Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Last Gasp

  1. #1
    Davie
    Guest

    Last Gasp

    http://deerimpacts.blogspot.com/2009...rs-of-roe.html

    It seems that the DCS are have there last gasps of breath before getting swallowed up by SNH . I hope that they don't succeed with there plans for the central belt as it is my area and in no way reflects all of the hype written in the press (shooting times ) With foolish individuales whose only motive is acceptance employment and greed. Deer management should be about deer and there impact not scaremongering.

  2. #2

    Re: Last Gasp

    Quote Originally Posted by Davie
    http://deerimpacts.blogspot.com/2009/01/scotland-news-increasing-numbers-of-roe.html

    It seems that the DCS are have there last gasps of breath before getting swallowed up by SNH . I hope that they don't succeed with there plans for the central belt as it is my area and in no way reflects all of the hype written in the press (shooting times ) With foolish individuales whose only motive is acceptance employment and greed. Deer management should be about deer and there impact not scaremongering.
    The necessity to reduce deer numbers in given locations in order to reduce RTC is not unique to cental scotland.
    It is a growing requirement through out the UK from Sussex to Sutherland.

    The sooner we accept it , get on with it, the sooner the situation will improve. Is it not better to choose to do the job rather than have the job forced upon you.

    10 thousand dead deer lying at the side of the road, being used as pet food if we are lucky. Is a hell of a waste of good venison.

  3. #3
    Davie
    Guest
    I agree wholeheartedly and my opinion on this is to fold one is of correction and that is to fix the problem at source.What causes all the deer to be living on the edge of motorways. What have we done or haven't done in the past that has caused the deer to be a danger to them selves and humans. How can we sort the problem should we let DCS pic the stalkers to go on to ground that we as local stalker never had access to. Will the commission let me stalk a large lease at the edge of the m77 a hot spot for deer sighting and accidents. Answer no i don't pay enough money but the excess Deer from the lease might cause an accident.
    The DCS are self motivated with no real interests or they would have sorted the problem at a local level. There are lots of ways of controlling deer in urban areas and the chap who lives locally is the man to do the job in my opinion. Will the DCS LET THIS HAPPEN absolutely no chance they already have a register of approved stalkers on that is the A list stalkers ex rangers etc who will get the contracts and earn the DCS its massive grants.
    They re also not sure as to what way they will go with regard exams bu it is suggested that a new deer competence test will be brought in before you can shoot deer in Scotland. Sorry but this is a time bomb in the making and there will be only one winner and that will be the FC and DCS.
    the very people that caused the problems in the first place. RANT OVER.

  4. #4
    It is true that each year there are thousands of RTA's involving deer, which IMHO are avoidable. Ask yourself the question why are the deer there? overpopulation you will say OK fair point, what do we do about it. Simple we, the powers that be, organise a cull involving driving the deer to standing guns, lamping etc all to be carried out by "selected" qualified stalkers.

    Great, problem over until next year, when the youngsters are driven off to the fringes of the deer range, i.e. contact with human beings and their roads and cars.

    Why not address the problem at source, theses deer belong in the forests and woodlands, why are they not there? Because the forestry companies sell off the stalking rights to the fattest wallet irrespective the ability to manage the ground properly. So you end up with stalking grants that are not being managed, excess deer that have to go somewhere and in a lot of cases it means a nasty accident with a car. Why not let the stalking at a realistic rate to people that will cull the deer in forest's and woodlands, that way the deer that are causing the accidents will be reabsorbed into their natural habitat, the Countryside. I cannot for one minute believe that a terrified deer darting across a busy road would not be far happier in the woods, than a main road lay by.

    I think that when stalking is leased it should be leased to people who will manage it properly, that way it is better for the deer, better for the environment, will ease accident figures, oh it may mean a little less money for the forestry companies.

    John

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Davie
    I agree wholeheartedly and my opinion on this is to fold one is of correction and that is to fix the problem at source.What causes all the deer to be living on the edge of motorways. What have we done or haven't done in the past that has caused the deer to be a danger to them selves and humans. How can we sort the problem should we let DCS pic the stalkers to go on to ground that we as local stalker never had access to. Will the commission let me stalk a large lease at the edge of the m77 a hot spot for deer sighting and accidents. Answer no i don't pay enough money but the excess Deer from the lease might cause an accident.
    The DCS are self motivated with no real interests or they would have sorted the problem at a local level. There are lots of ways of controlling deer in urban areas and the chap who lives locally is the man to do the job in my opinion. Will the DCS LET THIS HAPPEN absolutely no chance they already have a register of approved stalkers on that is the A list stalkers ex rangers etc who will get the contracts and earn the DCS its massive grants.
    They re also not sure as to what way they will go with regard exams bu it is suggested that a new deer competence test will be brought in before you can shoot deer in Scotland. Sorry but this is a time bomb in the making and there will be only one winner and that will be the FC and DCS.
    the very people that caused the problems in the first place. RANT OVER.
    IMO

    Yes, we should let the DCS pick the stalkers. The have the legal and political remit for deer is Scotland.

