Silence in the Glens; Increasingly excessive deer culling targets
ecoman
Well-Known Member
bogtrotter. From my point of view you have valid comments. Not every contract shooter is a devil, and not every stalker - professional or otherwise - is an angel. I too have witnessed dead stags lying against upper forestry fences where they had huddled in vain only yards away from shelter, and maybe that was not as merciful as another long plantation which had no fence along the topside, but attracted the deer in where they were shot on sight.
So much depends upon the individual perspective of each and every one of us, but on one thing we seem to be all agreed. There IS overshooting - and unfortunately it is generalised and not concentrated in the areas where there ARE large numbers which have expanded in the last couple of decades.
Some smaller forests which have been separated by purchase from larger forests in the past, have historically harboured many wintering stags from various surrounding areas, but these small harbouring forests suffer as a result of what is today recognised as winter overgrazing.
It is not the fault of the stags, but the inadvertent fault of those who drew up the boundary lines without due consideration - as usual - to the movements and requirements of the deer. It is in the interests of those nearby deer forests who enjoy the benefits of their newly received travelling stags to come to some understanding with the unfortunate wintering HOST who has to harbopur everyone's stags during the close season, then watch them disappear when the season begins to get under way.
It is NOT sensible for any governing body to march in and declare that the place is overrun and dictate that the place should be severely culled as they are demanding the demise of the goose that lays the golden egg. In some parts of Scotland, stags break out and travel for many miles, providing big stags for rutting stances and sport. This cannot happen if they are shot out when they are occupying their wintering habitat. The matter of deer management is national in this sense - not local. The knock-on effect of stags breaking out, for instance, half way across the width of Inverness shire, which is in this case, half way across Scotland, will have an effect on the number of stags historially appearing during the rut on some of the west coast forests.
On this - I'll back away and give you all some relief and breathing space. K.
So much depends upon the individual perspective of each and every one of us, but on one thing we seem to be all agreed. There IS overshooting - and unfortunately it is generalised and not concentrated in the areas where there ARE large numbers which have expanded in the last couple of decades.
Some smaller forests which have been separated by purchase from larger forests in the past, have historically harboured many wintering stags from various surrounding areas, but these small harbouring forests suffer as a result of what is today recognised as winter overgrazing.
It is not the fault of the stags, but the inadvertent fault of those who drew up the boundary lines without due consideration - as usual - to the movements and requirements of the deer. It is in the interests of those nearby deer forests who enjoy the benefits of their newly received travelling stags to come to some understanding with the unfortunate wintering HOST who has to harbopur everyone's stags during the close season, then watch them disappear when the season begins to get under way.
It is NOT sensible for any governing body to march in and declare that the place is overrun and dictate that the place should be severely culled as they are demanding the demise of the goose that lays the golden egg. In some parts of Scotland, stags break out and travel for many miles, providing big stags for rutting stances and sport. This cannot happen if they are shot out when they are occupying their wintering habitat. The matter of deer management is national in this sense - not local. The knock-on effect of stags breaking out, for instance, half way across the width of Inverness shire, which is in this case, half way across Scotland, will have an effect on the number of stags historially appearing during the rut on some of the west coast forests.
On this - I'll back away and give you all some relief and breathing space. K.
I can only agree with your reasoning there, fortunately I am in the lucky position that the estate where I am a stalker now is part of a large forest made up of several well managed estates that so far have not been affected by forestry or other pressures.
However one can not become complacent as it only needs one estate to change its plans for all of us in the area to be affected.
Steyer 6.5
Well-Known Member
Gentleman you have written some very reasoned and thought out words which I whole heartedly agree with. I hope some folk take note. I find this thread extremely interesting and thought provoking.
I do like this type of thread as it highlights the tug o warthat is commonplace amongst landowners/land managers across Scotland. We haveforestry, grouse moors, deer forests, agriculture, industry, recreation, conservationetc, all of which compete for a finite resource. Ultimately the winner of thetug o war gets to influence the land to suit their objectives; most often tothe disadvantage of the losers. Despite the obvious bias there is anexpectation (obligation) that landowners/managers will ply their trade havingregard for the wider environment. This does not mean that everyone will behappy but it should ensure that work will be done following best practice. Inother words it is a legitimate land use.
Unfortunately, whilst Red deer are a valuable resource tosome they are seen a nuisance to others and things have become worse over thelast while because the general view is that deer numbers have increased tounacceptable levels. This makes life easier for those that wish to reducenumbers. In addition, the government has an obligation to protect SSSIs and assuch has successfully passed this obligation on to the landowners. Most ofthese designated sites have been classified as in “unfavourable” condition dueto overgrazing so a Deer Management Plan will be needed. Also note that therehas been a significant influx of new landowners that do not see deer stalkingas a main objective, if at all. So when the perfect storm arises and we see an “environmentalist”buy up a stag wintering ground that happens to be a SSSI in unfavourablecondition the outcome is predictable.
