I'm sure most already do and as yet there is no real threat of professional cullers moving in..... They would most likely have to recruit such teams and the recruits would most likely come from the existing stalking fraternity
750,000 deer to be culled - thanks bunny huggers!
- Thread starter British Red
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
I'm sure most already do and as yet there is no real threat of professional cullers moving in..... They would most likely have to recruit such teams and the recruits would most likely come from the existing stalking fraternity
robin wood
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
To me the point of posting those graphs is to show this is a long term steady rise in population due to many factors it clearly didn't start 7 years ago due to change in legislation. The only new thing is the press have suddenly become aware of it. I am quite happy to discuss possible ways to manage the situation dispassionately if we can keep the subjective feelings about "over regulation" out of the discusion. The regs did not cause the population growth.
The first thing I would say is that there is not necessarily a national problem. The deer population has grown nationally and is a problem in some places. Our deer population is far less dense than in the some areas of the USA for instance and deer car collisions are far more frequent in the US (my own observations of road kill not stats) most places it is possible to live with deer. There are ways of fencing them out of forestry or of doing local heavy culls to create a short term dip in population whilst the forestry establishes. Many places I would say the current level is not a problem for instance my local red population on the moors just outside Sheffield, there are just over 100 there yet few people, including regular dog walkers know they are there at all. The main folk that don't like them are farmers because they can certainly do a lot of damage in a crop field in a short time. Should the taxpayer pay to deal with that problem?
I should say that I am all in favour of culling and eating venison, in fact for 3 1/2 years at Hatfield forest it was the only meat I ate. These are my local reds.
The first thing I would say is that there is not necessarily a national problem. The deer population has grown nationally and is a problem in some places. Our deer population is far less dense than in the some areas of the USA for instance and deer car collisions are far more frequent in the US (my own observations of road kill not stats) most places it is possible to live with deer. There are ways of fencing them out of forestry or of doing local heavy culls to create a short term dip in population whilst the forestry establishes. Many places I would say the current level is not a problem for instance my local red population on the moors just outside Sheffield, there are just over 100 there yet few people, including regular dog walkers know they are there at all. The main folk that don't like them are farmers because they can certainly do a lot of damage in a crop field in a short time. Should the taxpayer pay to deal with that problem?
I should say that I am all in favour of culling and eating venison, in fact for 3 1/2 years at Hatfield forest it was the only meat I ate. These are my local reds.
Last edited:
I do believe over regulation is a problem - in the USA, they have to issue "deer tags" to manage over hunting. In this country the deer population is increasing. So they have to regulated kills down - we do not - we need to encourage hunting, not dissuade it. That is not emotive - if not enough deer hunting is happening, we need to have more.
As you say - they damage farmers livelihoods - do I care about that - yes I do (unless farmers are less worthy of concern than other people?). This is the nub of my point - farmers should be allowed to cull those deer and sell on the meat (dressed, butchered, whatever) without interference - so long as the meat is clearly identified as "wild culled deer" they shouldn't have to jump through pointless regulatory hoops in order to do so.
As you say - they damage farmers livelihoods - do I care about that - yes I do (unless farmers are less worthy of concern than other people?). This is the nub of my point - farmers should be allowed to cull those deer and sell on the meat (dressed, butchered, whatever) without interference - so long as the meat is clearly identified as "wild culled deer" they shouldn't have to jump through pointless regulatory hoops in order to do so.
The rise in population has been a topic of conversation between stalkers for years. Regulation has nothing to do with it. In my opinion the regs are free enough to allow venison transactions to take place in-fur at the very least. Reading between the lines Red has had bad experiences with the regs and a close associate.
Climate change must be a contributing factor to popn increase. Winters tend to be milder and shorter which will have a direct impact on mortality rates. Most roe doe bear triplets with twins surviving the first year. Land greed leads to poor harvests as the stalker simply cannot undertake an effective census nor harvest sufficient numbers. There are a growing number of nature reserves and privately owned woodlands where stalking is not allowed. There is an increasing amount of open ground being owned by folk who do not agree with shooting and population control of any animal let alone deer. Public parks and other local authority owned land seems to be increasingly populated by deer. These urban locations are either politically or geographically inappropriate for harvesting thus a newly hefted population is allowed to grow and grow.
There are many other factors which I've missed at this late hour.
I don't believe the tax payer needs to do anything to enable an effective control of numbers.
The answer lies with landowners allowing access, local authorities recognising they have a deer problem that needs controlling and most importantly stalkers working collaboratively without greed or financial factors clouding judgement.
Climate change must be a contributing factor to popn increase. Winters tend to be milder and shorter which will have a direct impact on mortality rates. Most roe doe bear triplets with twins surviving the first year. Land greed leads to poor harvests as the stalker simply cannot undertake an effective census nor harvest sufficient numbers. There are a growing number of nature reserves and privately owned woodlands where stalking is not allowed. There is an increasing amount of open ground being owned by folk who do not agree with shooting and population control of any animal let alone deer. Public parks and other local authority owned land seems to be increasingly populated by deer. These urban locations are either politically or geographically inappropriate for harvesting thus a newly hefted population is allowed to grow and grow.