    The fact that local stalkers donít have access may be for very good reasons. Itís not always about money. Who decided what is local or not. You? Deer cause accidents full stop, whether their numbers are excessive for the land or not.

    The DCS have only one interest that is the deer in Scotland. All this clamouring for local access has nothing to do with them. But has everything to do with local landowners, forestry companies, and the FA.

    The only legal way of controlling any deer is with an appropriately sized C/F rifle. We are all well aware of your advocating the use of lurchers for deer killing. This is now illegal. Be they owned and used by a local or not.

    The DCS has a duty of care and responsibility.The fact that they prefer to use their A list stalkers rather than open the flood gates to every Tam, Dave, or Mark shows they take that responsibility very seriously indeed.

    The proposed competence exam is fundamentally a good idea. It will ensure that the skill level of those wanting to shoot deer in Scotland meets a minimum standard. This must be a good think for the deer. It would also enhance the over all management strategy of the scottish deer population. How can you manage if you donít know what is being culled?

    Its practical implementation and administration needs some careful consideration though. Based upon the outline proposal at the Jan09 meeting there are large areas of implementation and application that needs some meat put on the bones.

  6. #6
    Turfer,

    Just hold on a bit, I see that you have once again managed to bring the odd derogatory remark into the debate, who mentioned lurchers apart from you, who has alluded to the appropriate sized C/F rifle apart from you, no one. You have been told before these type of remarks and attempted character slurs will not be tolerated, no more.

    You seem to be taking the stance that if a stalker is local they cannot be suitably qualified. I think all of the comments made have been in favour of a correctly executed deer culling, but done through correct management, which would mean that what was being culled would be known, which would also be good for the deer population. If this means putting pressure on the forestry companies to organise their leasing better, so be it. I am having difficulty understanding you argument really.

    John

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by JAYB
    Just hold on a bit, I see that you have once again managed to bring the odd derogatory remark into the debate, who mentioned lurchers apart from you, who has alluded to the appropriate sized C/F rifle apart from you, no one. You have been told before these type of remarks and attempted character slurs will not be tolerated, no more.
    I refer you to the following sentence from Longshots post.
    "There are lots of ways of controlling deer in urban areas and the chap who lives locally is the man to do the job in my opinion."
    Other than shooting with a legally defined C/FRifle and live capture. There are no other legal methods available for deer control in uban or rural habitats. Longshots views on the suitability of lurchers for killing deer in any circumstance are well documented. There was and is nothing derogatory in referring to that.My reference to appropriate calibres was used simply for clarification purposes. In an attempt to try and avoid any confusion or misunderstanding by those of a more obtuse nature.

    In order to achieve a balanced discussion you could of course always ask Longshot to clarify exactly what he meant by "There are lots of ways of controlling deer in urban areas ". I for one would be interested in what alternatives he could suggest.


    Quote Originally Posted by JAYB
    You seem to be taking the stance that if a stalker is local they cannot be suitably qualified. I think all of the comments made have been in favour of a correctly executed deer culling, but done through correct management, which would mean that what was being culled would be known, which would also be good for the deer population. If this means putting pressure on the forestry companies to organise their leasing better, so be it. I am having difficulty understanding you argument really.
    What I am saying just because they are local does not implicitly mean they are the best people for the job in hand. As would appear to be the case put forward by Longshot.

    Forestry companies, land management companies have a multitude of requirements place upon them. First and fore most is too maximise the revenue from their property portfolios. This is also tempered with a requirement to ensure that the required resource management is conducted in a manner that fits the perceived and actual needs at the time. Hence the inclusion of penalty clauses etc in stalking and sporting leases.

    Realistic and practical economic management of any business is not as clear cut, is not as black and white, is not as simple and basic as many would have us believe, is not as simplistic as many who have no experience of such things would portray them to be.

    Hence the difficulties in offering explanations and the difficulties in understanding.

    Wouldn't life be so much easier if everything was as simple as we would wish them to be?

