Paying farmers

[bewsher500]

Why would you pay, it already cost you time & money to provide the farmer/land owner with a service ?

Because they don't always see it that way!
Most farmers don't have any crop damage to speak of as the result of a dozen or two roe deer flitting around between them and the neighbours
They see you getting the sport you enjoy on their land.
sure if you are blatting foxes as well or doing something of value to him....but an awful lot of people are new to stalking and that is where they want the activity

 

[ChrisWill184]

i was told by a stalker close to me 'i have all the farms up this valley that you don't have' i had no reason to disbelieve him,

I get the same message up here. When you shoot in enough places and hear the inevitable loud mouths spouting off about how much ground they have its amazing how many people say exactly the same thing about the same pieces of ground (including some which I have access to). Just noise to put you off going for them yourself. Makes you wonder if anyone has it at all!

I find it funny when someone starts on about a medal head they shot. I am a fairly decent person (I think!) and would never dream of going behind someone for the access to medal potential ground. When you ask them where that animal was shot though, you try getting an answer within 100 miles of it! Sadly I can see why though. Sure others have had it done and my dad has had it done also. Nurture a piece of ground to have some money waving trophy killer wipe everything out in site and then never be seen again. Annoying if you are the stalker but from the farmers view, £100/head (which I have heard being offered to a farmer for an individual animal up here) is hard to turn down if you need it.

Also more annoying when you get asked back to sort out all the rubbish animals that have moved in and are destroying everything in sight.

 

[timbrayford]

Why would you pay, it already cost you time & money to provide the farmer/land owner with a service ?

So that having been fortunate enough to find some land unoccupied by another stalker you get to keep it, that is if you are not out bid by someone willing and able to pay more than you!

atb Tim

 

[sharkey]

Why would you pay, it already cost you time & money to provide the farmer/land owner with a service ?

Have you told the landowners your thoughts on this subject? Why don't you try hitting the farmers up for your expenses, fuel, ammo, etc?

Let us all know how that works out.

Sharkey

 

[rick6point5]

Have you told the landowners your thoughts on this subject? Why don't you try hitting the farmers up for your expenses, fuel, ammo, etc?

Let us all know how that works out.

Sharkey

Ha Ha if I was betting man...

 

[timbrayford]

Have you told the landowners your thoughts on this subject? Why don't you try hitting the farmers up for your expenses, fuel, ammo, etc?

Let us all know how that works out.

Sharkey

On reflection you've raised an interesting issue. Private landowners/farmers no doubt see stalking rights & permissions as a marketable asset from which they can derive some income but what about other organisations?

Conservation charities in particular don't seem to be too keen to allow commercial stalking or "trophy" hunting on their land and instead may employ their own stalker which not only incurs the cost of fuel & ammo, but also wages as well.

atb Tim

 

[Wulliewinky]

Have you told the landowners your thoughts on this subject? Why don't you try hitting the farmers up for your expenses, fuel, ammo, etc?

Let us all know how that works out.

Sharkey

yeah well when you put it that way

 

[old keeper]

I can remember when we used to buy the rabbiting rights on farms, we made a profit, the farmer made a profit. Nothing wrong in that. I have land that I can shoot over for nothing and have done for very many years, very occasionally the farmers will let others on the land, I've never really had a problem with that although it does peeve me a bit at times. However at the end of the day it's his land to do as he wishes with. Despite the rather surprising number of anti farmer comments that arise from time to time where owner occupiers are concerned the final decision as to who can use his property is his.
I control rabbits on some areas where the farmer charges others to stalk, just because I am getting rid of a few foxes and other vermin I don't assume that gives me the right to expect him to give me free deerstalking when he can make decent money from it. I am doing what I enjoy, so are the stalkers and the farmer's happy. No problem.

