Geographical areas of DMG's

jimbo123p

Well-Known Member
Should deer management groups hold areas on a first come first served basis. Having been approached about problems about joining an adjacent group and the politics within that group being contrary to ours I got to thinking. (A) sould that person (who has the knowledge and experience) be able to set up a credible alternative DMG giving a choice of provider for that area. or (B) should our group be able to overlap and basically swallowing up the ground claimed by our neighbour. One thing is certain until we sing from the same sheet we will be looked on as a group looking for free stalking. Nobody has set up a policy document to the functions of a DMG. That is the vital next step and I believe the way LDN will approach the problem. Jim
 

rudy65

Well-Known Member
First off it will depend on the landowners. Our deer group SLDG has only 1000 acres directly given to the group this i am sure will change. But the group members cover an area of 20,000 acres this is with the kind permission of the farmer landowners in our areas and some out side our boundary,s. Now if some one else wanted to set up a group within the South Lanarkshire boundary and wanted it to be constituted they would need to go through the same routine as our selves.At the stage it went to SNH Ronnie Rose would contact the groups that are already in place and ask if we had any objections. But this would not stop a
none constituted group starting and working in deer management there are many of them already. But i am sure the areas we live in could have many groups working together should this ever happen.Jim i don't agree with you and feel the LDN will fail on behalf of the recreational deer stalker. You ask the question what if any benefits has it got for the deer stalker and the answer is none.
 

Tamus

Well-Known Member
I am concerned about this, for all our sakes.

LDN or simply DMGs independent of LDN, how will it really work?

Group control of the management of ever larger tracts of land? ... Who gets to shoot on that land and how?

Will we all have to subscribe to A.N. Other and his/their "agreed" management policies before we can even take deer on our own land?

What might it cost us in future to do something that we have never had to pay for, or otherwise gain the permission of this "A.N. Other", in order to do in the past?

Will overarching corporate interest eventually take over the whole (pardon the pun) shooting match? ... and rob us blind?

Or... possibly worse still, turn much of stalking over to some new "Vermin Control Industry".

I'm deeply suspicious of the entire concept and it's probable outcomes, as they appear to me, but you may have got that already...:-|

Please explain, especially if you think my comments are unfounded and my concern is baseless.
 

jimbo123p

Well-Known Member
We do not need deer management groups to shoot deer. If all that a DMG does is cull deer it might as well be a syndicate. While there is a necessity to shoot deer the DMG's remit should be to asess deer situations mainly in areas of agricultural conflict. Where deer on public land are going onto crops and retreating back into a protected habitat there is a necessity to assess and cull some. it is not a matter of Johny take the rifle and shoot all that is seen. Management is assessing, counting. risk assessment, cull plan, public awareness, who, when, how, why, result.
We have identified areas and were in consultation when that LDNS meeting took place, Three years of bridge building was demolished. It is a case of start again. Until a policy document is produced outlining the purpose of a DMG we will go round in the same circle. We know the SNH, FCE stand on it. What we expected at the LDNS was a policy guideline, what we got was "same old". To some it may have been new but to most it is the same that has been wheeled out for the last three years at Best Practice and DMG formation meetings, only this time the speakers were further up the food chain, Jim
 

Tamus

Well-Known Member
I sympathise with your predicament. It's very frustrating when you are looking for a way forward only to be sent back to square one having invested three years of time and effort.

Regardless of your problems though.... apparently no-one will answer my questions or allay my concerns. The notion of some wee club controlling the culling of deer over tracts of land works when it is a syndicate, everyone knows where they stand. How will it work with DMGs?

See my post at #5 (above) I notice you decline to answer my questions or address the points I raise. I really would like those issues aired... please.
 

jimbo123p

Well-Known Member
I am concerned about this, for all our sakes.

LDN or simply DMGs independent of LDN, how will it really work?
Know one knows, we have tried to draw SNH out on this one. On the whole I think it to is maintain the threat taht we will be sent in if you don't cull your own with no intention of following through.

