Shoot more deer or see more deer that is the question?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tulloch

Well-Known Member
So the deer population in the UK as a whole is too high.

Do you as a stalker want to shoot more deer or see more deer?

There seems to be two camps in this fight, now I work as a stalker for a rewilding estate so all I do is cull and in the forestry projects I am involved in its the same, so I have no choice its my job to shoot more deer, but it seems many want their cakes and eat it.

In dealing with the syndicates I come across all types of stalkers,
I get the ones who want to take one or two deer every few months for the pot, they want to enjoy the day out on their own or with a family member shooting maybe a maximum 10 a year, they usually don't have much to say about deer stalking in general its just personal enjoyment for them and maybe family time. .These ones don't make cull targets and rightly don't care either.

I get the ones that are passionate and enthusiastic about their sport, the stalk and the challenge is more important than the cull, their searching for trophies and the hunt over the meat, they are passionate enough to know everything they need and always ask loads of questions, it's quality they want not quantity. Again rightly don't make cull targets.

I get the wannabe contractors that think 40 deer are not enough for the year, the want more and they want more land, its a business for them now not the case of a few for the pot they want to shoot everything they see. I find these guys the hardest to deal with, on one hand they don't want anyone else to shoot loads of deer but on the other they want to shoot loads themselves, they are only happy if they are shooting more than anyone else, it's not about the stalk or the ground they are happy to run a lease down then jump ship next year and then find another place.

Then you have the estates and the individuals who are trying to provide recreational stalking commercially and in doing so they need to have a good stock of well bred deer and limit their shooting to keep that stock. Have minimum cull targets to meet.

I personally fall somewhere in between all of them, a mixture of like seeing my deer on my own ground but other commercial obligations to other grounds that I manage.

At the moment the only people that don't want deer shot is stalkers for whatever reason and I have said this before we are a minority in the general voting pool.

There's this problem these days within the community, we are confused in what we really want. Sustainable deer means a lot of things, one land managers prospective is different from anothers. Forestry and sustainable forestry require a deer density of between 2 to 3 deer per km² , for a better view of this that equates to around 15 deer in total for 1200 acres, for sustainable herd management for good quality trophy deer for recreational stalking that is far too low. This same density regulation is required for all nature recovery requirements such as, Peatland restoration, biodiversity credits, carbon capture credits, sustainable natural woodland etc etc. What mist stalkers require is limited stag culling and limited hind culling often not shooting more than 24 stags and 40 hinds a year per estate. Hence one of the reasons it costs so much to stalk on an estate. Just look at the average cull for a 10 thousand acre sporting estate its not high at all, I have shot more deer in a 350 acre block than some 10 thousand acre estates have in a year.

It's all about different management structures.

The main issue here is how do you want to see future deer stalking to look in the UK in the future?
We keep talking about that we should all stick together but that is utter fantasy. Yes you get the few that do but it's definitely not for the most part, we can be very exclusive as a whole and somewhat selfish individually. Examples of this are easy to see, most DMG's want accept rewilding groups or private forestry into their meetings and if they do on occasion its just to have a go.

We all know there is no appetite for hunting as a sport anymore in the UK with the wider population and the majority voter roll.

I will go back to my original question

Do you want to shoot more deer or see more deer? Because you can only shoot them once.

If you want to be part of the conversation you need to understand and see both sides of it on merit.
 
Last edited:
With respect, there are individual stalkers shooting 300 - 400 deer per year and not even denting the population in their area.
I think perhaps someone who's experience is largely based on roe and red deer in Scotland can't really comprehend the situation with Fallow in parts of England. And muntjac.
It needs two different conversations entirely. There is very little in common between the two scenarios.
 
With respect, there are individual stalkers shooting 300 - 400 deer per year and not even denting the population in their area.
I think perhaps someone who's experience is largely based on roe and red deer in Scotland can't really comprehend the situation with Fallow in parts of England. And muntjac.
It needs two different conversations entirely. There is very little in common between the two scenarios.
I agree personally but for the most part our community can't.

Many on here or other forums have a heck of a lot to say about new legislation in Scotland but actually don't see what's happening on their doorstep.

I look at pictures and videos of herds of Fallow running across motorways in England and I am blown away but I don't comment because it's not the grounds I manage but I understand the problem. Here in the Highlands we have seen a huge increase in RTA's I have had 6 humane dispatch calls this week . We see more roaming deer than ever and clearing my properties just creates more roaming space.

But that's bye the bye, we have to admit our failings to be part of the solution and not just attack every legislation that is proposed but to try negotiate a middle ground because politically we are losing or fighting a losing battle atleast.
 
