I was recently invited to an all expenses paid dinner, by a university, interested in the activities of stalkers.

It soon became apparent that they were not interested in what we do, rather than how we would want to be managed in the future.

This rang a few alarm bells with me.

I have been long aware that a government supported group has been trying to approach land owners around the counties to try and limit the stalking on their ground to sanctioned deer management groups.

The usual questions arose:

RTA’s
Limitation of damage
Numbers of deer

But the overlying tone was if we were willing to join a regulated deer management group.

I have no problems with DMG’s , and the one’s that I an aware of manage themselves very well in deed . The problem that I have is in the way that the questions were worded.

Would you be willing to be part of a DMG ?.

Would you be willing to be part of a DMG if you were not paid ?.

Would you be willing to be part of a DMG if you were paid ?


There is a certain Initiative that has a downer on established stalkers - and feels that they would rather talk to their landowners and set up groups , chosen by themselves, to do the job.

So, my question is

Question:
Would you be willing to be part of a deer management group:

Choices:
No, I prefer to stay as I am.
No, I believe that the way stalking is aquired and mamnaged is okay as it is.
Yes, I would like to become part of a DMG , locally run
Yes, I would like to become part of a national DMG run by a higher group.
No, I think this is something that we do not want to be part of.

 

quote:

It soon became apparent that they were not interested in what we do, rather than how we would want to be managed in the future.

This rang a few alarm bells with me.

A very astutue thread.

You hit it on the head - someone's attempting to manpulate you. The University part really concerns me - a few "enightened persons" involved me thinks.

Look at the Pole results.

Waidmannsheil!

I found the one I went to very informative it was very easy to tell the difference in the objectives of the different attendees, the ones from corporate bodies were very much focused on deer/environment balance, the commercial stalkers where very focused on sustaining higher deer numbers and were very suspicious of the whole evening, and the land owners on the whole were not really bothered as long as revenues did not suffer.

Deer groups are far better staffed and run by landowners as even with the best will in the world 'stalkers' have a vested interest in there being a high deer density.

interesting how the demographics change around the county.

Our meeting was very two sided.
We had a contract stalker from the NT, who's opening statement was, " I do not know why anyone else is here as none of them ,(us) shoot any deer."

Given the company this deluded individual was in, it was clear that he never came off his own patch.

The whole evening descended into a slanging match, culminated in a threat of physical violence from the said stalker - as his vocabulary and intellect became stretched.

We are recreational stalkers - with very little or no cull figure to attain.

We do shoot a lot of deer, but do you want to go down the route of the DCS and be told how many you have to shoot on your land.

Do you want to have your land taken away from you and given to the chosen few.

Only last week, on Radio 4,http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fnp98/Today_04_12_2008/

the group Natural England were calling for a mass cull due to the damage caused. This was chaired by a man that had only ever shot one deer in his life !! And that was under supervision.

What I am getting at is -the establishment want you and I to fall in line and be accountable -
they do not want freelance/single/public domain/individual stalkers. They want all of it to be strictly managed by an office somewhere. And we all know who will be in those offices - look at the BDS and other organizations that "look after our interests."

Rant over

quote:

Originally posted by Fly Agaric:
I was recently invited to an all expenses paid dinner, by a university, interested in the activities of stalkers.

I think it was Ronald Regan who said that the most frightening words anyone can hear are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Looks to me as if you've just heard them, in some form, and common sense would indicate that you will probably be the first of many.

quote:

Deer groups are far better staffed and run by landowners as even with the best will in the world 'stalkers' have a vested interest in there being a high deer density.

DJM,

Of all the land owners I and my friends deal with they fall into two categories. The first lot know nothing about deer and are fed up with the damage they do. This group are keen to see the numbers reduced drastically unless there is some money in it for them, (The old school)

The second lot know little or nothing about deer, and know that they are a problem that need dealing with. They want no financial benefit apart from venison, and just need to have someone they trust doing the job.

This ammounts to about 7-8 landowners totalling a few thousand acres. They all have one thing in common in that they have no interest in letting randoms over their land or running their shooting. When deer management gets taken out of sporting rights the conflict with game shooting interests wil hit landowners in the pocket resulting in a net loss for them so I doubt if many at al will go down this route as you say.

In addition to this if I don't do a good job controlling deer for my landowners then I lose my lease so what we are seeing now is more of the 2-3 beasts a year type stalker losing their leases which are being given to other local stalkers that will do the job well.

Stalking is changing but a centralised DMG will bring significant other problems if it comes under a regulatory body.

Rgds,
FB

quote:

Originally posted by Fallow Buck:


Stalking is changing but a centralised DMG will bring significant other problems if it comes under a regulatory body.

Rgds,
FB

I agree that it should not be a central DMG run by a regulatory body, but Collaborative deer management by local DMG's under a National Group would be a step forward in England, Scotland already have this (ADMG's)the sooner the could be put into place the less likely the Deer Commission for England, Sorry I meant the DI, would assume this role.

I would agree wholeheartedly with DJM's post, it certainly chimes with my experience of facilitating deer management at regional scales. And I use the word "facilitate" deliberately as that is what the Deer Initiative is trying to do. No one in their right mind would want to regulate and manage hunters in the way that some people fear. Fly Agaric's horrible experience of the meeting he attended is not typical, but its tiresomely reminiscent of other meetings that I have heard of and been present at over the years. Organising stalkers is like herding cats - we are all very independent and self-sufficient people (we have to be to be good at what we do!) and some of us end up being so to the degree of getting a little arrogant at times (mea culpa!). Both the Deer Initiative in England and Wales and the soon to be defunct DCS in Scotland are trying to find ways in which the contribution of ordinary hunters can be valued, expanded and harnessed more effectively in the management of deer populations. This should mean making stalking easier to get hold of. That's why landowners have to be the focus for deer management groups. It's because you are trying to influence the policies under which land is managed, not just the techniques employed. having said that, one of the DMG that I would hold up as a successful example is the Cornwall Deer Managament and Conservation Society (see www.cdmcs.co.uk) and that is composed of and run by stalkers with the backing and involvement of land owners and their agents. It has made hunting much more accessible to people in the county, driven standards up and is able to direct the efforts of hunters into the areas where deer are causing problems. have a look at the CDMCS web site, its not a perfect solution but its one that is suited to the area and is well supported by major landowners and has a membership of about 50 or 60 now I think - so its far from being exclusive. This is an area of developing policy and it needs the active involvement of everyone who can spare the time to add their twopennyworth.