Group control of the management of ever larger tracts of land? ... Who gets to shoot on that land and how?
Can never see this happening within the non-landholding DMG's. However ADMG's up north do this on a voluntary basis where large landowners pool resourses for economic gain. However noone is forced to join. Land is then managed for shooting/stalking lets. Stalking then organised by estate office or letting agent.(See Galgraith's stalking opportunities)

Will we all have to subscribe to A.N. Other and his/their "agreed" management policies before we can even take deer on our own land?
There will be no intervention on managed land as things stand. They may however check cull returns (mandatory) and cull should at least equal recommended cull return. Much the same as FCE lease where cull targets are given.

What might it cost us in future to do something that we have never had to pay for, or otherwise gain the permission of this "A.N. Other", in order to do in the past?
No price has been mentioned as far as I am aware. For what I gathered from the lawyer at the meeting he wasworried it would initially be a cutting of farm subsidies.

Will overarching corporate interest eventually take over the whole (pardon the pun) shooting match? ... and rob us blind?
That would be my greatest fear with the involvement of ADMG, highland model. With the introduction of pro-stalker status, qualifications for this and that, a lot of farmers will sign up for peace.

Or... possibly worse still, turn much of stalking over to some new "Vermin Control Industry".
dmg's should exist to prvent this.


I'm deeply suspicious of the entire concept and it's probable outcomes, as they appear to me, but you may have got that already...:-|
With the lack of forward planing info we all are left to speculate. The above is my personal take having attended meetings open and closed but where information is very limited. I do believe the "Deer, roe in particular, are vermin" sits too high on the SNH agenda.

Please explain, especially if you think my comments are unfounded and my concern is baseless.
plesse note you have here my personal answers from gleaned knowledge. These opinions are my own and are not the product of pooled knowledge of any group. Jim
 
Last edited:

Gazza

Well-Known Member
Tamus, As Jim has pointed out DMGs (or at least my vision of a DMG) does not equate to a Group of guys taking over the culling of deer or the management of deer on large areas of land. This thinking should be challenged at all opportunities.
Having been born and brought up in West Lothian it is the area I know best. The county is made up of expanding towns and villages,industrial sites (both used and derelict), agricultural land with a diversity of principle produce, forestry under public and private sector management, recreational ground with the largest single owner being WLC and urban development. Views on deer management is as diverse as the use of the land. From encouraging deer with no management whatsoever for the enjoyment of the public to zero tolerance. In some instances that I know of these two opposite views lie next door to each other. To my mind the principle core objective of a DMG in an area such as West Lothian is to orchestrate the welfare of deer based on sustainable management and the reduction of negative impacts. We must be able to provide qualified/reliable advice and action including where necessary humane culling but appreciate that we have many Wildlife and recreational areas where the landowners would wish the public to experience seeing deer. I would prefer that they saw healthy deer rather than injured or lying at the side of a road.
Does it matter who manages the deer? I do not think so. What matters is that the deer are managed and that the managers agree to and are part of the larger plan.
 

Tamus

Well-Known Member
Gazza;286628]Tamus, As Jim has pointed out DMGs (or at least my vision of a DMG) does not equate to a Group of guys taking over the culling of deer or the management of deer on large areas of land. This thinking should be challenged at all opportunities.
Ok, I feel comforted by the thought that urban (and peri-urban) problems might be solved this way. Though I would have thought it belongs within the realms of local authority, government and those with liability for the management of their land to deal with rather than others (no matter how gifted or experienced or inclined to adopt "professional" personae those "others" might be) I mean, where does this thinking end? Should the local mushroom gathers get up a group to manage my woods and fields and the woods and fields of my neighbours for the betterment of mushroom management?

To my mind the principle core objective of a DMG in an area such as West Lothian is to orchestrate the welfare of deer based on sustainable management and the reduction of negative impacts.
Again, that sounds laudible but the concept might still "mushroom" outwith the urban and peri-urban and I wouldn't be at all happy at being "managed" by strangers if it happened to me.


