On Sat mornings on BBC radio Scotland there is a programme called Grassroots,the topic this week was a report which was done by the Macauley Institute Aberdeen on the damage done by deer which if validated will rock the foundation stones of the current deer management organisations in the highlands of Scotland. The Macauley Institute is one of the most respected institutes in the U.K and regularly advises the government. Their survey which took 6 years, concludes that the damage caused by deer was miniscule and that the current cull was unecessary.
They concluded that there was more damage done by hares, rabbits and grouse than deer.Cattle,sheep and walkers also played a far more significant role in the destruction of the environment. This report will be submitted to the powers that be, and it will be interesting to see if they can water down the evidence from such a respected institute..
I think the likes of SNH and the DCS will be burning the midnight oil trying to diffuse the furore that will undoubtedly follow the publication of this report..

regards

griff

Griff,

I think if you talk to stalkers north of border, most will say that deer get wrongly blamed for all manner of damage...I don't doubt that they do cause localised damage in cirtain circumstances, but not of the scale proposed by SNH & the DCS...

I hope the report is made public and not buried because it doesn't say what the Government wants..

Regards,

Pete

this is good news, but i doubt if it"ll make any difference to the "no deer for Scotland commission"!
the figures they were coming up with for deer populations and damage were ridiculous. i did get a lot of hassle over some damage that occurred on land which i leased(in Scotland), mostly from Roe bucks in April/may, but it was only a small percentage. yes, of course we need control, but there"s something very sinister about the attitudes of the "powers that be", when we hear about the kind of culls they would like to see!
good shooting

It will deffinately make for interesting reading to see what SNH has to say about this report...

The trouble with reports are that they can be so easily sidelined or dismissed if they do not fit into the bigger picture of the 'influential' organisations, remember the Langholm Report, and its findings of raptors and moorland birds?

Unfortunately it is no longer localised to Scotland anymore. The madness regarding deer damage is down here too.

One of our landowners had the FC threaten to revoke his grants if he didn't deer fence his ground. He doesn't ant to do that, so their alternative was to get someone to shoot them...

Obviously we have no interest in culling a herd to the extent those with commercial interests would like. There just are not that many deer.

The thing is, that given the sesationalist approach that the media has taken to paint the picture of the "Big Bad Deer" (mainly due to pressure from these types of bodies) they are unikely to promote these findings and admit they are wrong...

Rgds,
FB

Dear Fallow Buck

If you want a laugh or a cry at how stupid the DCS can be then look at the survey results they collected before formulating there insane 'no seasons' proposal.

 http://www.dcs.gov.uk/downloads/Summary%20of%20Responses%20Report%20Final%20020905.pdf 

If I am correct they surveyed 1194 interested parties of which they made up 7. When asked if seasons were necessary morally to protect females the SGA were 100 % for closed seasons and all other parties 60%in favour. The DCS were 30% against seasons. So 30% of 7 is 2.1 people.
Roughly speaking then 1135 respondants who work in the field wished to retain seasons and 2 people in the DCS wished to see seasons abolished.
THe printed pretty graphs that showed the percentage yes/no/maybe but did not give the total yes/no - crazy or what.
Dont you love democracy based on sound scientific research at the tax payers expense.
Perhaps they are scared that the deer may be better at using Microsoft Office graph software than they are and be put out of a job.

Regards

Mark

Dear all,
I contacted the Macauley Institute this morning for a copy of the report, they have informed me that it will be released in its entirety in the second half of January 2006

regards

griff

Now here is a funny thought that jumped into my head. Will the anti's make a big fuss about this, and if they do, and it is effective in stopping the wholesale slaughter, er, present culling policy of the DCS, what would be your thoughts?

If that were to happen I think I would find myself thanking them. Did I really just say that?

John

Jayb,
if this happened perhaps we should consider employing the ring leader "er" chairperson, to switch sides and fight for us, I'm sure that a cash incentive would change their beliefs..

regards

griff

quote:

Originally posted by Fallow Buck:

There just are not that many deer.

We need to shoot more deer but we should be allowed to do it in our own way without Big Brother interference.

Some owners don't mind some damage some hate seeing any deer. It's their land, I'm happy to fit in with what they want providing it's fair chase, in season, legal, safe and I can sleep at night.

The driving force behind the Big Brother approach in England is the Deer Initiative.

a simple and sinister reason behind having no deer- if they are culled to the verge of extinction by "trained marksmen" ie-private firms, then say goodbye to your "good reason" for owning a deer calibre rifle!
i admit that i"m paranoid, but that does"nt mean i"m wrong!
good shooting