Integrated Deer Management in Britain

willie_gunn

Well-Known Member
Did anyone else see this in today's newspapers?

http://www.kent.ac.uk/dice/research/deer_hunting.html

A new study has been produced: "Is legislation a barrier to the sustainable management of game species? A case study of wild deer in Britain"

It's not published until next year, so it's difficult to find much detail, but from the webpage four options are being suggested with the aim of reducing the deer 'problem':

1. direct intervention by the public sector in deer management across both public and private lands. This would include compulsory culling, fencing and other methods;
2. increased mutual cooperation and collaboration between relevant local stakeholders, such as landowners, stalkers, motorists, and government and non-government organisations with an interest in deer (e.g. conservation groups);
3. financial incentives, such as the provision of financial rewards – derived from public sector support and/or improvements in the market conditions for venison and sporting lets – for deer management (currently, sporting estates have a vested interest in not culling too many deer);
4. legislative reform to apportion legal responsibility for deer management

Also an interesting quote (my emboldened/italics):

'However we believe that a sustainable solution is possible if action is taken to encourage and, if necessary, persuade landowners that deer should be managed as an asset for the whole of rural society rather than as a hobby for a social elite. The best option in my opinion is to encourage landowners to allow more paying clients to shoot deer as sportsmen can bring significant economic benefits to the entire local economy.’

If anyone has any details of the research, or even better was involved, I'd love to hear about it.

In the meantime I'm guessing that a few of the above points will be worthy of discussion!

willie_gunn
 
I always new i was socially elite but didn't want to say until it was fashionable.Ill bet the DI have got there fingers in this one sounds like trying to force the hand of people one option i didn't see was get rid of the DI because its not working and they are using to much public cash. ;)
 
I'm intrigued by option 2:

2. increased mutual cooperation and collaboration between relevant local stakeholders, such as landowners, stalkers, motorists, and government and non-government organisations with an interest in deer (e.g. conservation groups);

Presumably they will be encouraging motorists to run the deer over at every opportunity? Don't know if the insurance industry will be too chuffed about that one.

From what has been posted it does look like fairly typical 'academic research' that has a set of 'findings' already written before the research is done. Using the term "social elite" is indicative of how ill-informed the author(s) are about deer management.

Interesting that the academic team came from both DICE and the FC - and the FC are always bleating about cull targets but wont allow folk to stalk without paying a fee - which I find particularly galling given that you/we/I own the land!

MacMillan is clearly in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks there is any sort of possibility that "The best option .... is to encourage landowners to allow more paying clients to shoot deer as sportsmen can bring significant economic benefits to the entire local economy"

If any of this comes to pass I hope someone has a film crew at the LACS sanctuary when the Official Exterminator rocks up :)
 
Back
Top