Price of stalking

[Shabz]

I feel like this comment is a little off the mark and detracts from what is actually being discussed here.

Banning paid stalking would cut off the main access point for normal people hoping to shoot their first deer. Which in turn leads to them spending all their hard earned money on kit and more stalking experiences - this is helpful for the industry and economy, and their wellbeing.

Most people do not know landowners or farmers well know from the get-go to negotiate free stalking and syndicate places are few and far between. Hence purchasing a guided day is the best option.

We have a habit in Scotland of moaning about those with some cash south of the border coming up and causing problems for us. Usually this relates to things like the cost of holiday accommodation on the west coast. However all too often we see it with fieldsports - particularly very expensive high end activities such as top end stag stalking or driven grouse.

This is pointless - it’s using very specific extreme examples of luxury activities to give an illusion these are the only options to us and that we are being priced out of our hobbies because in certain locations it’s very expensive.

There are plenty of cheaper more accessible stalking options - roe deer (especially does) cost a lot less than a weekend away at a concert, cheaper stag stalking isn’t too bad either. Wildfowling is cheap as chips (free in Fife and Lothian) and walked up shooting can be had in Scotland for £150-300 per person per day…not bad!

Just because I can’t afford a Range Rover or a Porsche doesn’t mean they shouldn’t exist in Scotland. Similarly, I can’t afford a week on the Tay - but I can afford the odd day fishing here and there. If there is a market for high end recreational and leisure experiences in Scotland we should be embracing that and championing them. Our government continue to do a tremendous job killing off any other growth or industry in the country…perhaps this is one area we can all get behind that, see the positives and actually encourage some entrepreneurial spirit….

I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m not jealous that I can’t shoot a massive red stag because I can’t afford to. I have enough free stalking that I could kill 3 a week if I wanted to. I’m saying that because it’s perceived as having value (because estates charge thousands to do it) then people who are interested in things like range rovers and porches are also interested in stalking. They’re not interested in doing it properly though. That means that the richest folk pay the most, the next richest pays what they can and hoover up the next bit of stalking. So on and so forth until we get down to the 200ha woodland that is advertised on here for £7000 per year. Everyone doing what they can afford and nobody doing anything about the huge numbers of deer that nobody is killing because they’re only here two weekends per year. Leaving the local guy who would do a great job unable to afford to shoot anything. He had to pay £150-£300 to go for an armed walk.
£150-£300 is not a good deal to go and shoot a deer. You should be paid £150-£300 to shoot it. What I’m saying is that I would vote to remove the value of deer stalking by Ruperts with too much money and not enough interest in why they’re doing it and no time to spend on it. If it was up to me, I’d be propping up the price of venison and removing the income from paid stalking so that the incentive swings to managing low numbers rather than high numbers.

Whats a biodiversity desert and where do I find them?

it’s an area where very little grows and they’re all over Scotland. There’s a list of SSSIs with lots of them listed as being in unfavourable condition due to grazing pressure. It’s called sitelink. Scotland used to be 97% covered in trees you know.

 

[Camdig]

I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m not jealous that I can’t shoot a massive red stag because I can’t afford to. I have enough free stalking that I could kill 3 a week if I wanted to. I’m saying that because it’s perceived as having value (because estates charge thousands to do it) then people who are interested in things like range rovers and porches are also interested in stalking. They’re not interested in doing it properly though. That means that the richest folk pay the most, the next richest pays what they can and hoover up the next bit of stalking. So on and so forth until we get down to the 200ha woodland that is advertised on here for £7000 per year. Everyone doing what they can afford and nobody doing anything about the huge numbers of deer that nobody is killing because they’re only here two weekends per year. Leaving the local guy who would do a great job unable to afford to shoot anything. He had to pay £150-£300 to go for an armed walk.
£150-£300 is not a good deal to go and shoot a deer. You should be paid £150-£300 to shoot it. What I’m saying is that I would vote to remove the value of deer stalking by Ruperts with too much money and not enough interest in why they’re doing it and no time to spend on it. If it was up to me, I’d be propping up the price of venison and removing the income from paid stalking so that the incentive swings to managing low numbers rather than high numbers.



it’s an area where very little grows and they’re all over Scotland. There’s a list of SSSIs with lots of them listed as being in unfavourable condition due to grazing pressure. It’s called sitelink. Scotland used to be 97% covered in trees you know.

Do you mean the sites with all the wind turbines on it?
You would think the reduction in sheep numbers 4 million less now compared to the 90s would have had a positive impact with young tress regenerating all over?

 

[Shabz]

Do you mean the sites with all the wind turbines on it?
You would think the reduction in sheep numbers 4 million less now compared to the 90s would have had a positive impact with young tress regenerating all over?

If you have 10 sheep in a field and you take four of them out, does that all of a sudden turn the field to woodland?