As regards forestry I think that many fences have actually falleninto disrepair and allowed deer access and shelter for many years but now thatthe woods have matured and are being felled/restocked the deer are no longerwelcome. This will become the norm as the vast areas of trees planted in the 70’sand 80’s mature.
I don’t believe that there is an agenda to wipe out Reds butmy advice to landowners is to assume that deer numbers will be reduced overtime and that the best way to protect their sporting interest is to create theirown wintering ground. I believe that strategically located native woodlands providefood and shelter and may well save the day for many estates. I have been aroundfor long enough to see the pendulum swing toward theenvironmentalists/conservationists (or call them what you will) and I thinkthey will dictate the pace from now on. However I’ve also been round for longenough to believe that Red deer will prevail subject to some forward planningby estate owners, meantime I fear it will be a rough ride for some.
Regards
Unfortunately, whilst Red deer are a valuable resource tosome they are seen a nuisance to others and things have become worse over thelast while because the general view is that deer numbers have increased tounacceptable levels. This makes life easier for those that wish to reducenumbers. In addition, the government has an obligation to protect SSSIs and assuch has successfully passed this obligation on to the landowners. Most ofthese designated sites have been classified as in “unfavourable” condition dueto overgrazing so a Deer Management Plan will be needed. Also note that therehas been a significant influx of new landowners that do not see deer stalkingas a main objective, if at all. So when the perfect storm arises and we see an “environmentalist”buy up a stag wintering ground that happens to be a SSSI in unfavourablecondition the outcome is predictable.
As regards forestry I think that many fences have actually falleninto disrepair and allowed deer access and shelter for many years but now thatthe woods have matured and are being felled/restocked the deer are no longerwelcome. This will become the norm as the vast areas of trees planted in the 70’sand 80’s mature.
I don’t believe that there is an agenda to wipe out Reds butmy advice to landowners is to assume that deer numbers will be reduced overtime and that the best way to protect their sporting interest is to create theirown wintering ground. I believe that strategically located native woodlands providefood and shelter and may well save the day for many estates. I have been aroundfor long enough to see the pendulum swing toward theenvironmentalists/conservationists (or call them what you will) and I thinkthey will dictate the pace from now on. However I’ve also been round for longenough to believe that Red deer will prevail subject to some forward planningby estate owners, meantime I fear it will be a rough ride for some.
Regards
Salmo Salar
Well-Known Member
In the current climate I very much doubt if there will be a satisfactory answer.
The forestry guys as we know more or less dont want any, some so called sporting estates dont want any for the sake of the Grouse, a so called Bird charity doesnt want them as they stop the regeneration of trees, SNH has the same view at Mar Lodge.
I personally find it disgusting that BASC and other associations that are meant to be defending a way of life have sat back and done little or nothing about this.
I am well aware that businesses have to try and make money, that crops have to be protected and that environments have to be protected. The way some of these things have been justified though, through the absolute slaughter of Red deer in the main but also Roe is a disgrace.
The huge culls that have happened at Mar Lodge, Glenfeshie, Forest Lodge(Abernethy Reserve as its now known) have happened for the so called regeneration of trees. A worthy cause you may say and I agree, but not if you have to virtually wipe out an entire population of deer. Yes reduce number perhaps, but Fencing off area's should have been the first option.
Looking at forestry concerns now - fence off the plantations up to the point that the trees are mature enough to stand the deer there. Here's a question - How many deer were wiped out in forestry blocks in the past two winters when the snow inadvertently allowed them access into forbidden plantations - Plantations that were mature enough to allow them shelter in some of the worst weather the country has seen in a generation.... Fair enough if the plantation was too young, it is a crop and you have to protect it but on many occasions I'd suggest that was not the case.
As for some so called "Sporting Estates" wiping out entirely their populations of deer for the benefit of Grouse. How on earth this has been allowed to happen is beyond belief. This pains me to say it but as far as I am concerned they are worse than the RSPB and SNH!! At least they have allowed some to survive. The Deer are part of our natural heritage whether they like it or not. Is it not amazing that these estates had deer and large numbers of Grouse in the past.... I think you'll quite often find on the estates that have done this that they have also added to the keepering team, with far more vermin control being done to go along with the Tick Mops (sheep) and lack of deer. When in the dour days of very few grouse, a lot of the estates in question had no sheep grazing and carried large numbers of Deer - no need for a large keepering team, little vermin control, no sheep and large numbers of deer = No grouse. I'm no scientist but even I can see that! The weather also plays a large part in the success or otherwise of good grouse stocks.
