Biodiversity and Cull Selection

[South of the M4]

Buy the book from Larry
South of the M4

For Sale: - New Stalking book

Is there a hardback edition?

www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk

Thanks Tim

I agree with other contributors on this thread, there isn't a cunning and scientific plan to follow when faced with herds of fallow.
In said book, I wrote:

'If a reduction in the deer population is required, it simply may be that as many female deer as possible are culled until the population shows a noticeable decline, then a maintenance cull can be implemented. A more balanced cull will then consider the male to female ratios, a 1:1 being the aim but rarely achieved.
This may seem like a blunt instrument approach, but consider that in the patchwork of land ownership across southern England, deer will travel across many borders. What were ‘your’ deer yesterday are the next door neighbour’s but one today, and maybe for the next 2 weeks, unless they decide to move on - or back to your permission.'

Best

Larry

 

[User00040]

 

[foxdropper]

The one to one isn’t natural nor desirable sir .Male deer hold harems for a reason (smaller deer granted do not )and females look to strongest individual to procreate .No matter how hard the males are culled there will always be a suiter somewhere and females will travel off piste to look for one .
Strong genes are maintained by decent, fit males serving several females not on a one to one basis .
Hopefully the rest of the book is of better quality .
Ive witnessed a fallow buck serve 7 does within two hours ,some feat ,having to fend off rivals in the meantime .This buck was some specimen .A one to one would drastically reduce quality and herd behaviour .

 

[South of the M4]

The one to one isn’t natural nor desirable sir .Male deer hold harems for a reason (smaller deer granted do not )and females look to strongest individual to procreate .No matter how hard the males are culled there will always be a suiter somewhere and females will travel off piste to look for one .
Strong genes are maintained by decent, fit males serving several females not on a one to one basis .
Hopefully the rest of the book is of better quality .
Ive witnessed a fallow buck serve 7 does within two hours ,some feat ,having to fend off rivals in the meantime .This buck was some specimen .A one to one would drastically reduce quality and herd behaviour .

That quote was talking about deer in general, not specifically fallow.
Roe & muntjac don’t hold harems as we know.

 

[Tim.243]

The one to one isn’t natural nor desirable sir .Male deer hold harems for a reason (smaller deer granted do not )and females look to strongest individual to procreate .No matter how hard the males are culled there will always be a suiter somewhere and females will travel off piste to look for one .
Strong genes are maintained by decent, fit males serving several females not on a one to one basis .
Hopefully the rest of the book is of better quality .
Ive witnessed a fallow buck serve 7 does within two hours ,some feat ,having to fend off rivals in the meantime .This buck was some specimen .A one to one would drastically reduce quality and herd behaviour .

With muntjac the bucks have a much bigger territory so I have seen the same buck on the other side of a block from a trail cam. Shoot that one then the next one nips in. The does don't go far (on my ground) also never out for very long or past dark...
The biggest draw back to them is the GD don't want them and eventually people will have full freezers compared to the number you can shoot if you get stuck also setting up a FB just to sell MJ is not cost effective IMO

 

[foxdropper]

Agreed Tim but does not apply to fallow as pertained in post .Just pointing out that’s all .Yes ,shoot a buck on a stand and another will step in but at what price to quality .

 

[StephenToast]

The one to one isn’t natural nor desirable sir .Male deer hold harems for a reason (smaller deer granted do not )and females look to strongest individual to procreate .No matter how hard the males are culled there will always be a suiter somewhere and females will travel off piste to look for one .
Strong genes are maintained by decent, fit males serving several females not on a one to one basis .
Hopefully the rest of the book is of better quality .
Ive witnessed a fallow buck serve 7 does within two hours ,some feat ,having to fend off rivals in the meantime .This buck was some specimen .A one to one would drastically reduce quality and herd behaviour .

You are talking about mature animals surely where as the 1:1 ratio is referring to the herd as a whole.

One fallow buck may serve many does but you aren't taking fawns into account?

