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

[JTO]

If I thought joe public was going to be turning up to shoot on my place, I would ensure there was nothing there to shoot.

 

[Dunwaters]

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!

They’re your deer on your land . I’m not proposing that this changes.
What I am proposing is that landowners may not ring fence their own holdings and then refuse to take responsibility for the consequences and damage caused by their policies without consequence.
So you do what’s required, or someone else will.
Possibly at your expense.
What’s required will be decided by whatever committee or QUANGO is currently in vogue.

 

[slider]

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

So with thousands of deer to cull in an extremely inhospitable landscape how many recreational stalkers are going to be able to devote a week of their time while also having the means buy or hire an Argo or similar and skills to safety use such machinery.
This is a complete different scenario to the mass herds of fallow and red in central and southern England.
I am sure you mean we'll but you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

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

I can only point to information and can't advise on insurance matters as I am not trained to do so (BASC/FCA rules) but if you phone Marsh Insurance 0370 9032 037 option 1 they could advise you directly.

BASC member insurance

BASC membership comes with insurance you can rely on.

basc.org.uk

 

[Borntofarm84]

They’re your deer on your land . I’m not proposing that this changes.
What I am proposing is that landowners may not ring fence their own holdings and then refuse to take responsibility for the consequences and damage caused by their policies without consequence.
So you do what’s required, or someone else will.
Possibly at your expense.
What’s required will be decided by whatever committee or QUANGO is currently in vogue.

I’m not actually disagreeing with your idea just that there is no way of implementing it.
Each parcel of land would have to be treated individually when it came to penalising the land owner. This could not simply be done on how many deer were on his holding on a day he was audited.
Perhaps it could be done by conducting impact surveys or something similar. However what if the land was unsafe for shooting due to public access, or just close to habitation.
Every land holding is unique!

 

[25 Sharps]

They’re your deer on your land . I’m not proposing that this changes.
What I am proposing is that landowners may not ring fence their own holdings and then refuse to take responsibility for the consequences and damage caused by their policies without consequence.
So you do what’s required, or someone else will.
Possibly at your expense.
What’s required will be decided by whatever committee or QUANGO is currently in vogue.

Isn’t that the exact system in place in Scotland currently?

 

[Dunwaters]

I’m not actually disagreeing with your idea just that there is no way of implementing it.
Each parcel of land would have to be treated individually when it came to penalising the land owner. This could not simply be done on how many deer were on his holding on a day he was audited.

It’s already being done for subsidies, Ask Clarkson.

Perhaps it could be done by conducting impact surveys or something similar. However what if the land was unsafe for shooting due to public access, or just close to habitation.
Every land holding is unique!

True, and not every holding will be suitable.
But any holdings suitable for stalking and use of a center fire rifle by definition is.
What’s required is a paradigm shift.
Where are we going?
How do we get there?
I’m personally not keen on wolves or lynx, we already have a far more intelligent, controllable and widespread apex predator on the ground, why not use us?
Answer, because access to stalking largely is controlled by those who make money from it and restricted to those who can pay
This is the old model of management that is just not working with an expanded deer population.
What do we want to achieve ?
I strongly suspect that the biggest problem isn’t recruiting new stalkers, there’s a lot of potential recruits out there who can’t get their foot in the door, but landowners may have to accept a loss of sporting revenue.
Reducing deer numbers is not compatible with producing trophies, when you make your nut over two months catering to the platinum card carriers, the big spenders, concentrating on the cream of the sport, you don’t take kindly to some DIY free access stalker winning the lottery by snorting a gold medal 14 pointer off your patch.
Like I said, there’s a change required.

 

[VSS]

Answer, because access to stalking largely is controlled by those who make money from it and restricted to those who can pay

I don't think that's true.
I think you're referring to just one sector of the deer industry.
There are many more permutations.
I think that stalking is possibly the easiest of our fieldsports for someone with limited means to get into, and there's a lot of folk who manage to secure stalking ground for free.
However, I will concede that there is a problem with stalkers "hoarding" more land than they can possibly hope to manage.
Many recreational stalkers seriously overestimate their own abilities to efficiently and effectively cull large numbers of deer.

Personally, I think that if a landowner has a problem with deer they should pay a stalker (or team of stalkers) to sort it out, just like they pay someone to shear their sheep, bale & wrap their silage and trap their moles. Neighbouring landowners could get together and employ the same team across their combined acreage for best effect.
Ultimately, it has to rest with the landowner to decide how deer should be managed on his land
If you want public land stalking for everyone then best you start talking to the Forestry Commission. That's the nearest thing to public land we've got in the UK.
Leave private landowners to do it their own way.