I live in a beautiful part of the countryside that is slowly being gobbled up by the RSPB, the lack of a lot of wildlife in the forest now including deer but not only I will lay squarely on their doorstep. Their policies however well intentioned are a farce in the main. I was speaking to the head keeper of a neighboring estate at the weekend and he and another estate are now witnessing the lack of mature stags during the rut, down purely to Mar Lodge and Abernethy's policy of deer control. We are constantly being bombarded on the television that we are so over populated with deer at present, that Joe public shows little or no reaction when he hears of large deer culls. This over population may well be the case in certain pockets but not everywhere and certainly in my area it definitely is not the case. My opinion to this is, it will suit many conservation groups to promote this theory as it suits their aims. This is when our BASC's etc have to stand up and be counted. All sadly are not.
I'm not ignorant enough to understand that you cant please everyone and that some will feel hard done by. But surely I am not the only one thinking that Red deer, are now being persecuted beyond reason.
The forestry guys as we know more or less dont want any, some so called sporting estates dont want any for the sake of the Grouse, a so called Bird charity doesnt want them as they stop the regeneration of trees, SNH has the same view at Mar Lodge.
I personally find it disgusting that BASC and other associations that are meant to be defending a way of life have sat back and done little or nothing about this.
I am well aware that businesses have to try and make money, that crops have to be protected and that environments have to be protected. The way some of these things have been justified though, through the absolute slaughter of Red deer in the main but also Roe is a disgrace.
The huge culls that have happened at Mar Lodge, Glenfeshie, Forest Lodge(Abernethy Reserve as its now known) have happened for the so called regeneration of trees. A worthy cause you may say and I agree, but not if you have to virtually wipe out an entire population of deer. Yes reduce number perhaps, but Fencing off area's should have been the first option.
Looking at forestry concerns now - fence off the plantations up to the point that the trees are mature enough to stand the deer there. Here's a question - How many deer were wiped out in forestry blocks in the past two winters when the snow inadvertently allowed them access into forbidden plantations - Plantations that were mature enough to allow them shelter in some of the worst weather the country has seen in a generation.... Fair enough if the plantation was too young, it is a crop and you have to protect it but on many occasions I'd suggest that was not the case.
As for some so called "Sporting Estates" wiping out entirely their populations of deer for the benefit of Grouse. How on earth this has been allowed to happen is beyond belief. This pains me to say it but as far as I am concerned they are worse than the RSPB and SNH!! At least they have allowed some to survive. The Deer are part of our natural heritage whether they like it or not. Is it not amazing that these estates had deer and large numbers of Grouse in the past.... I think you'll quite often find on the estates that have done this that they have also added to the keepering team, with far more vermin control being done to go along with the Tick Mops (sheep) and lack of deer. When in the dour days of very few grouse, a lot of the estates in question had no sheep grazing and carried large numbers of Deer - no need for a large keepering team, little vermin control, no sheep and large numbers of deer = No grouse. I'm no scientist but even I can see that! The weather also plays a large part in the success or otherwise of good grouse stocks.
I live in a beautiful part of the countryside that is slowly being gobbled up by the RSPB, the lack of a lot of wildlife in the forest now including deer but not only I will lay squarely on their doorstep. Their policies however well intentioned are a farce in the main. I was speaking to the head keeper of a neighboring estate at the weekend and he and another estate are now witnessing the lack of mature stags during the rut, down purely to Mar Lodge and Abernethy's policy of deer control. We are constantly being bombarded on the television that we are so over populated with deer at present, that Joe public shows little or no reaction when he hears of large deer culls. This over population may well be the case in certain pockets but not everywhere and certainly in my area it definitely is not the case. My opinion to this is, it will suit many conservation groups to promote this theory as it suits their aims. This is when our BASC's etc have to stand up and be counted. All sadly are not.
I'm not ignorant enough to understand that you cant please everyone and that some will feel hard done by. But surely I am not the only one thinking that Red deer, are now being persecuted beyond reason.
Steyer 6.5
Well-Known Member
Chaps I really don't think we have the weight to make any changes to the big boys policies unless we actually control the culling and management. It all boils down to feather their pockets (rspb). I agree basc, BDS, CLA, and all the other bodies that stick up or have vested interest in trees, grouse, deer and other fieldsports are silent in relation to this. Our only hope is that someone sees common sense.