 

[sharkey]

I'm a hunter, I like hunting, & I also believe its a valuable asset to the human "condition". I let hunters onto my land for free on a daily & weekly basis because I like hunting & hunters. At no point however do I ever consider they are doing me the favour, it is I who willingly give them access & also genuine reasons to acquire their hunting licences & kit. If you suggest that you are doing me the favour & I might reconsider the arrangements. This doesn't mean that I expect my guest to cow tow to my comfort. Just last weekend I had to sleep on my own verandah when a "friend of a friend" was in my bunk when I turned up at midnight. We played along for a couple of days until his mate fessed up that I was actually the owner of the place. The look on ole mates face was priceless & worth a couple of sleepless mozzie bitten nights.

At the end of the day its all about respect for the different stakeholders objectives. In my case I want to promote good hunting education & for others its all about pest management.

"Adaptive", its an interesting concept?

Sharkey

 

[Crosshair243]

I let hunters on my place to shoot pigs & goats (so long as they don't "bomb up" the goats) for free. It's a hassle at times, but I don't get pleasure shooting pigs so if others do, then why not let them have fun. However if a hunter suggests it is he doing me the favour by killing my pesty pigs, then the welcome is revoked.

I had this exact conversation with a neighbour just on Saturday. He was on his way out to poison an estimated 60 plus pigs with 1080, when I caught up with him, they had been free feeding them for a week & the pigs had lost caution. He did have a bloke who shot there, but this guy suggested that Ole Mate supply him with ammo & fuel out of the farm tank. "Good bye mate! 1080 is cheaper & less hassle than you."

When did deer become pests in the UK?

Sharkey

When some people started 'managing' them
Muntjac especially are decimating our woodland ecology.

 

[sharkey]

When some people started 'managing' them
Muntjac especially are decimating our woodland ecology.

I would say then, that they are not managing "them". Game management plans include many more objectives than just producing "game" or managing "pests".

Its an interesting photo of an exclusion area just in from what looks like a crop. I assume you are implying that muntjac are a "threatening process" in this photo, but without any other info, it's just a photo showing an exclusion fence.

Unless someone is monitoring populations & establishing indices of abundance & trends then its not "managing", its shooting or pest control. Language & words can be powerful tools, if folks devalue good management by reducing its definition to "shooting" then it just plays into the hands of the antis. On the same note stalkers then become no more than "pest controllers". It may seem trivial but the perceived value of "stalking" on the continuum of public acceptability shouldn't be discounted. Why play into the hands of the antis?

Sharkey

 

[Crosshair243]

I would say then, that they are not managing "them". Game management plans include many more objectives than just producing "game" or managing "pests".

Its an interesting photo of an exclusion area just in from what looks like a crop. I assume you are implying that muntjac are a "threatening process" in this photo, but without any other info, it's just a photo showing an exclusion fence.

Unless someone is monitoring populations & establishing indices of abundance & trends then its not "managing", its shooting or pest control. Language & words can be powerful tools, if folks devalue good management by reducing its definition to "shooting" then it just plays into the hands of the antis. On the same note stalkers then become no more than "pest controllers". It may seem trivial but the perceived value of "stalking" on the continuum of public acceptability shouldn't be discounted. Why play into the hands of the antis?

Sharkey

Its not a crop- it's what the whole compartment would like like if deer were at an acceptable level.
Although, I don't need to tell you guys how damaging alien species can be

Attitude and education breeds respect- not hiding behind a title that has become fairly meaningless.
We're going to look back at this boom in the value of deer for recreational stalking and regret how we favoured it over native diversity.

All in my humble opinion of course


Edit- I'm not including Highland stalking in this. I know far too little about it to comment on that.

 

[sharkey]

Its not a crop- it's what the whole compartment would like like if deer were at an acceptable level.

What is that green stuff just beyond the tree line?

Sharkey

 

[Crosshair243]

What is that green stuff just beyond the tree line?

Sharkey

Its a grass field. Sorry, misread you post a little, I thought you were implying the stuff in the fence was a crop.

 

[sharkey]

I don't know how wide that piece of "woodland" is before the next bit of monoculture, however looking at that photo I don't see much cover for deer. Cover is also a limiting factor, not just food.

As a hypothetical, lets say muntjac are reduced, enough to allow the secondary species of vegetation to establish. Wouldn't the fecundity & recruitment of the muntjac then erupt due to the improved habitat & cause more conflict with other stakeholders (in this case farmers)?