We must be able to provide qualified/reliable advice and action including where necessary humane culling but appreciate that we have many Wildlife and recreational areas where the landowners would wish the public to experience seeing deer.
Who is this "We"? and... Why should it be you that must "provide"? Do those that have liabilty not already exist? ie. the land-owners and corporations who have these divergent interests you speak of. Where do you come into that picture?


I would prefer that they saw healthy deer rather than injured or lying at the side of a road.
Me too, no argument there.


Does it matter who manages the deer? I do not think so.
With respect, you clearly do think it matters who manages the deer and you seem to have your nominations in mind already.
 

Tamus

Well-Known Member
I am concerned about this, for all our sakes.

LDN or simply DMGs independent of LDN, how will it really work?
Know one knows, we have tried to draw SNH out on this one. On the whole I think it to is maintain the threat taht we will be sent in if you don't cull your own with no intention of following through.

Group control of the management of ever larger tracts of land? ... Who gets to shoot on that land and how?
Can never see this happening within the non-landholding DMG's. However ADMG's up north do this on a voluntary basis where large landowners pool resourses for economic gain. However noone is forced to join. Land is then managed for shooting/stalking lets. Stalking then organised by estate office or letting agent.(See Galgraith's stalking opportunities)

Will we all have to subscribe to A.N. Other and his/their "agreed" management policies before we can even take deer on our own land?
There will be no intervention on managed land as things stand. They may however check cull returns (mandatory) and cull should at least equal recommended cull return. Much the same as FCE lease where cull targets are given.

What might it cost us in future to do something that we have never had to pay for, or otherwise gain the permission of this "A.N. Other", in order to do in the past?
No price has been mentioned as far as I am aware. For what I gathered from the lawyer at the meeting he wasworried it would initially be a cutting of farm subsidies.

Will overarching corporate interest eventually take over the whole (pardon the pun) shooting match? ... and rob us blind?
That would be my greatest fear with the involvement of ADMG, highland model. With the introduction of pro-stalker status, qualifications for this and that, a lot of farmers will sign up for peace.

Or... possibly worse still, turn much of stalking over to some new "Vermin Control Industry".
dmg's should exist to prvent this.


I'm deeply suspicious of the entire concept and it's probable outcomes, as they appear to me, but you may have got that already...:-|
With the lack of forward planing info we all are left to speculate. The above is my personal take having attended meetings open and closed but where information is very limited. I do believe the "Deer, roe in particular, are vermin" sits too high on the SNH agenda.

Please explain, especially if you think my comments are unfounded and my concern is baseless.
plesse note you have here my personal answers from gleaned knowledge. These opinions are my own and are not the product of pooled knowledge of any group. Jim
Sorry Jim, I should have thanked you sooner for your excellent and comprehensive reply to my questions . But then Gazza gave me something to tilt at and let my last cup of coffee go cold. Thanks now anyway and by the way, you seem about as lost and disgruntled in all of this as I am... and you're in the know, that's not good is it?
 

jimbo123p

Well-Known Member
They want us to play but they will not give us a pitch or a copy of the rules. Every time they seem about ready for kick off they take away the goalposts. LDNS was them wanting to play with a different team. Problem is we are dealing with SNH. No matter what, it is not their pitch in the first place. Too many deer collisions equals one deer v one car, How many deer are there is irrelivent. When an area is untouched there is usually a reason. Too near the road is usually the answer. They introduced wildlife habitat at the roadside and then were shocked that the deer arrived. Roe deer are territorial so they do not herd at the roodside. A small family group maybe. Kill it and that nice habitat will be colonised by the next transient family. Kill it and the-----------you get the picture. Change the habitat. fence or cut back. the trees. Jim
 

widows son

Well-Known Member
Your deer management groups are a waste of time .

You have no firm direction from anyone never mind the powers at be .

You have no contract work from anyone to carryout deer management other than that the groups member already have .