Dan Gliballs
Well-Known Member
Do you stalk mature commercial plantations?
By your above comment I doubt you have or have done very little of it.
Deer are, by their very nature shy creatures, prefering the thick cover of mature Sitka to that of a vastly open restock site, only venturing out of cover at last light and heading back in at first light, if you banked on controlling deer in mature forestry using basically 4 hrs of the day in which the deer are visible you would be on a hiding to nothing.
I am talking from a personel experience, the Estate I work on is 18,000 acres of open hill and 7,000 acres of mature commercial forestry. We are at deer on the hill during the day and deer in the forest at night.
The way in that commercial forestry is being planted is changing, foresters are opting for a higher percentage of broad leaves nowadays so this may change the way in which the deer are managed but at present the ability to lamp deer is an invaluable tool.
I will agree that night licenses are handed out too easily, we have many crofters around the west coast that have been granted a night license for the control of deer, why? Half of the authorisations handed out are to those that dont have any crops/grass to protect, if the crop/grass is that valuable then surely they should take steps to prevent access before getting authorisation.
You will need to excuse me if it sounds like Im having a rant but some of the weekend warriors on here think that folk that shoot deer with a lamp are the devil and should be burned on the stake. Some of us are professional Deer Managers and are passionate about what we do.
Before critizising a man you should first walk a mile in his shoes.
And thats all I have to say about that.
Last edited:
100% correct.
bambislayer
Well-Known Member
Some may talk the talk, this 2 walk the walk
ecoman
Well-Known Member
Don't you all think that each and every one of us is liable to be heavily influenced by our own experiences on the ground over which we work? I see differences of opinion opening up on this thread and from my distance THINK that this is mainly because personal experiences are colouring the GENERAL opinion of how we think EVERYONE is affected.
For instance, a lot depends upon the geography and population density of deer on any estate and importantly, how, for instance, is the 7,000 acres of forest situated in Dan Gliballs' case. It sound like a fair old blanket of cover into which deer can habituate themselves.
A lot of good-natured conversation tends to degenerate simply because a fellow writes or says something in such a way which sets another fellow on edge. HE knew what he meant but perhaps didn't get it accross in quite the way he meant-to, and a natural reaction creates a similar reply amongst fellows who are pretty strong-minded to do the jobs they do in the first place.
If I'm wrong about this in this case - then I'll back off and disappear - but it seems a pity to have a bit of a snapping session generated out of what is basically a general agreement that something aught to be said on behalf of the deer.
And on the subject of professional stalkers. My sincere sympathies lie with you in what has turned out to be a very wetting season for most of you. Having to get out there day after day in order to get the cull in, knowing that you'll be fairly soaked no matter what clothing you wear, is a thought.
K
For instance, a lot depends upon the geography and population density of deer on any estate and importantly, how, for instance, is the 7,000 acres of forest situated in Dan Gliballs' case. It sound like a fair old blanket of cover into which deer can habituate themselves.
A lot of good-natured conversation tends to degenerate simply because a fellow writes or says something in such a way which sets another fellow on edge. HE knew what he meant but perhaps didn't get it accross in quite the way he meant-to, and a natural reaction creates a similar reply amongst fellows who are pretty strong-minded to do the jobs they do in the first place.
If I'm wrong about this in this case - then I'll back off and disappear - but it seems a pity to have a bit of a snapping session generated out of what is basically a general agreement that something aught to be said on behalf of the deer.
And on the subject of professional stalkers. My sincere sympathies lie with you in what has turned out to be a very wetting season for most of you. Having to get out there day after day in order to get the cull in, knowing that you'll be fairly soaked no matter what clothing you wear, is a thought.
K
Dan Gliballs
Well-Known Member
I feel I should reply, if only to justify myself.
To be honest it wasnt biglobbys fault that his comment struck a nerve, lets call it "the straw that broke the camels back", time and time again I see comments on here with pretty much the same content as his and after a while it wears a bit thin.
Like I said earlier I do believe there ARE people that have night authorisations that dont REALLY require them but in my case, and in many others we just couldnt do our job without them.
We are going a bit off topic here and I suppose that my fault so thatl be it from me and Il say no more.
Tamus
Well-Known Member
And that way, you'll already be a mile away from him... and... you'll have his shoes!
As for crofters and night licences, the option of deer fencing and taking time off from the part time work that actually earns them a living usually/frequently isn't a viable option. If they have crops or grazings to protect they want to do it at least economic pain and at a time of day when they are actually there and able to do it. They have my sympathies, as do all professional deer managers who get a bad rap from the hobby shooters.
freethoughtpolice
Member
Over the past two years i have noticed a fairly large drop in the number of stags that I am accustomed to seeing on the ground in Summer months. There also appears to have been a general decline in hind numbers. Whether or not this is representative of an all round decline in the Argyll area is not yet clear.
