Tell me again why public access stalking isn’t a viable option

[Dunwaters]

I agree with you in so far as collaboration between neighbouring landowners may be essential.
However, that doesn't mean that the whole business needs to be taken out of their hands.

I never said that it did, something similar to the old “noxious weeds act” is what I have in mind.
If you have ragwort or thistles on your land you need to control them or face consequences. You can pull them by hand, either yourself or get local volunteers to do it, spray them off or cut them before they set seed, again you can do it yourself or have a contractor do it for you.
What you may not do is ignore their presence and cause problems for your neighbours without penalty.
This is what’s currently missing from deer management, we need penalties for failing to manage deer, and maybe statutory power to enter land and do it for you if you won’t.
We need a shift, what we’re doing is not working.

 

[jcampbellsmith]

The problem with managing deer populations perfectly illustrated.
If entire deer populations are going to be managed, you can’t have individual landowners making up their own rules, its the patchwork of small land holdings with each landowner applying their own individual idea of what’s required and who it can be done by and when and where it takes place is precisely what’s got us into the present mess. Your requirements seem eminently reasonable, but opposition to any deer culling seems entirely reasonable to many people too.
If we are to manage population effectively we’re going to need agreed objectives and methodology. Something between the shoot on sight policy of some re-wilders and ‘ the let nature find its own balance”view that forces others to live with uncontrolled burgeoning deer populations with sanctuary every half kilometre.
If you can do it yourself, fine, if you can’t, or won’t, then someone else will have to do it for you and you may have to pay.

Loch Choire Estate is in this DMG - East Sutherland DMG |
Regards
JCS

 

[Cloudhopper]

So what exactly are you advocating as I don't follow how you can have rec stalker access without some form of control.

Stalkers join an association. The association is responsible for managing wildlife (pests and big game) on an area of land. Access could be controlled in a number of ways but using a tag system (basically giving a living beast to a hunter) wasn't what I had in mind. I was thinking more like putting a two man team on the ground for a week and clearing them to shoot whatever comes their way in accordance with the plan. There are many permutations that spring to mind.

The idea is to implement a coherent system that would open up access to everyone.
CH

 

[Cloudhopper]

While I do agree that recreational stalkers do contribute to deer management but there is no substitute to employing good local stalkers. Sadly more and more ground is being bought up by syndicates who live miles away and that is a very real problem.

Yes and there's currently no wildlife management system.
CH

 

[Cloudhopper]

So you would be happy for people you didn't know to come and shoot on your land?

Yes, as part of a national wildlife management system.
CH

 

[VSS]

The idea is to implement a coherent system that would open up access to everyone.
CH

Why would you want to open up access to everyone?
The purpose is to cull deer, not provide stalking opportunities for all and sundry.
I don't think the two are mutually compatible.

Providing stalking opportunities, where there's a demand for it, is a completely different discussion to be had.

 

[Happy stalker]

Providing stalking opportunities, where there's a demand for it, is a completely different discussion to be had.

Aye that is a totally different discussion entirely, but reducing large numbers of deer needs to be regulated and certainly not a free for all anything other than that would defeat the purpose.

 

[Cloudhopper]

The problem with managing deer populations perfectly illustrated.
If entire deer populations are going to be managed, you can’t have individual landowners making up their own rules, its the patchwork of small land holdings with each landowner applying their own individual idea of what’s required and who it can be done by and when and where it takes place is precisely what’s got us into the present mess. Your requirements seem eminently reasonable, but opposition to any deer culling seems entirely reasonable to many people too.
If we are to manage population effectively we’re going to need agreed objectives and methodology. Something between the shoot on sight policy of some re-wilders and ‘ the let nature find its own balance”view that forces others to live with uncontrolled burgeoning deer populations with sanctuary every half kilometre.
If you can do it yourself, fine, if you can’t, or won’t, then someone else will have to do it for you and you may have to pay.