Now in saying all of the above, you must get the direction from the people that first spurred on the concept of lowland deer management ,

LDNS have in my mind tried to jump in with both feet to coin a new market of newly started groups of deer stalkers ,hoping to gain knowledge from the mentioned groups then slowly integrate, with you giving them all your information and cash allowing them to voice a bigger opinion because of who they are, IE heads of organisations and the old boy network.


If you do not pass the information they have no direction simple .
 
Last edited:

rudy65

Well-Known Member
We could always follow the LDN Example.

CHRIST THE MINISTER IS PREGNANT






I HAVE DEER ON MY GROUND BUT NO ONE THERE TO SHOOT THEM
DONT YOU HATE IT WHEN YOUR CAUGHT OUT



ROBERT SHARP YOU ASK A QUESTION LIKE THAT AGIAN AND YOU WILL END UP LIKE THIS






DONT SHOOT ME I AM NOT A RABBIT CAUGHT IN THE LAMP AND STOP SNIGGERING ROBERT THIS IS SERIOUS





TRUST ME I AM ONE OF YOU BUT YOU WILL NEED TO PAY ME FOR THE PLEASURE.




I NEED TO LEAVE EARLY AND MY MINDERS ARE COMMING WITH ME.




I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY (I DID IT MY WAY) FRANK SINATRA STILE.



Have you seen the LOGO ****ed my pants but i new the Central belt would love it so retro.

 
Last edited:

widows son

Well-Known Member
We could always follow the LDN Example.

CHRIST THE MINISTER IS PREGNANT
Mr goffin new rifle off the bds expences claim coming up





I HAVE DEER ON MY GROUND BUT NO ONE THERE TO SHOOT THEM
DONT YOU HATE IT WHEN YOUR CAUGHT OUT


is that the best picture they could find after all the pictures the took of him
ROBERT SHARP YOU ASK A QUESTION LIKE THAT AGIAN AND YOU WILL END UP LIKE THIS






TRUST ME I AM ONE OF YOU BUT YOU WILL NEED TO PAY ME FOR THE PLEASURE.




I NEED TO LEAVE EARLY AND MY MINDERS ARE COMMING WITH ME.




I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY (I DID IT MY WAY) FRANK SINATRA STILE.



Have you seen the LOGO ****ed my pants but i new the Central belt would love it so retro.


Well Allan nothing like kicking people when there down you bad man you'll go far you'll have to stop hanging around with davie he's a bad influence on you .
 

308boy

Well-Known Member
Your deer management groups are a waste of time .

Beginning to wonder myself about the role the Lowland DMG will play in this. Up north the members are all big land owners with some common interest. They all have deer on hills and culls to go into the food chain and it has been that way for years, all they did was improve on what was there and give it a polish and a fresh face for the public.

Really was a disappointing day for the central belt DMG's, we thought it would be the start of something positive and it was far from that.

Lets see what its next move is and who puts their hands in their pockets to direct it.
 

DL

Well-Known Member
Poor old Jimbo - he asks a valid question on whether the geographical boundaries of DMGs need to be observed and he gets all this coming his way! :lol:

I suppose I should get my tuppence worth in too. I'm not sure if you guys are cynical, or if you're being canny in your anticipation of the way things are going.

Was the conference a PR excercise? Well given that the amount of flash photography in the morning almost gave me a seizure, I suspect there may have been an element of that there.

Here's a report -

http://www.deer-management.co.uk/peebles-conference-report/

Now if I'm to adopt the suspicious approach, I would suggest that a rather nice lunch, and more coffee than I should have consumed was a fine way of sugar coating bad news.

Withdrawal of out of season being the main one. Farmers being willing to fullfil their deer obligations if Deer Managers are willing to pay to do a job being the other.

Apparently We have to be collaborative, and as the FC say qualified as highly as their rangers are, but rather than being given opportunities to provide a considerate local persons approach to managing deer in the local area - the door appears to be firmly closed.

In the report above, there are two words "accountable" and "responsibilites".

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I don't need any more hassle in my life! So until such times as all this legislative polishing has me over a barrel - thanks, but no thanks.
 

Top