The concerns you raise regarding what is effectively bounty's being placed on wild deer is certainly questionable.
After leaving the Forestry commission (as a wildlife ranger) over a decade ago attempted to raise awareness of the same concerns. At that time rangers were being put under pressure to shoot large numbers of deer. I was very aware that Animal welfare mainly at management level seemed to be an issue that ought only to be given careful lip service to to the somewhat rather gullible public. I would advise anyone who is or has experienced this type of pressure from any body, to the extent that animal welfare concerns are being comprimised, to increase their understanding of the law, and to recognise at what point do a persons actions to pressure another into acting unlawfully.
I'm personally suspicious and more concerned with the reasons being thought up and used to back up a (RTAs, habitat protection, were even hearing bloody climate change being used, come on) continual imposing of legislation on land owners by government. I see it that every single one us is facing this gradual encroachment on every thing we consider to be our rights and freedoms. These control infringements are very subtle and most of us don't even notice. Stop for a second and try to think of areas of your life that are not encroached on by your "all knowing" government. Anyone who understands Orwellian philosophy will see the angle I am coming from. It really is time to wake up folks, start looking at the whole geo political system today, you will see that there is a very unhealthy trend. If you are relying on Sky and BBC news to do this you will have a misinformed view of what is really happening in the UK and around the globe. Try watching RT ch:512 for a week just to get a taster of a pro-democratic currently non establishment controlled news.
Anyway back to deer issues, though we may be, and are right to be, concerned about deer populations, then consider the 100.000s of hectares of blanket forestry within Argyll alone. I think in reality there would be little or no realistic chance of deer being wiped out. I remember hearing old stalkers expressing the same anxiety's over deer numbers in Argyll two decades ago when I was a young under keeper.
With regard to prioritising one species over another this is another interesting can of worms. I would urge every stalker, ranger, gamekeeper, land owner or manager to visit toothandclaw.org as a great tool for improving ration and to improve understanding the complexity of peoples thoughts and assumptions on this matter. But please be warned, you may open your mind, in which case, good luck, stay safe and probably best stick (who watched the matrix? do you want the red pill or the blue pill)to BBC.
Good health to you all
The concerns you raise regarding what is effectively bounty's being placed on wild deer is certainly questionable.
After leaving the Forestry commission (as a wildlife ranger) over a decade ago attempted to raise awareness of the same concerns. At that time rangers were being put under pressure to shoot large numbers of deer. I was very aware that Animal welfare mainly at management level seemed to be an issue that ought only to be given careful lip service to to the somewhat rather gullible public. I would advise anyone who is or has experienced this type of pressure from any body, to the extent that animal welfare concerns are being comprimised, to increase their understanding of the law, and to recognise at what point do a persons actions to pressure another into acting unlawfully.
I'm personally suspicious and more concerned with the reasons being thought up and used to back up a (RTAs, habitat protection, were even hearing bloody climate change being used, come on) continual imposing of legislation on land owners by government. I see it that every single one us is facing this gradual encroachment on every thing we consider to be our rights and freedoms. These control infringements are very subtle and most of us don't even notice. Stop for a second and try to think of areas of your life that are not encroached on by your "all knowing" government. Anyone who understands Orwellian philosophy will see the angle I am coming from. It really is time to wake up folks, start looking at the whole geo political system today, you will see that there is a very unhealthy trend. If you are relying on Sky and BBC news to do this you will have a misinformed view of what is really happening in the UK and around the globe. Try watching RT ch:512 for a week just to get a taster of a pro-democratic currently non establishment controlled news.
Anyway back to deer issues, though we may be, and are right to be, concerned about deer populations, then consider the 100.000s of hectares of blanket forestry within Argyll alone. I think in reality there would be little or no realistic chance of deer being wiped out. I remember hearing old stalkers expressing the same anxiety's over deer numbers in Argyll two decades ago when I was a young under keeper.
With regard to prioritising one species over another this is another interesting can of worms. I would urge every stalker, ranger, gamekeeper, land owner or manager to visit toothandclaw.org as a great tool for improving ration and to improve understanding the complexity of peoples thoughts and assumptions on this matter. But please be warned, you may open your mind, in which case, good luck, stay safe and probably best stick (who watched the matrix? do you want the red pill or the blue pill)to BBC.
Good health to you all
freethoughtpolice
Member
"Here, here" interesting indeed! @)
Similar threads
