STRIKING THE BALANCE: A HUMANE APPROACH TO DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT

[VSS]

I find it difficult to believe there are people who are excellent on deer but cant hit a stationary paper target.

.

I am one of those people
When I'm shooting a deer there are only two things in the world: me and the deer, stood at opposite ends of a tunnel. My mind is empty and nothing distracts me. I don't hear the shot or feel the recoil. It all just happens.
I just can't get into that zone when shooting paper targets. I can't get comfortable, I fidget, I'm easily distracted, my breathing goes out of sync, I'm perilously close to flinching at the shot. And my group sizes are appalling. A couple of inches at 50 yards on a good day. Yet I can consistently drop deer with head shots at 100 yards, and chest shots over 200 yards.

 

[308tikka]

I am one of those people
When I'm shooting a deer there are only two things in the world: me and the deer, stood at opposite ends of a tunnel. My mind is empty and nothing distracts me. I don't hear the shot or feel the recoil. It all just happens.
I just can't get into that zone when shooting paper targets. I can't get comfortable, I fidget, I'm easily distracted, my breathing goes out of sync, I'm perilously close to flinching at the shot. And my group sizes are appalling. A couple of inches at 50 yards on a good day. Yet I can consistently drop deer with head shots at 100 yards, and chest shots over 200 yards.

I am not going to question your personal experiences. Id suggest its rare, certainly rarer than a target whizz whonfreezes on deer. But Im genuinely curious how you zero your rifle/scope if you have an ‘appalling’ group size then proceed to headshots at 100yds.

I personally avoid headshots preferring high neck and chest. Ive taken 3 headshots I can recall in 10 years. All successful but im always conscious of head movement.

I personally believe in understanding individual limits on ranges so they arent exceeded on living creatures, personal ethic.

 

[VSS]

I am not going to question your personal experiences. Id suggest its rare, certainly rarer than a target whizz whonfreezes on deer. But Im genuinely curious how you zero your rifle/scope if you have an ‘appalling’ group size then proceed to headshots at 100yds.

I personally avoid headshots preferring high neck and chest. Ive taken 3 headshots I can recall in 10 years. All successful but im always conscious of head movement.

I personally believe in understanding individual limits on ranges so they arent exceeded on living creatures, personal ethic.

I zero as best I can, to centre of group, at 50 yards. Then I leave it alone for a few days. And then I test it with just one shot. It's the placement of that one shot from a cold barrel that's crucial. If that one shot goes where I want it to go, then all good. I leave it at that. If I were to try adding more shots to create a "group" I would feel under pressure and it would all start to fall apart. I never feel the same pressure when shooting deer. Just an extraordinary calmness.

 

[308tikka]

I zero as best I can, to centre of group, at 50 yards. Then I leave it alone for a few days. And then I test it with just one shot. It's the placement of that one shot from a cold barrel that's crucial. If that one shot goes where I want it to go, then all good. I leave it at that. If I were to try adding more shots to create a "group" I would feel under pressure and it would all start to fall apart. I never feel the same pressure when shooting deer. Just an extraordinary calmness.

Sounds to me like a well honed process that works for you….thats taken many years and practice rounds.

Plus, you regularly shoot deer. Unlike some who need a similar, but different process. If the landowner is happy…..

 

[David Barker]

The dsc 1 In my opinion is not to the standard required if it was all the public departments would use it and not waist there time year in year out making new employees do a further test. FLS Naturescot Councils and charities this would include the likes of Ashriged and NT. So in my opinion we need a test away from the shooting organisation and set by government.

 

[willie_gunn]

So in my opinion we need a test away from the shooting organisation and set by government.

Oh my Lord!! What a monumental cock-up that would be!

Doubtless they would commission a group of very expensive consultants to define the perfect shooting test, completely ignoring those with expertise and experience.

They would then engage some highly-paid KC's to evaluate potential risks, determining that there are no suitable ranges in the country that do not endanger the public so a new one will have to built. It will be commissioned to be built somewhere completely inaccessible to the vast majority of the shooting population.

They will then let a tender for constructing the necessary range and award it to the lowest bidder. After numerous problems during construction it will finally come on stream three years late and at five times the original budget (or six years late and ten times the budget for the Scottish range)

For the test itself they will insist you can use only one brand of bullets, regardless of calibre. These are prohibitively expensive, but since there is only one supplier they have you by the proverbials. Home loads will be strictly verboten.

The assessment will be run by jobsworths with an inflated sense of self-importance and zero experience of firearms. They will be given some ridiculous job title such as Primary Range Assessment Technicians or Theoretical Weapons Assessment Technicians. They will insist that they work from home, so the range will only be open on Tuesdays and Wednesdays (Bank Holidays and Religious Festivals excluded). After six months of operation they will go on strike for improved terms and conditions. When this is awarded they will depart on long-term sick leave claiming stress.

