group within the South Lanarkshire boundary and wanted it to be constituted they would need to go through the same routine as our selves.At the stage it went to SNH Ronnie Rose would contact the groups that are already in place and ask if we had any objections. But this would not stop a
    none constituted group starting and working in deer management there are many of them already. But i am sure the areas we live in could have many groups working together should this ever happen.Jim i don't agree with you and feel the LDN will fail on behalf of the recreational deer stalker. You ask the question what if any benefits has it got for the deer stalker and the answer is none.

  3. #3
    too many groups and not enough management direction IMO!

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Bonnie Scotland
    Posts
    3,447
    I am concerned about this, for all our sakes.

    LDN or simply DMGs independent of LDN, how will it really work?

    Group control of the management of ever larger tracts of land? ... Who gets to shoot on that land and how?

    Will we all have to subscribe to A.N. Other and his/their "agreed" management policies before we can even take deer on our own land?

    What might it cost us in future to do something that we have never had to pay for, or otherwise gain the permission of this "A.N. Other", in order to do in the past?

    Will overarching corporate interest eventually take over the whole (pardon the pun) shooting match? ... and rob us blind?

    Or... possibly worse still, turn much of stalking over to some new "Vermin Control Industry".

    I'm deeply suspicious of the entire concept and it's probable outcomes, as they appear to me, but you may have got that already...

    Please explain, especially if you think my comments are unfounded and my concern is baseless.

  6. #6

    Groups

    To many deer management groups not enough deer management.

  7. #7
    We do not need deer management groups to shoot deer. If all that a DMG does is cull deer it might as well be a syndicate. While there is a necessity to shoot deer the DMG's remit should be to asess deer situations mainly in areas of agricultural conflict. Where deer on public land are going onto crops and retreating back into a protected habitat there is a necessity to assess and cull some. it is not a matter of Johny take the rifle and shoot all that is seen. Management is assessing, counting. risk assessment, cull plan, public awareness, who, when, how, why, result.
    We have identified areas and were in consultation when that LDNS meeting took place, Three years of bridge building was demolished. It is a case of start again. Until a policy document is produced outlining the purpose of a DMG we will go round in the same circle. We know the SNH, FCE stand on it. What we expected at the LDNS was a policy guideline, what we got was "same old". To some it may have been new but to most it is the same that has been wheeled out for the last three years at Best Practice and DMG formation meetings, only this time the speakers were further up the food chain, Jim

  8. #8
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Bonnie Scotland
    Posts
    3,447
    I sympathise with your predicament. It's very frustrating when you are looking for a way forward only to be sent back to square one having invested three years of time and effort.

    Regardless of your problems though.... apparently no-one will answer my questions or allay my concerns. The notion of some wee club controlling the culling of deer over tracts of land works when it is a syndicate, everyone knows where they stand. How will it work with DMGs?

    See my post at #5 (above) I notice you decline to answer my questions or address the points I raise. I really would like those issues aired... please.

  9. #9
    I am concerned about this, for all our sakes.

    LDN or simply DMGs independent of LDN, how will it really work?
    Know one knows, we have tried to draw SNH out on this one. On the whole I think it to is maintain the threat taht we will be sent in if you don't cull your own with no intention of following through.

    Group control of the management of ever larger tracts of land? ... Who gets to shoot on that land and how?
    Can never see this happening within the non-landholding DMG's. However ADMG's up north do this on a voluntary basis where large landowners pool resourses for economic gain. However noone is forced to join. Land is then managed for shooting/stalking lets. Stalking then organised by estate office or letting agent.(See Galgraith's stalking opportunities)

    Will we all have to subscribe to A.N. Other and his/their "agreed" management policies before we can even take deer on our own land?
    There will be no intervention on managed land as things stand. They may however check cull returns (mandatory) and cull should at least equal recommended cull return. Much the same as FCE lease where cull targets are given.

    What might it cost us in future to do something that we have never had to pay for, or otherwise gain the permission of this "A.N. Other", in order to do in the past?
    No price has been mentioned as far as I am aware. For what I gathered from the lawyer at the meeting he wasworried it would initially be a cutting of farm subsidies.

    Will overarching corporate interest eventually take over the whole (pardon the pun) shooting match? ... and rob us blind?
    That would be my greatest fear with the involvement of ADMG, highland model. With the introduction of pro-stalker status, qualifications for this and that, a lot of farmers will sign up for peace.

    Or... possibly worse still, turn much of stalking over to some new "Vermin Control Industry".
    dmg's should exist to prvent this.


    I'm deeply suspicious of the entire concept and it's probable outcomes, as they appear to me, but you may have got that already...
    With the lack of forward planing info we all are left to speculate. The above is my personal take having attended meetings open and closed but where information is very limited. I do believe the "Deer, roe in particular, are vermin" sits too high on the SNH agenda.

    Please explain, especially if you think my comments are unfounded and my concern is baseless.
    plesse note you have here my personal answers from gleaned knowledge. These opinions are my own and are not the product of pooled knowledge of any group. Jim
    Last edited by jimbo123p; 23-11-2011 at 14:16.

  10. #10
    Tamus, As Jim has pointed out DMGs (or at least my vision of a DMG) does not equate to a Group of guys taking over the culling of deer or the management of deer on large areas of land. This thinking should be challenged at all opportunities.
    Having been born and brought up in West Lothian it is the area I know best. The county is made up of expanding towns and villages,industrial sites (both used and derelict), agricultural land with a diversity of principle produce, forestry under public and private sector management, recreational ground with the largest single owner being WLC and urban development. Views on deer management is as diverse as the use of the land. From encouraging deer with no management whatsoever for the enjoyment of the public to zero tolerance. In some instances that I know of these two opposite views lie next door to each other. To my mind the principle core objective of a DMG in an area such as West Lothian is to orchestrate the welfare of deer based on sustainable management and the reduction of negative impacts. We must be able to provide qualified/reliable advice and action including where necessary humane culling but appreciate that we have many Wildlife and recreational areas where the landowners would wish the public to experience seeing deer. I would prefer that they saw healthy deer rather than injured or lying at the side of a road.
    Does it matter who manages the deer? I do not think so. What matters is that the deer are managed and that the managers agree to and are part of the larger plan.

Similar Threads

  1. Are DMG's a con job
    By jimbo123p in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 14-01-2013, 15:03
  2. Hertfordshire and surounding areas get together
    By pierred in forum Events and Meetings
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 28-09-2011, 14:21
  3. Available Two areas in Fife
    By 6pointer in forum Deer Stalking Opportunities
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 30-07-2011, 12:45
  4. Scotland Central Belt DMG's
    By jimbo123p in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-02-2010, 13:27
  5. This would get you to some remote areas!!!
    By tartinjock in forum Videos
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 29-03-2009, 12:14

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •