Deer training proposals risk leaving Scotland short of vital deer managers

[Conor O'Gorman]

BASC and NFU Scotland warn that plans to introduce mandatory training under the Natural Environment Bill raise serious concerns for the future of Scottish deer management, farming and rural communities.

Deer training proposals risk leaving Scotland short of vital deer managers

Plans to introduce mandatory training under the Natural Environment Bill raise serious concerns for the future of Scottish deer management.

basc.org.uk

 

[HonestJohn]

Risk of reducing deer managers at a time when we need more - you say. Well, I am not aware of a single piece of farmland that does not have a deer stalker or more in place already, so not sure where ‘more’ deer managers would fit in? It would increase competition and drive up lease prices, when in fact, lease prices are one of the key reasons deer numbers are too high - ie. Those with money tend to win the leases, and often they are not local enough to manage land effectively.

A better approach would be to ban farmers from charging for deer management, which would lean towards locals winning more tenders and being able to be more present on the ground. Similarly, compulsory training and in turn, a reduction in deer managers would result in more farmers needing to source local help, again, getting the ‘right’ people involved who know what they are doing, and not just show up in the summer to cull the big trophies. Equally, quality of carcasses injected into the food chain should in theory rise, leading to higher venison GD rates.

From an insurance perspective, how organisations insure and underwrite non-qualified shooters is beyond me, they could be complete cowboys, you just don’t know. Coming from an insurance background, I would certainly not entertain insurance without knowing what risk I was taking with said subject before offering premiums. This should, in theory bring cost of insurance down for qualified stalkers, instead of spreading the risk cost across the entire group of qualified and non-qualified. Ie.

Farmers giving up deer management. Show me a Scottish lowland farmer who manages his own deer… there will be one or two, but not many! And as an fyi, those I’ve met that ‘do’, are not very good at doing it.

It’s a tough one, because historically it’s not been required, and one could argue the ‘death by a thousand cuts’ is a risk.

I’m leaning slightly towards agreeing with the proposal to be honest.

 

[Rake Aboot]

I sometimes wonder where they get this rubbish
Farmers don’t shoot deer.
Make farmers fill in a yearly report on wild animal species control and they might actually get their fingers out and let folk shoot( do the job for them )

 

[sgurrdamh]

I think mandatory training is only a good thing, the majority of people shooting deer are in need of upskilling.

Sadly I also think we will never had a reasonable discussion about it at a lobbying level as the likes of BASC are too afraid of losing members to look at anything negative objectively.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

BASC and NFUS warn of deer management shortage

Mandatory deer stalking training could reduce Scotland’s deer managers, threatening farming and conservation efforts.

www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk

 

[Chris Richardson]

Risk of reducing deer managers at a time when we need more - you say. Well, I am not aware of a single piece of farmland that does not have a deer stalker or more in place already, so not sure where ‘more’ deer managers would fit in? It would increase competition and drive up lease prices, when in fact, lease prices are one of the key reasons deer numbers are too high - ie. Those with money tend to win the leases, and often they are not local enough to manage land effectively.

A better approach would be to ban farmers from charging for deer management, which would lean towards locals winning more tenders and being able to be more present on the ground. Similarly, compulsory training and in turn, a reduction in deer managers would result in more farmers needing to source local help, again, getting the ‘right’ people involved who know what they are doing, and not just show up in the summer to cull the big trophies. Equally, quality of carcasses injected into the food chain should in theory rise, leading to higher venison GD rates.

From an insurance perspective, how organisations insure and underwrite non-qualified shooters is beyond me, they could be complete cowboys, you just don’t know. Coming from an insurance background, I would certainly not entertain insurance without knowing what risk I was taking with said subject before offering premiums. This should, in theory bring cost of insurance down for qualified stalkers, instead of spreading the risk cost across the entire group of qualified and non-qualified. Ie.

Farmers giving up deer management. Show me a Scottish lowland farmer who manages his own deer… there will be one or two, but not many! And as an fyi, those I’ve met that ‘do’, are not very good at doing it.

It’s a tough one, because historically it’s not been required, and one could argue the ‘death by a thousand cuts’ is a risk.

I’m leaning slightly towards agreeing with the proposal to be honest.

from what ive seen " training courses " rarely mean better quality carcasses and very rarely show any level of competence or abilty to effectively kill decent numbers of deer

 

[VSS]

from what ive seen " training courses " rarely mean better quality carcasses and very rarely show any level of competence or abilty to effectively kill decent numbers of deer

In that case, better training courses are required. Courses that are actually fit for purpose.

 

[Chris Richardson]

In that case, better training courses are required. Courses that are actually fit for purpose.

possibly so Tim , in this day age someone can do level 1 then do level 2 having shot 1 deer and hey presto they are a "deer manager "...................

 

[VSS]

possibly so Tim , in this day age someone can do level 1 then do level 2 having shot 1 deer and hey presto they are a "deer manager "...................

Level 2 isn't a training course.
Level 1 is a good course, in my opinion, but could be built into something more robust.

 

[Chris Richardson]

Level 2 isn't a training course.
Level 1 is a good course, in my opinion, but could be built into something more robust.

I personally think they both should be scrapped and replaced as you say with something better and in depth , but disagree with them being mandatory

 

[Apthorpe]

The majority of people who have had any type of mandatory training are still "in need of upskilling". To make it mandatory, you require the participation of government. There is virtually no problem in recent years which hasn't been made much worse by government. Therefore it seems bizarre and illogical to suggest that the solution to a perceived lack of competence is to demand that people even less competent set standards and ineffectually implement them.

 

[slider]

I sometimes wonder where they get this rubbish
Farmers don’t shoot deer.
Make farmers fill in a yearly report on wild animal species control and they might actually get their fingers out and let folk shoot( do the job for them )

A good start would be makung deer control part of a farmers cross compliance, with the requirement to submit cull returns via tgeur annual Single Application Form.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Exactly. See how fast they let someone else deal with it then

 

[Deermanagement]

Risk of reducing deer managers at a time when we need more - you say. Well, I am not aware of a single piece of farmland that does not have a deer stalker or more in place already, so not sure where ‘more’ deer managers would fit in? It would increase competition and drive up lease prices, when in fact, lease prices are one of the key reasons deer numbers are too high - ie. Those with money tend to win the leases, and often they are not local enough to manage land effectively.

A better approach would be to ban farmers from charging for deer management, which would lean towards locals winning more tenders and being able to be more present on the ground. Similarly, compulsory training and in turn, a reduction in deer managers would result in more farmers needing to source local help, again, getting the ‘right’ people involved who know what they are doing, and not just show up in the summer to cull the big trophies. Equally, quality of carcasses injected into the food chain should in theory rise, leading to higher venison GD rates.

From an insurance perspective, how organisations insure and underwrite non-qualified shooters is beyond me, they could be complete cowboys, you just don’t know. Coming from an insurance background, I would certainly not entertain insurance without knowing what risk I was taking with said subject before offering premiums. This should, in theory bring cost of insurance down for qualified stalkers, instead of spreading the risk cost across the entire group of qualified and non-qualified. Ie.

Farmers giving up deer management. Show me a Scottish lowland farmer who manages his own deer… there will be one or two, but not many! And as an fyi, those I’ve met that ‘do’, are not very good at doing it.

It’s a tough one, because historically it’s not been required, and one could argue the ‘death by a thousand cuts’ is a risk.

I’m leaning slightly towards agreeing with the proposal to be honest.

Ben farmers from charging for stalking F’g brilliant proposal. I am all for it.

 

[VSS]

Ben farmers from charging for stalking F’g brilliant proposal. I am all for it.

Farmers should be paying for deer management. Just like they pay other contractors who carry out work on their farms.

 

[Deermanagement]

Farmers should be paying for deer management. Just like they pay other contractors who carry out work on their farms.

Totally agree

 

[HonestJohn]

Ben farmers from charging for stalking F’g brilliant proposal. I am all for it.

It would solve a lot of problems I think

 

[Chris Richardson]

It would solve a lot of problems I think

I agree in many circumstances, I don’t think we do suffer from a lack of stalkers ( hate the term deer managers) the problem is there’s not enough that a , will put the hours in . And b , are actually good at the job , courses won’t change that in my experience a lot of folk either can’t be bothered ( want to take one for the freezer every 3 months ) or are just useless at the job

 

[taln]

Risk of reducing deer managers at a time when we need more - you say. Well, I am not aware of a single piece of farmland that does not have a deer stalker or more in place already, so not sure where ‘more’ deer managers would fit in? It would increase competition and drive up lease prices, when in fact, lease prices are one of the key reasons deer numbers are too high - ie. Those with money tend to win the leases, and often they are not local enough to manage land effectively.

A better approach would be to ban farmers from charging for deer management, which would lean towards locals winning more tenders and being able to be more present on the ground. Similarly, compulsory training and in turn, a reduction in deer managers would result in more farmers needing to source local help, again, getting the ‘right’ people involved who know what they are doing, and not just show up in the summer to cull the big trophies. Equally, quality of carcasses injected into the food chain should in theory rise, leading to higher venison GD rates.

From an insurance perspective, how organisations insure and underwrite non-qualified shooters is beyond me, they could be complete cowboys, you just don’t know. Coming from an insurance background, I would certainly not entertain insurance without knowing what risk I was taking with said subject before offering premiums. This should, in theory bring cost of insurance down for qualified stalkers, instead of spreading the risk cost across the entire group of qualified and non-qualified. Ie.

Farmers giving up deer management. Show me a Scottish lowland farmer who manages his own deer… there will be one or two, but not many! And as an fyi, those I’ve met that ‘do’, are not very good at doing it.

It’s a tough one, because historically it’s not been required, and one could argue the ‘death by a thousand cuts’ is a risk.

I’m leaning slightly towards agreeing with the proposal to be honest.

Wow like this so true

 

[taln]

I have had all the credentials for years,doesn't seem to work for me waste of time and money