  8. #8
    Turfer,

    I have read your posts this morning and it seems to me that you are incapable of behaving in anyway other than a disruptive one. Your identity has always been a mystery to us, your vague posting style, the cut and paste technique, the constant slurs and innuendo, you are not happy unless you are causing trouble. There is a difference between debate and trouble making and you are expert at intertwining the two.

    Sikamalc and I have spent time discussing you and your manner of posting, and came to the decision that all the time you behaved you could stay, I even told you this via a pm. But, no you could not manage that. I read your last post and logged into the admin account to ban you but I could not, Malcolm had beat me to it.

    We try to make this site as welcoming and open as possible, we try to keep the moderating to the minimum and we are last hopefully getting there . We have a core of dedicated stalkers discussing stalking issues, helping and assisting each other where possible, giving newbies a start, this is what it is all about. Anybody who has difficulty with this and cannot conduct themselves in an appropriate manner will also be turfed out. We cannot have this type of spoiling attitude ruining it for others.

    Admin - John & Malcolm

  9. #9
    Davie
    Guest
    Sorry harry what i should have said was there are many ways of dealing with the urban deer problem and the deerstalker local would be better suited to the job than a chap that comes from out of town who is not sensitive to the local way of life. That gunge ho approach that got the DCS in to real bother in the north of Scotland ( Breaking the law in some cases )and had to do a lot of sole searching.
    Now while you are no doubt up to speed on the way business is run like my self who has run a successful business for 22 years i certainly would not run my with losses of excess of 25000000 pounds and still trade this would not only put me in jail it would also be immoral.So don't come the crap about the FC and other companies trying to make ends meet. They took the biggest cheque each time a lease was up for renewal no matter the ability of the syndicate. The rangers new that they would not make there cull and had to take to night shooting and had to get special licences to brake the law out of season night time. Its brown its down attitude to deer management some how dose not in my book mean much. (Mismanagement of the highest order would be more like it ) and now we will let the very same people try and fix the mess. God help us.
    PS hunting with dogs is not legal and i do not support that activity but were i asked if it should be brought back i would say yes and if it was i would support the hunting with dogs.
    It also strikes me as funny that the powers that be DCS SNH FC Most self appointed quangos that have been rumbled by the SNP Do not worry at all about other wild life accidents on our roads and there are 10 x more accidents involving badgers and foxes than there is with the small roe deer.

  10. #10
    This is an interesting and thought provoking thread. I have not read the initial link, but comment upon the threads is worth doing.

    I am sure we will all agree that the more time spent on the ground allows for more knowledge on the numbers and the population dynamics of the species around. Therefor, someone living locally irrespective of rural or urban will have a better chance of maintaining a good deer management strategy than one living hundreds of miles away.

    On the subject of woodlands and plantation (not open hill) there are very few people out there who will try to manage a species within a rented wood. It is merely a case of, is it in season, if so, shoot it. Why is this? Because the wood or plantation owner needs to protect his crop for grants initially, then the production of the crop. This is where I believe many of the woodland companies and especially FC fall down as they generally look at the rental valuation over crop protection, thus, someone living hundreds of miles away will never keep on top of a poulation the same as a more local person. (I cant be ars*d arguing over what is local, please make up your own mind).

    Many people out there can shoot deer, but not so many know about managing a population. There are also many landowners/leasees/recreational stalkers who are guilty of this and after a season will only guess, and hope what will be on their ground the following year and this will frequently be bucks and stags. At the end of the day, if you want less deer on the ground, you need to shoot more females.

    And just out of interest, after a recent conversation with my local FC manager, it appears that they are systematically becoming more eliteist on their leases. You MUST be DSC2, not a problem as I have been keeping up with this. You MUST have a 4x4 pickup or you are just playing at it and not actually committed. You WILL only have a maximum of 4 in your syndicate (making some areas completely out of the range of some pockets) Each piece of ground no matter how crap will be a MINIMUM of £1000 as it costs this for the lawyers (I can smell an awful amount of bull**** here) As they are the ones that instigated the DSC2 rules on their ground, I then asked if successful on a lease can I take out a DSC 1 qualified person for AW purposes in order to help others that the FC rangers will now not help (at no cost, non profit adventure) No way, you will have to pay double for your lease as they want a slice of the action, (which was going to be nothing) And to top it all, if it has red on the lease, you must have a quad with all the certs. Funny how their application forms only mention - have access to and not own........

    Phew,

    thats enough for now, blood pressure is on the rise.

Posting Permissions

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