This is precisely why I'm suggesting the Romanian approach. Wildlife in Romania is the property of the State and the State is responsible for its management. That's all wildlife, from pest species to big game and predators. There's no sport shooting scene that I'm aware of, firearms ownership is based around hunting so if you want to shoot you join an association, complete whatever training is required and get on with it. You automatically have access to land.
CH

 

[Cloudhopper]

Why would you want to open up access to everyone?
The purpose is to cull deer, not provide stalking opportunities for all and sundry.
I don't think the two are mutually compatible.

Providing stalking opportunities, where there's a demand for it, is a completely different discussion to be had.

I thought this thread was about public access stalking and the potentially positive outcomes regarding wildlife management?
CH

 

[Mike1979]

This is precisely why I'm suggesting the Romanian approach. Wildlife in Romania is the property of the State and the State is responsible for its management. That's all wildlife, from pest species to big game and predators. There's no sport shooting scene that I'm aware of, firearms ownership is based around hunting so if you want to shoot you join an association, complete whatever training is required and get on with it. You automatically have access to land.
CH

I struggle to see that entrusting wildlife in the UK to the Government is a good idea given the state of things in the UK at the moment. I wont go further to avoid this becoming political.

I would say in general that sensible co operation etc is the way to go, not forcing landowners to do things they dont want to...though the idea of LACS being forced to have deer culled on land they purchase to avoid such things would be "satisfying".

 

[Dunwaters]

Why would you want to open up access to everyone?

Everyone who’s qualified. The purpose of opening up access is to increase the number of stalkers available. There are lots of people who would love to have a go, but just can’t get a seat at the table.

The purpose is to cull deer, not provide stalking opportunities for all and sundry.
I don't think the two are mutually compatible.

Actually they are. We could do with a boost in numbers, particularly in the lower age bracket, the ones most likely to not have a lot of spare cash.

Providing stalking opportunities, where there's a demand for it, is a completely different discussion to be had.

Chicken and egg… provide the opportunity and you will get people to take it up.
Whether they are newbies or established stalkers able to get out more often because it’s cheaper doesn’t matter. We need them.

 

[Dunwaters]

This is precisely why I'm suggesting the Romanian approach. Wildlife in Romania is the property of the State and the State is responsible for its management. That's all wildlife, from pest species to big game and predators. There's no sport shooting scene that I'm aware of, firearms ownership is based around hunting so if you want to shoot you join an association, complete whatever training is required and get on with it. You automatically have access to land.
CH

Thats going a bit too far to the left for my taste.

 

[VSS]

I thought this thread was about public access stalking and the potentially positive outcomes regarding wildlife management?
CH

It is. But opinions differ as to whether the positives would outweigh the negatives.

Personally:
I don't think that public access stalking would deliver positive outcomes regarding wildlife management.
I do think that public access stalking would provide more stalking opportunities.
I don't think that public access stalking should take place on private land.

Therefore, in my opinion, providing "public" stalking opportunities, and delivering positive outcomes for wildlife management, are not one and the same thing.
There is a demand for both, but they should be addressed separately. There may be some overlap in places, but I would see that as a bonus rather than a strategic part of the plan.

 

[25 Sharps]

I’m not just entirely au fait with other countries intracies when it comes to public land hunting but - say America, every farmer (and farmers mums) has a gun and therefore there are loads of people to take up the public hunting. As far as I understand, the seasons are very very short and specific (bow, flintlock, rifle, open etc etc) and you each person is only allowed to shoot one or two animals and has to in many cases enter a lottery to get a chance.

Would we have enough people to actually do it on a decent scale?

No……

If we take this thread as a straw poll for example, out of all of the stalkers on this forum (must run into the thousands), only around a dozen have enough of an opinion on it to support the argument that we should have a system allowing amateur stalkers to carry out the necessary cull on other peoples’ ground.

If that is indicative of the percentage who would actually take up and be effective on such a scheme there are going to be nowhere near enough.