Tulloch good posts and well write but they really do only reflect the highland areas of Scotland. So we have a major problem we have a Government who does not understand the differnce between the two areas. One size does not fit all and this consultation does not help the situation in the central areas of Scotland one bit. In fact it makes it worse.
 
Intersting post. Do we want to shoot more or see more. In scotland I suppose the government have made that decision for us. We need to shoot more deer. Government targets dictate we reduce the populations down far lower than at present.
 
If I saw more I'd shoot more. Ideally they would see me less ! I generally blank 3 out of 4 stalks as it's a difficult bit of land. Keeps it sporting . Luckily I'm not under much pressure for results. If it was a bit more productive / successful I'd likely get out more often.
 
Tulloch good posts and well write but they really do only reflect the highland areas of Scotland. So we have a major problem we have a Government who does not understand the differnce between the two areas. One size does not fit all and this consultation does not help the situation in the central areas of Scotland one bit. In fact it makes it worse.
I agree . I am not saying any of this is good or bad am just raising the conversation.

It's a fair question we seem to all be in different minds. I shoot all over the cou try not just in the Highlands. There are heavy populations of deer in all the central belt hill areas from the Ochils to the Campsies to the Trossachs this is not just a lowland Highland divide but yes even in the central belt of Scotland its localised.

I agree it's different plans for different areas and not one size fits all, in fact it is impossible .
 
at the end of the day it’s ALL the responsibility of the landowner.
They have the control of what happens on their land, not individual stalkers.
If the landowner wants to see a change in deer numbers or they way deer are managed, they need to make arrangements for that to happen, one way or another.
 
at the end of the day it’s ALL the responsibility of the landowner.
They have the control of what happens on their land, not individual stalkers.
If the landowner wants to see a change in deer numbers or they way deer are managed, they need to make arrangements for that to happen, one way or another.
But how's it going to play out in the areas with a serious deer problem if one landowner doesn't want deer culled, thus providing a sanctuary for animals that are causing his neighbours serious economic loss, not to mention RTAs etc?
Do you think individual landowners will retain control, or is the decision making going to be taken out of their hands?
 
But how's it going to play out in the areas with a serious deer problem if one landowner doesn't want deer culled, thus providing a sanctuary for animals that are causing his neighbours serious economic loss, not to mention RTAs etc?
Do you think individual landowners will retain control, or is the decision making going to be taken out of their hands?
It’s their choice of course at the moment.
I think you’d have a hard time forcing people to have deer culled on land owned by them irrespective of the problems deer may be causing around them.
If I was a landowner with problem numbers of deer coming in from next door and an inability to cull sufficiently, I’d be looking then at fencing options.
 
It’s their choice of course at the moment.
I think you’d have a hard time forcing people to have deer culled on land owned by them irrespective of the problems deer may be causing around them.
If I was a landowner with problem numbers of deer coming in from next door and an inability to cull sufficiently, I’d be looking then at fencing options.
As I mentioned earlier, landowners can already be compelled to control rabbits on their land, particularly if neighbours are complaining of damage. Why do you see deer as being any different?
Fencing isn't a practical solution either, given the scale and the inconvenience. How do you manage fencing when there's public access, footpaths, roads passing through the farm, other wildlife to consider, etc etc? You're looking at needing fences in excess of 6ft high with locked gates. The countryside would become an unsightly fortress.

If landowners are not compelled to manage deer on their land to prevent damage to adjacent properties, then as far as I can see night shooting licences are going to be the only realistic option. And lots of them. Fallow aren't stupid. They'll lie all day in the sanctuary, and then raid the neighbours crops after dark. And remember, we're not talking about herds of just a few deer. Or even just a few hundred. The impact on crops is significant.
 
As I mentioned earlier, landowners can already be compelled to control rabbits on their land, particularly if neighbours are complaining of damage. Why do you see deer as being any different?
People seem to feel more strongly about large mammals.
Fencing isn't a practical solution either, given the scale and the inconvenience. How do you manage fencing when there's public access, footpaths, roads passing through the farm, other wildlife to consider, etc etc? You're looking at needing fences in excess of 6ft high with locked gates. The countryside would become an unsightly fortress.
Fences have their uses. If you understand your local deer and their movements you might use strategic fences to prevent access from their easiest routes and thus encourage them to go elsewhere. Deer like it easy, if possible. They value safety and convenience. They don’t want to cross roads and cattle grids.
If landowners are not compelled to manage deer on their land to prevent damage to adjacent properties, then as far as I can see night shooting licences are going to be the only realistic option. And lots of them. Fallow aren't stupid.