There are many other factors which I've missed at this late hour.
I don't believe the tax payer needs to do anything to enable an effective control of numbers.
The answer lies with landowners allowing access, local authorities recognising they have a deer problem that needs controlling and most importantly stalkers working collaboratively without greed or financial factors clouding judgement.
Stuey, I know three farms that directly closed stalking as a result of the regulations, simply not worth the time and trouble to them. I know several more (around here) that are happy for game bird shooting and rabbit / hare but will not entertain deer shooting (for venison) as their previous customers who would take butchered deer do not want it "in the fur". Problem populations are simply culled but not for meat which is a terible waste, but simpler for a small farmer.
To me these are directly relavent to the regulations - these regs I believe are making it less accesible not more, to harvest and distribute venison. I have no problem with regulations that say "you must be clear that this is wild game" but "you cannot sell other than in the fur"? Why? What difference does it make who removes the fur and joints the animal? I do not believe that this sort of bureaucracy has helped anyone.
What I fail to see are the calls to encourage and open up deer hunting.
To me these are directly relavent to the regulations - these regs I believe are making it less accesible not more, to harvest and distribute venison. I have no problem with regulations that say "you must be clear that this is wild game" but "you cannot sell other than in the fur"? Why? What difference does it make who removes the fur and joints the animal? I do not believe that this sort of bureaucracy has helped anyone.
What I fail to see are the calls to encourage and open up deer hunting.
With venison being a healthy meat its popularity is going through the roof.... Surely it wouldnt take the farm very long at all to source some retailers or pubs/restaurants that would take the meat in-fur.
Whether it is too much hassle for them or not to harvest themselves it is irresponsible to not allow a stalker onto the land to manage what must be a booming population in danger of going bust. This is where the Deer Initiative come in to try and facilitate them to manage their deer populations responsibly by encouraging them to allow a stalker to manage their deer.
Yes, in this case I accept that regulation has maybe stopped three farms from fulfilling their duty as landowners but it also highlights a certain element of laziness to not go out and seek new customers who would take the venison in-fur. It would still be a source of income for a farmer and money generally makes a farmer tick
Time for bed.
I think thats the problem Stuey, if you manage a deer park, or half of one of the home counties, its worth the effort. For a few Roe a year, the effort is marginal in terms of return. These guys are operating on a knife edge.
I am all in favour of hunting and agree we need more people to stalk and have access to stalk. I have known many people who have "turned in" their ticket as well as farmers reluctant to get involved. Between DSCs (that some forces are insisting on - even for experienced stalkers), game handling certificates, cabinets, FAC prices etc. we hardly welcome people into deer management. If we want to control numbers, deer stalkers need to be encouraged, not dissuaded.
Not too important to me - our problems are pigeons here - and thankfully farmers will still encourage pigeon shooters - and even pay for the cartridges. Many don't sell the meat for human consumption though - for all the reasons stated.
I am all in favour of hunting and agree we need more people to stalk and have access to stalk. I have known many people who have "turned in" their ticket as well as farmers reluctant to get involved. Between DSCs (that some forces are insisting on - even for experienced stalkers), game handling certificates, cabinets, FAC prices etc. we hardly welcome people into deer management. If we want to control numbers, deer stalkers need to be encouraged, not dissuaded.
Not too important to me - our problems are pigeons here - and thankfully farmers will still encourage pigeon shooters - and even pay for the cartridges. Many don't sell the meat for human consumption though - for all the reasons stated.
N
Nomad
Guest
For those that may be interested, I thought I would post a link to the Virginia Department Of Game and Inland Fisheries current Deer Management Plan. Please keep in mind that this is only one plan among 50 states. All states manage deer as they see fit.
http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/deer/management-plan/
http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/deer/management-plan/
As I thought. But the continuation of the original question would be; if they're eating it themselves, why is selling it an issue anyway?
You are correct. The last figures I saw (and that was over 4 years ago with the numbers still growing) the deer population today (in the South at any rate) is larger than it was when Columbus landed.
Red we haven't issued deer tags in Southern states in over 35 years. Deer are hunted on an ordinary hunting license (General Gun or Archery) with a bag limit of 2 per day per hunter. And if you're hunting on private land owned by you are your family not even the license is required. The deer population is enormous (see my post above) Another thread on here about Bowhunting in England has a link Toddy posted estimating over a million a year killed by archery alone. And personally I feel that number is inaccurate (on the low side)
And all this with the predator population also on the increase! Coyotes have spread to every single state in huge numbers and the bear population is rebounding steadily as is the alligator population. NOTHING yet has kept deer under control.