Most stalkers either have employment in stalking, have their own ground or are happy to pay to take the odd animal when it suits them and have it gralloched and extracted for them in the price. There won’t be enough take up on any scheme to make a difference.

 

[Cloudhopper]

It is. But opinions differ as to whether the positives would outweigh the negatives.

Personally:
I don't think that public access stalking would deliver positive outcomes regarding wildlife management.
I do think that public access stalking would provide more stalking opportunities.
I don't think that public access stalking should take place on private land.

Therefore, in my opinion, providing "public" stalking opportunities, and delivering positive outcomes for wildlife management, are not one and the same thing.
There is a demand for both, but they should be addressed separately. There may be some overlap in places, but I would see that as a bonus rather than a strategic part of the plan.

The implementation of the system I've suggested would achieve two outcomes:

1. A coherent and effective national system for UK wildlife management
2. An improved public awareness of wildlife management by removing its current exclusive image and enabling access to all land classes for all suitably trained individuals.

I believe the effect of the second point on the long-term prospects of shooting activities in the UK shouldn't be underestimated.
CH

 

[HonestJohn]

You can’t just take private property and via a nature restoration order, give it public hunting access.

The true public lands of the UK, yes, there it could be done.

In terms of the estate in question - it’s not for the state to suddenly give public rights to private property.

If public land, true public land was made available for stalking, a minimum requirement system such as DSC1 and insurance proof would be required, along with booking, tag system and reporting system should be in place - but I’m not even sure insurance companies would cover these situations @Conor O'Gorman could advise on if BASC would cover accidents on public land either to the shooter, their equipment, or third party

 

[Borntofarm84]

I never said that it did, something similar to the old “noxious weeds act” is what I have in mind.
If you have ragwort or thistles on your land you need to control them or face consequences. You can pull them by hand, either yourself or get local volunteers to do it, spray them off or cut them before they set seed, again you can do it yourself or have a contractor do it for you.
What you may not do is ignore their presence and cause problems for your neighbours without penalty.
This is what’s currently missing from deer management, we need penalties for failing to manage deer, and maybe statutory power to enter land and do it for you if you won’t.
We need a shift, what we’re doing is not working.

The trouble with this is, unlike weeds deer move about daily! That is to say how on earth could this be appraised? If weeds are on your land then they are your weeds! Deer could move across multiple properties in a single day.
The idea of landscape wide management is a good one. Just its administration would be impractical. The only people qualified to decide what cull is required in an area are those who spend a large amount of time on that ground. Think of the army of employees this would take! As well as the larger army of office dwellings manages to administer them.
Presumably all publicly funded!

 

[bbell]

Something that I haven’t seen mentioned yet is point creep and draw odds. As soon as there are more applicants than tags this will start to be an issue.

Hunts in my former state that took 1 or 2 yrs to draw are moving towards 5 yrs with point creep.

If it is a random draw you can be the unlucky guy that never seems to get drawn.

Also a tag in the US doesn’t guarantee access to hunting land. I would hate to see landowner rights undermined just to cull some deer. If it’s actually that big of an issue, the estates could very easily let people hunt for a reasonable amount.

 

[25 Sharps]

The implementation of the system I've suggested would achieve two outcomes:

1. A coherent and effective national system for UK wildlife management
2. An improved public awareness of wildlife management by removing its current exclusive image and enabling access to all land classes for all suitably trained individuals.

I believe the effect of the second point on the long-term prospects of shooting activities in the UK shouldn't be underestimated.
CH

How will it remove its exclusive image?

The uptake will only be from those who are already stalking and most will know it’s not exclusive or the preserve of the rich. Cull stalking can be had for very little. You can go and shoot a red hind and keep the carcass for £200.00. That’s good value for money and not exclusive at all.

 

[25 Sharps]

Hunts in my former state that took 1 or 2 yrs to draw are moving towards 5 yrs with point creep.

If it is a random draw you can be the unlucky guy that never seems to get drawn.

A bit like me and the monthly supporters’ draw, except there’s no points to creep