What percentage of Scotland do you think is under wind farms? I don’t imagine any of them are on SSSIs?

 

[Camdig]

If you have 10 sheep in a field and you take four of them out, does that all of a sudden turn the field to woodland?

What percentage of Scotland do you think is under wind farms? I don’t imagine any of them are on SSSIs?

According to historical records Scotland 500 years ago had 10-15% tree cover the 97% you claim is a pipe dream.
Without doing an investigation into it i believe parts of the Viking windfarm I Shetland were built on SSSI almost certain thousands of tons of ancient peat was disturbed and replaced with concrete.
Anyway the sheep topic, there are literally thousands of acres with no sheep on them now and deer eradicated but humans still have to plant the trees.
Herbivores have a major role to play in the management of uplands sheep or deer we need something to check vegetation back.

 

[Shabz]

According to historical records Scotland 500 years ago had 10-15% tree cover the 97% you claim is a pipe dream.
Without doing an investigation into it i believe parts of the Viking windfarm I Shetland were built on SSSI almost certain thousands of tons of ancient peat was disturbed and replaced with concrete.
Anyway the sheep topic, there are literally thousands of acres with no sheep on them now and deer eradicated but humans still have to plant the trees.
Herbivores have a major role to play in the management of uplands sheep or deer we need something to check vegetation back.

I think deforestation was well under way by 500 years ago. Are you saying that it never was 97% forest? Five hundred years is just last week in context.

Where are the areas with no deer and no sheep that aren’t regenerating with woodland? I can take you to a few of these places but they’re definitely regenerating.

 

[Camdig]

I think deforestation was well under way by 500 years ago. Are you saying that it never was 97% forest? Five hundred years is just last week in context.

Where are the areas with no deer and no sheep that aren’t regenerating with woodland? I can take you to a few of these places but they’re definitely regenerating.

Yes am saying there was never 97% tree cover in Scotland, the majority of hill ground was Heather heathland with grasslands the lower down, the majority of the trees would be in vallies and lowlands.
There is a hill close to me that had the sheep removed 20 years ago and its still just rank Heather it got so bad they wanted the sheep to sensitively graze it back, where are these biodiversity deserts that you claim are there?

 

[dryan]

Depends on how much single malt and what time you consume after dinner

You’re paying for an experience, but what an experience!

 

[Shabz]

Yes am saying there was never 97% tree cover in Scotland, the majority of hill ground was Heather heathland with grasslands the lower down, the majority of the trees would be in vallies and lowlands.
There is a hill close to me that had the sheep removed 20 years ago and its still just rank Heather it got so bad they wanted the sheep to sensitively graze it back, where are these biodiversity deserts that you claim are there?

Where about in Scotland are you? If you’re interested, send me a PM and I’ll take you out for a day and show you.

 

[Malxwal]

No,
Small business now although started as a hobby 30 years ago. I fully understand market costs but the experience tells me that its very easy to price yourself out of the market if you overprice your product. Clearly if you have people who want to pay that price good luck to them. It is however easy to see the people who regard deer stalking as a cash opportunity rather than taking in the management issues.

I'm sure as a sporting estate, and under the remit of our wonderful Jockistani leaders, they have no choice but manage the deer numbers.
People will pay big money to come to Scotland to shoot stags in the Highlands, the same way as they pay a fortune to shoot grouse. I really don't understand why people have a problem with this, and start assuming the estate doesn't manage their herd, and is making some vast fortune off the stags.

 

[VSS]

Yes am saying there was never 97% tree cover in Scotland, the majority of hill ground was Heather heathland with grasslands the lower down, the majority of the trees would be in vallies and lowlands.

I'm not sure you're correct about that.
There's been an awful lot of old tree stumps unearthed in boggy places on the high hill ground, indicating that forest once grew there.
I don’t think there are - or ever were - very many totally natural grasslands in the UK.

Whether Scottish tree cover was ever as much as 97% l have no idea, but I suspect it was an awful lot more than what you're suggesting.

 

[Jagdmatch]

I'm sure as a sporting estate, and under the remit of our wonderful Jockistani leaders, they have no choice but manage the deer numbers.
People will pay big money to come to Scotland to shoot stags in the Highlands, the same way as they pay a fortune to shoot grouse. I really don't understand why people have a problem with this, and start assuming the estate doesn't manage their herd, and is making some vast fortune off the stags.

I have no problem with that point of view. I would regard it as adding value, which I do when selling venison. I just am inclined to look for value in what I wNt to do.

 

[Malxwal]

I have no problem with that point of view. I would regard it as adding value, which I do when selling venison. I just am inclined to look for value in what I wNt to do.

I'd think, if you weren't familiar with the beauty of the Highlands, possibly used to stalking/hunting different species and terrain, and also appreciated these estates have little other than tourism and sheep, you'd see the value. For some, a bucket list, for other more wealthy, a welcome yearly getaway.