 

[StephenToast]

Agreed Tim but does not apply to fallow as pertained in post .Just pointing out that’s all .Yes ,shoot a buck on a stand and another will step in but at what price to quality .

M4 is talking about reducing numbers. "Quality" isn't worth a ****.

 

[foxdropper]

Nature likes to see even spread yes mate but come breeding time it favours the strong .Your idea of fallow might be clouded by your own issues but naturally ,nature also favours quality .
Its our take on nature that upsets everything .
Prickets and sorrels are shot in great numbers here along with does and lesser bucks but come the spring ,every eligible doe is pregnant .Males to female balance always swings to more females .
Name me one species of deer that has one to one adult numbers .
Males approaching breeding age are prone to wander ,end up shot next door or rta Wheres does stay with hefted mothers .
On my ground with the roe I’m very picky on the bucks but never have I seen a one to one ratio of adults and let’s face it they are what matters ,the breeding nucleus .

 

[foxdropper]

M4 is talking about reducing numbers. "Quality" isn't worth a ****.

I know he’s talking about reducing numbers ,read my post early on .I’m with you mate so cut the hostility please .
Culling does hard is the ONLY way to reduce numbers .

 

[Tim.243]

Agreed Tim but does not apply to fallow as pertained in post .Just pointing out that’s all .Yes ,shoot a buck on a stand and another will step in but at what price to quality .

Do a blind eating test on a " Eater " from either a good quality or less a quality buck and you would not tell the difference.

Know one can tell if a buck is serving his sister year in year out etc so where do you draw the line on what is "quality"

It is not maintained in the CWD (as you can't define a silver or gold one at distance.) or Muntjac world. The CWD have a season the best MJ bucks are left to those with deep pockets.

Quality is lip service to a price tag not eating as that is why I thought the main reason to shoot them.

 

[foxdropper]

Tim mate …
Your better than that pal and have more between your ears than that post .Nature needs quality to survive ,all we do is look for those quality genes to perpetuate in any management plan .You’ve been shooting on sight for too long with no
foresight .
Not saying what your doing is wrong as munties are very hard to manage ,not saying managing fallow is easy either as it ain’t but given the choice of a poor sorrel and a promising one who would shoot the latter!
Ive no doubt incest is rife in deer but until a better specimen comes along or is made room for ,incest it will be .
Our take on nature is clouded by what we perceive as the done thing ,incest not being one of them but in the dog world ,line breeding incest is king .
Quality need not be looked upon as a money spinner ,just nurture of nature .

 

[Tim.243]

Tim mate …
Your better than that pal and have more between your ears than that post .Nature needs quality to survive ,all we do is look for those quality genes to perpetuate in any management plan .You’ve been shooting on sight for too long with no
foresight .
Not saying what your doing is wrong as munties are very hard to manage ,not saying managing fallow is easy either as it ain’t but given the choice of a poor sorrel and a promising one who would shoot the latter!
Ive no doubt incest is rife in deer but until a better specimen comes along or is made room for ,incest it will be .
Our take on nature is clouded by what we perceive as the done thing ,incest not being one of them but in the dog world ,line breeding incest is king .
Quality need not be looked upon as a money spinner ,just nurture of nature .

As it was pointed out the thread was abt fallow, I was pointing out that they are all deer,norfolk is awash with MJ on the big estates as you can see on some of the films but as a cash head then it is easier to leave them as the hook weight is far out weighd to a medal head price which is business I understand but it should be across the board.

Going to watch " Gold Rush "

 

[25 Sharps]

The first thing that culling fallow needs is lads that actually cull fallow and don’t just lease ground to boast about and talk shite on here about going out and shooting a doe the odd weekend .
There is no magic in culling deer ,hit the females hard in the season no matter the age or species and stop them breeding the following spring .
The crap spouted ,the ground taken up by selfish 3 stalks a year types is why we have the problem ,that and the stupid night laws .
We need compulsory culling the likes of Scotland has to get numbers down to where a proper management plan can be implemented
Landowners who hitherto won’t allow culling should be forced to allow contractors on to disperse herds seeing these patches as a refuge .
Its not science just common sense ,shouldn’t need a mortgage to shoot fallow and we need to uppublic intake of quality meat ,wild produced .
Until these things are implemented we will see fallow numbers rise ,rta rocket and individuals suffer in size and disease ie tb .

