Deer numbers per km2

[Pete6.5]

I've had to sit in quite a few deer strategy meetings last year and I've heard lots of people talking about deer per km2 targets.
I was wondering what stalkers think is a good target?
I understand it's a difficult number to come up with because of different environments and regions so by all means specify your number eg 10 per km south of England on farmland.
I'm just interested to see how stalkers ideas relate to none deer stalkers ideas.
Just for reference I think 247 acres is 1 km2.

 

[.25-06]

As a deer stalker standing almost shoulder to shoulder would be good. As a forester establishing broadleaved one would be to many.
Currently one permission has 0.02 per km2 it's grim trying to find them

 

[David Barker]

I feel a number of ten would be acceptable in scotland to most stalkers and none stalkers. This could then be brought down to 4-5 on vulnerable areas. It would mean that the 50,000 more deer needed shot suggested by SG would need to go up by 100,000. That will not happen as FLS / NS /SG DONT HAVE THE CASH

 

[Hazlett]

South of England, mixed farmland and woodland. I stalk because I value the natural environment and I love venison. So easy deer in the freezer vs the landscape is not a balance without difficult compromise.

Ultimately, I would like to see about 15 /sqkm, mainly roe, hardly any fallow or muntjac. No hotspots above 30 /sqkm.

But with the current fallow situation, it's sadly never going to happen.

 

[HonestJohn]

Deer density per square km is completely irrelevant because it depends entirely on the type of land. You simply cannot broad brush like and create management plans on such a simple basis. Additionally, some woodland can sustain higher deer densities than others perfectly well without harming biodiversity or impacting their available food sources.
Only proper deer and land managers can actually properly evaluate this, in no way shape or form can it be done properly on a national, not even regional level.

Government bodies trying to legislate on subjects they have no experience in, should stay far away and perhaps focus on things they know how to do

 

[Pete6.5]

Deer density per square km is completely irrelevant because it depends entirely on the type of land. You simply cannot broad brush like and create management plans on such a simple basis. Additionally, some woodland can sustain higher deer densities than others perfectly well without harming biodiversity or impacting their available food sources.
Only proper deer and land managers can actually properly evaluate this, in no way shape or form can it be done properly on a national, not even regional level.

Government bodies trying to legislate on subjects they have no experience in, should stay far away and perhaps focus on things they know how to do

I totally agree. But if I was to put it a different way if I was in charge of a estate in the south of England and I said you could have the stalking but you had to agree a deer density target what would you say.
This isn't a made up situation. I've heard of this situation. I think it's a way of the manager weighing up the person. To see if their views line up.

 

[HonestJohn]

I totally agree. But if I was to put it a different way if I was in charge of a estate in the south of England and I said you could have the stalking but you had to agree a deer density target what would you say.
This isn't a made up situation. I've heard of this situation. I think it's a way of the manager weighing up the person. To see if their views line up.

I’d say you need to understand the ground before you can make any decisions. Restock needs harsher management than mature woods, open ground needs very little attention, mixed young woodland can sustain deer, but needs close attention to ensure it can grow without excessive browsing. If it’s a big estate, areas will need cull management plans based on areas, not based on the overall size. Also depends on the species, Roe are not transient, so in a larger estate with mixed land, you need to base your cull strategy on the area within the estate, not on the total size of the ground.

 

[cjm1066]

Given we have so much difficulty with deer census numbers, dividing that by km2 and adjusting for habitat matrix is likely to produce a number that equates to smoke x smoke x smoke.

It will please DEFRA and look good in DMP, on page 278 after the diversity and other WOKE data.

 

[Dickie]

I totally agree. But if I was to put it a different way if I was in charge of a estate in the south of England and I said you could have the stalking but you had to agree a deer density target what would you say.
This isn't a made up situation. I've heard of this situation. I think it's a way of the manager weighing up the person. To see if their views line up.

Unless it’s fenced it’s not achievable, you could look out on the morning to say job done and 30 fallow have arrived, instantly your deer density has gtf.

 

[.25-06]

What would be the level of damage acceptable to the estate? Keep shooting the deer until you are at a satisfactory level. Other animals also cause damage so ensure the right one takes the blame.

I visited an Estate in South England that had top grade Hazel coppice woods and multiple medal head roe each year, in addition to that we visited a field closeby as the light dropped, which had close to three figures of Fallow Deer in it. I'm not sure if that number of animals was sustainable however it was mighty impressive to see.

 

[Heym SR20]

Deer per KM2 is a very crude measure. It also takes no account that particularly Red and Fallow move and migrate over large distances in large herds due weather and food.

It’s a bit like making policy decisions based on Murryfield, Twickenham, Wembly all having a population densities of 80,000 odd people in that one square km2 which is far too high to be sustainable, and completely overlooking the fact that there are only that number on certain occasions.