750,000 deer to be culled - thanks bunny huggers!

[Huon]

Why on earth do silly, ill informed people have to mess with that and cause problems?

This from the man who posted the IT/Manager joke in another thread?

The problem is not limited to interference in and mismanagement of the countryside. You can see it in lots of other areas too. I think it boils down to people trying to manage complex systems from the top rather than allowing the people who should have both knowledge and responsibility to exercise them.

Every time I am stupid enough to get involved with a large corporation again I see the same thing within it. Move it up a level to running a country rather than a corporation and you have the stuff of nightmares.

 

[Dave]

I empathise with Reds stance too. Trying to avoid crossing the forum line on politics but we just need a heck of a lot less central and local government.
Someone said to me the other day that the problem with common sense is that it's just not that common anymore.

 

[robin wood]

I have watched the UK deer population growing steadily since I started working in woodlands in the late 1980's from Red's posts one would expect a steady population to have exploded following the lefty townies stepped in and changed the law in 2004. I don't know if there is a significant change from that date but my gut feeling is that growth has been much steadier and longer term. I would be interested to know if our stalkers or anyone with stronger google fu than me could pull up national stats on deer population growth over say 20 years. I found these few for local counts

Scottish deer population source http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/09/21115639/9

I would be interested to see more objective stats and less posturing. I have met dim folk and daft practices in Westminster and in my local rural environment. Oh and by the way going all the way back to post 1 "a deer management system that has worked since Norman times" as one who has read a bit about deer management in Norman times I think your local landowners having one for the pot are considerably less restricted now than then.

 

[British Red]

No argument here Huon. I'm in the camp of "if you haven't managed a deer population, you have no business passing legislation on deer management"

Its rather like the sign in a pub

We have come to an arrangement with the bank, we don't offer credit, they don't sell beer

My "townie" comment is controversial - I understand that - but this is the point I was trying to make - you just don't understand - so stop trying to influence. Deer managers should, in return, not offer opinions on town centre parking or congestion charges.

Simples.

 

[mountainm]

No argument here Huon. I'm in the camp of "if you haven't managed a deer population, you have no business passing legislation on deer management"

Its rather like the sign in a pub



My "townie" comment is controversial - I understand that - but this is the point I was trying to make - you just don't understand - so stop trying to influence. Deer managers should, in return, not offer opinions on town centre parking or congestion charges.

Simples.

Seems to me the rule should be if you don't make your quota your stalking ground should be taken off you. But stalking grounds should be allocated fairly without favour or financial interference. Equally though if meat is sold on the open market then it also needs to be proven safe and have a verifiable history attached to it.

But what do I know. I'm a suburbanite.

 

[stuey]

I would be interested to know if our stalkers or anyone with stronger google fu than me could pull up national stats on deer population growth over say 20 years.

Hi Robin,

Firm numbers and more current estimates are hard to come by hence the extrapolated figures from today's press release.

Stu

 

[mountainm]

Are we sure these excess deer aren't badgers in disguise?

 

[British Red]

There aren't any annual statistics Robin - that is part of the problem

The research team investigated the numbers, sex ratio and fertility of roe and muntjac deer across 234km sq of forested land and heathland in Breckland, East Anglia, to measure the effectiveness of deer management. It is the first time that such a landscape-scale study has been carried out in Europe and the first time that control efforts have been compared to known numbers.

This is my problem - people pass increasingly restrictive laws based on zero information - as a knee jerk reaction. The one thing that is clear is that there are for more deer than at any time in history - including the Norman period when the deer were harvested as a food source.

 

[mountainm]

The one thing that is clear is that there are for more deer than at any time in history - including the Norman period when the deer were harvested as a food source.

I find this hard to believe given the change in land use and population spread (human). Not sure how the Normans counted Deer?

 

[stuey]

Seems to me the rule should be if you don't make your quota your stalking ground should be taken off you. But stalking grounds should be allocated fairly without favour or financial interference. Equally though if meat is sold on the open market then it also needs to be proven safe and have a verifiable history attached to it.

That's a very harsh rule as quota harvest can be affected by many factors outside of a stalkers hands. I agree completely though that land needs to be more equally divided and managed by stalkers or landowners. Land greed will only ever result in poorly managed populations.
The regulations pertaining to meat hygiene in their current form work for the vast majority of deer managers or stalkers. There are sufficient exemptions to ensure small outfits aren't penalised thus ensuring a steady supply of safe, traceable meat into the human food chain.

 

[mountainm]

That's a very harsh rule as quota harvest can be affected by many factors outside of a stalkers hands. I agree completely though that land needs to be more equally divided and managed by stalkers or landowners. Land greed will only ever result in poorly managed populations.
The regulations pertaining to meat hygiene in their current form work for the vast majority of deer managers or stalkers. There are sufficient exemptions to ensure small outfits aren't penalised thus ensuring a steady supply of safe, traceable meat into the human food chain.

We're a harsh bunch us suburbanites. Take no prisoners. Besides which there's a deer behind every bush these days... Should be easy.

 

[British Red]

Equally though if meat is sold on the open market then it also needs to be proven safe and have a verifiable history attached to it.

In the same way that has proven so effective with Tesco lasagne?

 

[stuey]

We're a harsh bunch us suburbanites. Take no prisoners. Besides which there's a deer behind every bush these days... Should be easy.

Tell me about it!! I work in the city monday to friday being verbally abused by folk like you!!

 

[robin wood]

some more, this one for Red deer, are we noticing a big jump in 2004 due to those silly new rules? This based on game bag data produced by Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, discusion of how this relates to actual population here http://www.gwct.org.uk/research__su..._and_ngc/national_gamebag_census_ngc/3001.asp

same graph just from 1960

Fallow

Roe

 

[stuey]

Robin I believe the regs came in during 2006.
The jump in population could be due to many factors including a mild winter, dry summer, crap weather generally meaning fair weather stalkers don't go out so harvests are lower.
The numbers are only ever an estimate and are generally wholly inaccurate.

 

[British Red]

Whichever way you look at it Robin, those numbers are rising - so, to the crux of the issue, are you in favour of making it simpler and more straight forward to harvest deer locally and get them into the food chain?

However you view it, there are not enough hunters shooting deer - so what would you propose?

For me, I don't believe all this additional regulation helps. If a guy want to manage his deer population and sell me the meat (if necessary marked as "local deer - not tested", that is between him and me - and no-one else. Or do you think that people should be able to say that we shouldn't be allowed to engage in a transaction that both of us want?

 

[stuey]

For me, I don't believe all this additional regulation helps. If a guy want to manage his deer population and sell me the meat (if necessary marked as "local deer - not tested", that is between him and me - and no-one else. Or do you think that people should be able to say that we shouldn't be allowed to engage in a transaction that both of us want?

Red,

This is already allowed (nad a lot more besides) in the current regs..... as far as I am aware there are no plans afoot to change the regs just now.

 

[British Red]

Red,

This is already allowed (nad a lot more besides) in the current regs..... as far as I am aware there are no plans afoot to change the regs just now.

Not if he butchers it and sells me a haunch or whatever. He has to seel me it "in fur"

 

[santaman2000]

I have to ask the obvious question; why aren't the hunters eating the deer themselves? The normal ones I mean, not the professopnal cullers that will be coming in.

 

[stuey]

Not if he butchers it and sells me a haunch or whatever. He has to seel me it "in fur"

Yep absolutely right but as the consumer you get much better value for money buying in-fur and butchering yourself.