Raising deer numbers

[jakey3]

Not all landowners want deer numbers reduced.
In some cases I know of, you'd be likely to have your permission ended if you significantly reduced the numbers, rather than simply maintaining them.
Not sure what you're implying by "breach of trust"?

In this particular case the OP is the landowner, so he can do as he pleases in respect of deer numbers.

Thank you very much. I understand certain areas have awful problems with very high numbers but like I said in the post our area was heavily hit by dog lads poaching deer years ago and it ruined the numbers. It’s nice to see the amount we have now as they are a magnificent creature of the countryside. I just want to look at keeping that number where it is but been able to shoot some for the freezer aswell while managing them correctly for our current circumstances.

 

[Mungo]

Thank you very much. I understand certain areas have awful problems with very high numbers but like I said in the post our area was heavily hit by dog lads poaching deer years ago and it ruined the numbers. It’s nice to see the amount we have now as they are a magnificent creature of the countryside. I just want to look at keeping that number where it is but been able to shoot some for the freezer aswell while managing them correctly for our current circumstances.

So you want to keep around 10-15?

You could probably shoot 8 or so a year, focussing on yearlings and males in the first 2-3 years, then watch to see what happens. If it ticks up, hit the does a little harder one winter.

 

[jakey3]

So you want to keep around 10-15?

You could probably shoot 8 or so a year, focussing on yearlings and males in the first 2-3 years, then watch to see what happens. If it ticks up, hit the does a little harder one winter.

Yeah keep around 10

 

[Apthorpe]

Not all landowners want deer numbers reduced.
In some cases I know of, you'd be likely to have your permission ended if you significantly reduced the numbers, rather than simply maintaining them.
Not sure what you're implying by "breach of trust"?

What I'm implying is that if I gave someone permission to reduce the deer numbers and he didn't ask before I found he was trying to increase numbers, he'd be likely to lose the permission. The "breach" being if you entrust him with the task of reducing, but he increases behind your back.

In this particular case the OP is the landowner, so he can do as he pleases in respect of deer numbers.

I had missed that line (failure to multi-task), so my.comment is redundant in his case, although it may apply to other people.

 

[VSS]

What I'm implying is that if I gave someone permission to reduce the deer numbers and he didn't ask before I found he was trying to increase numbers, he'd be likely to lose the permission. The "breach" being if you entrust him with the task of reducing, but he increases behind your back.

In truth, I think a lot of recreational stalkers gain ground on the strength of "managing the deer and reducing numbers" (smoke & mirrors), but in actual fact implement a cull policy that leads to an increase. And why wouldn't they? They want to protect and prolong their sport.
So your implication is perfectly reasonable
(Just not in this particular case).

 

[Mungo]

Yeah keep around 10

With roe, there are always more than you think.

I reckon you can safely multiply every one you see by at least 1.5-1.75 to get close to the real number. With a lot of hedges, rough ground and woods, that goes up to x3.

 

[Ruby Tuesday 2]

What's stopping the dog boys coming back. Did they back off because of low numbers or were there more permanent reasons why they are not there.....