Last edited:
robin wood
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I think from past conversation we tend to agree that individuals should be allowed to judge risks and take them if they so choose but I also understand why there are regs on this sort of thing. Many people believe that if a food product is allowed to be sold then it must be safe for them and their family to eat. Butchery is a process during which it is possible to produce safe or unsafe food products from the carcass depending if you know what you are doing and follow good hygiene practices. Different food processing is regulated to different extents depending on the level of risk, raw meat processing is high risk and therefore highly regulated. It would be very very easy for someone to produce a batch of venison burgers infected with ecoli and seriously endanger many people. Those people when buying the veniburgers with the suggested label "this is wild game" would not necessarily be aware of the increased risk due to unregulated butchery practice. On balance I think that being allowed to buy and sell in fur but the butchery process regulated is not a bad situation and as I have pointed out above whether or not it has a minor effect on deer population it is certainly not a major contributing factor to a significant and very long term upward trend. A roe carcase is not such a big thing to deal with on the kitchen table for those of us that are inclined, a couple of hours and it fits in a single tray in the freezer.
I understand what you are saying Robin, but this sort of "lowest denominator" safety stuff eats into personal freedom. People want and need resonably priced food. For me "highly regulated" does not equate to safe - I think the fact that horse meat creeps into beef shows that those regulations are not always followed - and the fact that we are sourcing cheap meat from overseas shows there is a demand for more reasonably priced product.
There is clearly a set of regs needed for commercial operations, but these things tend to spill over into "anyone". My sixty year old neighbour shoots wood pigeons with an air rifle. She breasts them and makes burgers. In theory if she gives some of those to elderly neighbours, she is breaking the law. That, to me, just can't be right.
If a farmer shoots a deer, butchers it on the kitchen table he cannot even give it away to friends.
This is the sort of regulation that I think is all wrong. Large commercial firms? Fine. But we need to keep a sense of proportion about this stuff. The huge over population of deer could provide valuable local resources - but not if we choke it with red tape.
There is clearly a set of regs needed for commercial operations, but these things tend to spill over into "anyone". My sixty year old neighbour shoots wood pigeons with an air rifle. She breasts them and makes burgers. In theory if she gives some of those to elderly neighbours, she is breaking the law. That, to me, just can't be right.
If a farmer shoots a deer, butchers it on the kitchen table he cannot even give it away to friends.
This is the sort of regulation that I think is all wrong. Large commercial firms? Fine. But we need to keep a sense of proportion about this stuff. The huge over population of deer could provide valuable local resources - but not if we choke it with red tape.
As a fully-signed up tree&bunny-hugger it sounds to me like we need loads of trained and licensed individuals to cull deer or other animals where necessary. As trained and licenced individuals they could be licenced to pass on the carcasses to local butchers. They'd need a job title, erm, how about 'gamekeepers', it seems to fit the job description.
Maybe DEFRA could fund and employ them, the same way it funds and employs people to monitor and maintain fish stocks in rivers.
Maybe DEFRA could fund and employ them, the same way it funds and employs people to monitor and maintain fish stocks in rivers.
We already have loads of trained and licensed people to control the deer population. Deer Stalking Certificates 1 and 2 train you to safely identify, stalk and shoot deer and field dress them to a good standard having inspected the carcass for signs and symptoms of disease. The certificate also gives the holder "Trained Hunter Status" allowing them to enter venison in-fur into the food chain directly to retailers, pubs, restaurants or private individuals.
To supply an Approved Game Handling Establishment (AGHE) or butcher with a game licence the trained hunter under the regulation of the Food Standards Agency would need to register as a food business. The FSA would come and inspect the premises to specifically identify a chiller and preparation room complying with the 2006 standards.
Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk
Righto, off to do my bit to reduce numbers now....
It's all academic fellas, the world still goes around.
It's all academic fellas, the world still goes around.
Is it just me or is Robin Wood the only one on here putting up statistics to support his argument?
Mucho bluster and rhetoric otherwise.
Mucho bluster and rhetoric otherwise.
The data Robin is referencing is not current. The data the UEA researchers have produced is woefully flawed given that they mainly based it on a geographical area with three areas containing exceptionally high numbers of deer due to little or no population control.
Truth be known there isn't any accurate, current data for deer numbers but the trend from Robins data is clear... Numbers are increasing.
It makes little difference really.
The Deer Initiative will up their game liaising with and educating land owners about deer management and encourage those that don't to do.
Stalkers will hopefully adjust their doe harvests appropriately according to their local populations.
The market will see an increase in venison availability. No-doubt the price to the stalker will drop.
Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk
So, more venison, less horse*. What's the problem?
I'd still like to see some statistics about when the deer population expanded more rapidly than before, also the "Townie" stuff irritates me as I'm in a county where farmers sons often cant afford to live close to the family farm and have to live in town. Several of my mates are in that situation. That's the part of this thread I consider as bluster and as for "Silly ill informed people get to pass legislation" stuff?
Well, that works both ways and unfortunately its democracy in action, there are other countries where there's less democracy to get in the way...
For what its worth generally I read BRs posts with interest and the stuff about his retirement smallholding is good, he's usually one of the members I look out for the posts of.
I just don't always agree with everything he says and being the son of a Yorkshireman has never helped me into a career as a diplomat. Consequently a spade is not called an "Earth inverting implement".
*Its not the eating of horse that irritates me, its the fact that one of my brothers has to jump through hoops and have bits of paper for every stage of his cattle from birth to slaughter then its totally blown out of the water and the bits of paper (and associated costs) are ignored when Findus/Tesco and Co give us horsemeat with no accompanying paperwork.
Similar threads