They'll lie all day in the sanctuary, and then raid the neighbours crops after dark. And remember, we're not talking about herds of just a few deer. Or even just a few hundred. The impact on crops is significant.
Having been involved in exactly this very scenario I can agree that night shooting would be wonderfully helpful for reducing numbers.
When can we start?
 
People seem to feel more strongly about large mammals.

Fences have their uses. If you understand your local deer and their movements you might use strategic fences to prevent access from their easiest routes and thus encourage them to go elsewhere. Deer like it easy, if possible. They value safety and convenience. They don’t want to cross roads and cattle grids.



Having been involved in exactly this very scenario I can agree that night shooting would be wonderfully helpful for reducing numbers.
When can we start?
Fences have their uses. If you understand your local deer and their movements you might use strategic fences to prevent access from their easiest routes and thus encourage them to go elsewhere. Deer like it easy, if possible. They value safety and convenience. They don’t want to cross roads and cattle grids.
Travel down any minor/major road in the South East and you will spot Muntjac feeding by the side of it, go along the next day and it or one will be flat lol
 
Fences have their uses. If you understand your local deer and their movements you might use strategic fences to prevent access from their easiest routes and thus encourage them to go elsewhere. Deer like it easy, if possible. They value safety and convenience. They don’t want to cross roads and cattle grids.

Fencing is only ever going to be any good for fencing deer completely in or completely out on a relatively small scale. Strategic fencing just exacerbates the problem by forcing deer onto roads or redirecting them onto other properties where they'll cause just as much damage.
You see "strategic fencing" alongside motorways in areas of high deer density, and it doesn't seem to work. Wasn't there a case a few years back of a nighttime cull being carried out on a motorway embankment, shooting from a vehicle behind a rolling roadblock? Because a large herd of deer had taken up residence on the wrong side of the fence.
 
at the end of the day it’s ALL the responsibility of the landowner.
They have the control of what happens on their land, not individual stalkers.
If the landowner wants to see a change in deer numbers or they way deer are managed, they need to make arrangements for that to happen, one way or another.
I agree. I ‘manage’ the roe population on several permissions in my local area, but ultimately, I only respond to what the landowners want. Some want a stable population and some venison, others want the deer to disappear completely.The former is achievable, but…..
 
Fencing is only ever going to be any good for fencing deer completely in or completely out on a relatively small scale. Strategic fencing just exacerbates the problem by forcing deer onto roads or redirecting them onto other properties where they'll cause just as much damage.
You see "strategic fencing" alongside motorways in areas of high deer density, and it doesn't seem to work. Wasn't there a case a few years back of a nighttime cull being carried out on a motorway embankment, shooting from a vehicle behind a rolling roadblock? Because a large herd of deer had taken up residence on the wrong side of the fence.
I don’t know anything about shooting them on the motorway…But I do know that higher, stronger fences have worked wonders for landowners on some areas of ground that I’m involved with. Yes the deer go elsewhere. Not my landowners problem anymore. It’s now the problem of the landowner who chooses not to allow culling on his land.

Again, fencing wasn’t my first choice. Only after effective culling has been ruled out for whatever reason.

“If I was a landowner with problem numbers of deer coming in from next door and an inability to cull sufficiently, I’d be looking then at fencing options.”
 
It’s their choice of course at the moment.
I think you’d have a hard time forcing people to have deer culled on land owned by them irrespective of the problems deer may be causing around them.
If I was a landowner with problem numbers of deer coming in from next door and an inability to cull sufficiently, I’d be looking then at fencing options.
This is the exact scenario I'm looking at, huge roe pressure around us and landowners around not interested/not wanting to cull any. The roe are doing are doing a lot of damage to our trees (high value ornamental trees) so looking at fencing them out, at vast expense....
 
This is the exact scenario I'm looking at, huge roe pressure around us and landowners around not interested/not wanting to cull any. The roe are doing are doing a lot of damage to our trees (high value ornamental trees) so looking at fencing them out, at vast expense....
What do you call "huge roe pressure"?
I don't have any experience of roe, but I know that fallow move about in herds of many hundreds, which do significant damage.
 
. Here in the Highlands we have seen a huge increase in RTA's I have had 6 humane dispatch calls this week . We see more roaming deer than ever and clearing my properties just creates more roaming space.

There is one road that's only a few miles long through the Ashdown Forest in East Sussex that has a sign with the rolling 12 month tally of recorded deer RTCs. It's usually between 275-300 and that's just one road and only the collisions that get reported.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top