I take your point whole heartedly but be careful what you wish for mate, compulsory culling could see people losing ground or deer decimated so there’s nothing to shoot.

 

[foxdropper]

Having seen fallow numbers up and down the country mate ,there isn’t a chance in hell they will be ever be scarce .Even locally ,we have places where there are 100+ on 90 acres that won’t allow any shot .Night time raids are crippling a market gardener I know who has just erected deer fencing at a cost of £32 that was cut in the first week .
We tend be very selfish when our sport is involved without seeing the bigger picture .
In the south ,fallow are the main culprit for damage and it’s these I aim my posts at

 

[StephenToast]

I know he’s talking about reducing numbers ,read my post early on .I’m with you mate so cut the hostility please .
Culling does hard is the ONLY way to reduce numbers .

Sorry. There was no hostility meant, re-reading the post It does seem like that but it wasn't intended.

I agree. Females are priority, but I wouldn't pass up a male of any age or size if there were no females to be shot first, or they weren't in season.

 

[caorach]

1. If you have a choice between a Buck or a Doe, take the Doe. The logic is in that culling the breeding females will have a better long-term effect on population control.
2. If you have a choice between a young Doe or an older Doe, take the younger Doe. The logic is that a younger Doe will potentially produce more offspring (live longer) than a mature Doe.
3. If you only have Bucks to select a shot from...: I am not sure: Maybe other SD Members can give their view? Best to cull the younger ones, or the more mature Bucks??

There was one of those MVA (multi variance analysis) studies done on sika. It is one of these statistical tricks that attempts to put a value on multiple factors influencing a given situation. What amazed me is that shooting mature, breeding age, hinds had an enormous impact compared with shooting stags (OK, I sort of get that) and calves. I seem to remember that the impact was about an order of magnitude greater and that was really a lot greater than I'd ever imagined. I also never managed to work out why it was so much greater than shooting calves as, you'd imagine, about half the calves you'd shoot would be female and they would go on to produce young so shooting them before they'd done any breeding at all would seem like a great idea. This info came from peer reviewed science, though I don't have it here as the book is on loan, so it at least has a strong basis in good methods.

 

[Leec6.5]

The biggest problem we face to date is getting rid of the bloody things!

They need killing, last year bugger all was shot, this year the numbers have doubled and need thrashing again!

People are going to have to man up, take the price on the chin and get killing!

 

[25 Sharps]

Having seen fallow numbers up and down the country mate ,there isn’t a chance in hell they will be ever be scarce .Even locally ,we have places where there are 100+ on 90 acres that won’t allow any shot .Night time raids are crippling a market gardener I know who has just erected deer fencing at a cost of £32 that was cut in the first week .
We tend be very selfish when our sport is involved without seeing the bigger picture .
In the south ,fallow are the main culprit for damage and it’s these I aim my posts at

Yes I know what fallow numbers can be like and the further south they go from is the worse it tends to get. Have seen herds of 100+ on more than one occasion.

But once you open the gates to compulsory culling for deer who’s to say they’ll stop at the grounds that aren’t being shot or at the bigger herding species?

Also half of the issues are not ground that isn’t being shot it’s the fact that people can’t get the return they ‘expect’ on carcasses so aren’t shooting enough deer. Maybe subsidising carcass sales over contract culling would be more effective and cheaper for getting more deer shot. I guarantee at £3/kg more fallow would be dropping!!

 

[25 Sharps]

The biggest problem we face to date is getting rid of the bloody things!

They need killing, last year bugger all was shot, this year the numbers have doubled and need thrashing again!

People are going to have to man up, take the price on the chin and get killing!

100%

Far too many recreational stalkers expect their hobby to pay for itself or actually make them money!