If will take you six months to book your test, and when you turn up they will ask you why you are there, and didn't you receive the letter telling you that your test had been postponed until after Christmas? Because of the backlog your current annual certificate expires before you can take the test, meaning you have to pay to lodge your firearms with a Dealer.

Once you eventually get to take the test then the award certificate will come through with someone else's name and details printed on it. No-one will ever ask to see it.

Two years later the database will be hacked, and the details of every Firearms Certificate holder will appear on the Internet.

 

[Sealgair nam fiadh]

Funny but true !

 

[Bowland blades]

The dsc 1 In my opinion is not to the standard required if it was all the public departments would use it and not waist there time year in year out making new employees do a further test. FLS Naturescot Councils and charities this would include the likes of Ashriged and NT. So in my opinion we need a test away from the shooting organisation and set by government.

Rule 1 Never refer duties over to the government ! In every task they undertake its late , poor and over budget ! To be fair the Orgs are behaving more and more like little governments only more self serving and corrupt, think about that last point

 

[Freeforester]

Because the BDS current leadership and training team support training and testing that is of a reduced standard -the new revised DSC level one test for instance


Discussed at length within the forum elsewhere and is perhaps on the posters mind

Had they (BDs) questioned the lower standards and refused to implement them / provided an alternative or stood towards a stance that refused to implement these lower standards, then there may be able to say we indeed are in support or striving towards humane methods of deer management

By implementing lower standards, not providing pre DSC training and failing to support continuous professional development in terms of allowing longer range sessions to provide stalkers the opportunity to see how their weapons and themselves perform in the case of a wounded animal for instance they don’t seem to be bothered about upholding the core standards of the society

Something raised ad infinitum by some branches to fall on stony ground as being an “irritation” by the current leadership

One aspect is the curious anomaly as to why legislation which has effectively obliged stalkers to use welfare compromising ammunition (both in terms of terminal ballistic performance/energy retention), causing increased levels of suffering and wounding, costing the marksman markedly more, for ever decreasing return on ‘investment’ (one professional friend was offered 28p per kilo recently for head shot and perfectly presented carcases) where there is NO EVIDENCE that lead expanding bullets cause harm in health of humans (it is the compounds of lead as found in paint and formerly in petrol that were rightly stopped, normal lead alloys do not lead to such issues, and never have), as a life member of the BDS I am dismayed that the welfare of deer is compromised for such a confection of misguided nonsense, without apparent demur. This welfare issue seems to go against the whole rationale as to why the BDS was set up in the first instance, though it was indeed set up by better men. There is nowhere else in the civilised world where such wanton disregard for the welfare of large ungulates is practised as it is here.

A secondary aspect is the anomaly whereby those drive-by contractors are causing more damage to the natural heritage within the forest than the deer, where the stated objective of such an approach is to ‘reduce damage‘ to the natural heritage and woodland. The bean-counters running the show don’t seem to be able to see the wood for the trees.

 

[David Barker]

Sadly we are moving towards mandatory testing in Scotland FLS and Naturescot already carry out there own tougher tests after a deer manager has passed lev 2. Scottish government are now looking in the problems in the central belt area through Green Ministers. This will no doubt bring its own problems regards Deer in Towns. Will BASC/DMQ Keep up with the turning tide.

 

[Bowland blades]

One aspect is the curious anomaly as to why legislation which has effectively obliged stalkers to use welfare compromising ammunition (both in terms of terminal ballistic performance/energy retention), causing increased levels of suffering and wounding, costing the marksman markedly more, for ever decreasing return on ‘investment’ (one professional friend was offered 28p per kilo recently for head shot and perfectly presented carcases) where there is NO EVIDENCE that lead expanding bullets cause harm in health of humans (it is the compounds of lead as found in paint and formerly in petrol that were rightly stopped, normal lead alloys do not lead to such issues, and never have), as a life member of the BDS I am dismayed that the welfare of deer is compromised for such a confection of misguided nonsense, without apparent demur. This welfare issue seems to go against the whole rationale as to why the BDS was set up in the first instance, though it was indeed set up by better men. There is nowhere else in the civilised world where such wanton disregard for the welfare of large ungulates is practised as it is here.

A secondary aspect is the anomaly whereby those drive-by contractors are causing more damage to the natural heritage within the forest than the deer, where the stated objective of such an approach is to ‘reduce damage‘ to the natural heritage and woodland. The bean-counters running the show don’t seem to be able to see the wood for the trees.

As regards use of vehicles on the land , it can only be decreased by following previous tracks time and again , making a bigger mess but less widespread damage . Walking up is not going to let the stalker take enough beasts in a day - likely they wont even make a dent .
There is loads of evidence against lead and it goes back hundreds of years , Get the right copper bullets and they dont work as well as lead - they are more effective ! What they need however is time to filter out the rubbish ones ( of which there are many ) . Also for the stalker to learn more about how to best employ them .