A good management plan can adapt any number of objectives, & I concur with your views on preserving & conserving natural ecology when possible. Hunters IMO are very pro conservation & also understand the value of nature. A good plan hopefully would bring all the stakeholders & their various objectives together. "Adaptive" is the key word when attempting this.

Sharkey

 

[exmarksman9870]

Only costs me booooze lol

 

[Crosshair243]

I don't know how wide that piece of "woodland" is before the next bit of monoculture, however looking at that photo I don't see much cover for deer. Cover is also a limiting factor, not just food.

As a hypothetical, lets say muntjac are reduced, enough to allow the secondary species of vegetation to establish. Wouldn't the fecundity & recruitment of the muntjac then erupt due to the improved habitat & cause more conflict with other stakeholders (in this case farmers)?

A good management plan can adapt any number of objectives, & I concur with your views on preserving & conserving natural ecology when possible. Hunters IMO are very pro conservation & also understand the value of nature. A good plan hopefully would bring all the stakeholders & their various objectives together. "Adaptive" is the key word when attempting this.

Sharkey

I think people hugely underestimate how far Muntjac travel at night. That's a tiny block of wood adjoined by a thick hedge and next to a busy lane but is typical of much of the woodland in the area. In the daytime, there are zero deer in there. At night, there may be four or five Muntjac who visit it.

I agree- the improved cover would potentially hold more deer but all the other invertebrates and associated food web of song birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians etc would have been given a chance too.
That's why we can't take our foot off the gas with them.

Its only since I've spent so much time alongside them that I've witnessed just how destructive they are.

 

[sharkey]

Just for a bit of trivia. I have been fortunate to meet many fine biologists & deer managers from around the globe. Sambar are of particular interest to me, & they aren't a widely encountered game species in most of the English speaking countries around the world. I'm fortunate in introducing many of these deer folk to sambar & their natural history for the first time, one of the most frequent comments is "they are like giant muntjac". Imagine that? 250kg muntjac & we have over 250 000 of these just in Victoria alone. They can become a "threatening process" if not managed correctly. This does not mean they automatically are. "Management" is the determining factor. They are listed here as "game" not as "pests" & hunting sambar contributes more than 400 million the that states economy each year. If they were listed as pests & managed accordingly, IMO conflicts with all the stakeholders would increase, not abate.

A lot of processes in nature & management are counter intuitive. This is why we need good monitoring to establish if trends are really happening. We all have biases, & memory can't be relied upon, so good management can only be achieved with good monitoring.

Some thoughts on the photo & our ensuing discussion. Would you agree that as long as the current practices for controlling muntjac continue then the ecological community is at a "climax" & muntjac are at "saturation" given available resources (cover & distance seem to be limiters)? Changing the ecology into an eruptive phase will have all sorts of outcomes & consequences, have these been fully investigated. Has this been done elsewhere & what outcomes did the monitoring show?

Sharkey

Edit to add
Keep in mind that muntjac (short of some biological control) are no doubt there to stay. You can't ever go back to "pre muntjac" & its foolish to consider it. They must be considered now as part of the ecological community, a community which IMO looking at your photo's has already climaxed at that location. Change happens. Some change is more acceptable than other but in regards to muntjac, I guess all you can really do is slow the dispersal to allow the existing ecological communities as much opportunity to naturalise them with a minimal rate of change. I doubt it will happen like this though, muntjac like other species of deer will disperse with the highest densities at the front of the wave. Then as the areas are "saturated" the density will decrease & be contained by the limiting factors. Fiddling with the limiting factors (cover, feed, predators) will see increases or decreases in the density.

Down here if farmers can't get enough tags to "manage" the roos, then modifying remnant bushland on their property which the roos need for shelter is much more effective & permanent than shooting. I prefer the shooting option & keeping the wildlife communities intact, but bureaucrats & so called "conservationists" can't see past the "shooting" or the extenuating circumstances around managing wildlife. You don't have to just shoot to control populations, & I guess what I'm saying is be careful you don't increase your problems when looking for a solution.

 

[Crosshair243]

Great post Sharkey- very interesting thanks