 

[Cloudhopper]

So with thousands of deer to cull in an extremely inhospitable landscape how many recreational stalkers are going to be able to devote a week of their time while also having the means buy or hire an Argo or similar and skills to safety use such machinery.
This is a complete different scenario to the mass herds of fallow and red in central and southern England.
I am sure you mean we'll but you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

I had a go on a ride-on mower once, don't know if I could handle an Argo.
CH

 

[slider]

It’s already being done for subsidies, Ask Clarkson.

I've raised the possibility of linking deer management to cross compliance for agriculture subsidies on a number of occasions and neither DEFRA nor SGPRIP are the least bit enthusiastic about doing this.

 

[Borntofarm84]

It’s already being done for subsidies, Ask Clarkson

Arrhh now that’s a different thing. I believe incentivising is more the answer, rather than penalising! But I guess I would say that wouldn’t I.
As with most things land management it seems incentivising good management is easier to manage that penalising bad.

 

[Borntofarm84]

I've raised the possibility of linking deer management to cross compliance for agriculture subsidies on a number of occasions and neither DEFRA nor SGPRIP are the least bit enthusiastic about doing this.

There are no longer any direct subsidies payed to land owners.
Under the new Sfi scheme (which is currently changing again) farmers get paid for positive action that they take.
There was an option for funding deer management but only in woodland.

 

[Happy stalker]

If you want public land stalking for everyone then best you start talking to the Forestry Commission. That's the nearest thing to public land we've got in the UK.
Leave private landowners to do it their own way.

I Totally agree with that, and more stalkers (not syndicates) should be employed to carry out regular culls to help maintain the balance on private owned land if the owner can’t do it himself.

 

[25 Sharps]

Answer, because access to stalking largely is controlled by those who make money from it and restricted to those who can pay

Oh Sh*t, don’t tell the 6 landowners I do the deer control for, plus the 7th piece I share with a buddy, all for free!!

 

[Rake Aboot]

Yes that's what the thread is about and CH is advocating that tag system for rec stalkers is a solution to the problem. To me it's very relevant that he is prepared to practice what he preaches, otherwise is argument is not worthwhile

He said he has no deer problem! Why would he be allowing access ?

The main deer problem in the UK is in central and southern England, not Scotland.

Central Scotland Roe deer numbers are insane !

If I thought joe public was going to be turning up to shoot on my place, I would ensure there was nothing there to shoot.

That’s a terrible attitude to have regards stalking ! Kill everything before anyone else can enjoy hunting !, Pretty disgusting

 

[slider]

He said he has no deer problem! Why would he be allowing access ?

Central Scotland Roe deer numbers are insane !

That’s a terrible attitude to have regards stalking ! Kill everything before anyone else can enjoy hunting !, Pretty disgusting

I think i said "assuming you had a deer problem" never the less the question was to establish a hypothetically case.

Agree re roe in Cental Scotland (which i have already alluded to) but these are still little more than a nuisance compared to mass herds of fallow.

 

[slider]

There are no longer any direct subsidies payed to land owners.
Under the new Sfi scheme (which is currently changing again) farmers get paid for positive action that they take.
There was an option for funding deer management but only in woodland.

I'm in Scotland, different system (note referernce to SGRPID)

 

[VSS]

Central Scotland Roe deer numbers are insane !

Central England has the highest deer density in Europe, I believe.
Scotland's roe problem pales into insignificance when compared to the big fallow herds in the Midlands.
It's just that we hear more about the situation in Scotland because it's become political.

He said he has no deer problem! Why would he be allowing access ?

Because he (Cloudhopper) believes that all landowners - including himself - should be stripped of their sporting rights, so that they have no control over access to their land for shooting any species, not just deer.
A few of us are struggling to get our heads around that attitude coming from a landowner.

 

[rem284]

They’re your deer on your land . I’m not proposing that this changes.
What I am proposing is that landowners may not ring fence their own holdings and then refuse to take responsibility for the consequences and damage caused by their policies without consequence.
So you do what’s required, or someone else will.
Possibly at your expense.
What’s required will be decided by whatever committee or QUANGO is currently in vogue.

That is a section 8 issue by Nature Scotland. It will be interesting to see what effect it will have on other land holdings where little or no deer control is the normal

 

[rem284]

I agree with vss. If you want a professional job done then a professional(s) should be engaged and paid.

Things are changing but slowly. Land holders do seem to be realising that the income they can get from Joe blogs to shoot a few deer doesn't come near the cost of the potential damage the deer can do to crops. However there are still some who won't allow any deer to be shot on there land. Others, have a lot of money and just want a large number of deer, so when they do have time they can manage to have some easy ones to shoot.

Every single piece of land and every person is different and would call for a different approach. Add in to this the fact that a beat changes all the time. So it would be difficult to develop a system for public recreational stalkers to be useful with miminal costs, administration and management.