My boss hunted on land owned by the Duke of Bedford about two weeks ago for muntjac and Chinese water deer. (IIRC, he said it was about 90 miles north of London) I asked him about this; he said it was not being well received, at least by the Gamekeeper.

He and his wife were both successful in their hunt.

Bob

Guys - In this situation, pity the Italian landowner. There, it is legal to walk onto anyones land during the hunting season and shoot!! Herd management as we know it in the rest of europe then becomes problematic! The only option is to register your ground as a private reserve and post the fact every 50m or so.

I had the same experience last fall on the Bruian Abbey (sp) although the game keeper told me there was a walk way about 300 yds in front of the high seat I was setting and I saw some walkers passing while I sat there. I was looking for Munjac (unsuccesfully) and only saw Roe Does and fawns.

IanF

But almost all land there IS sign posted. Usually they also have sturdy high fences as well, not for game but to keep people out. If not fences hedges of thorns. Once when looking for a convenient bush, damned hedges along the road everywhere.

well said Deerdogs,

the only contribution from Joe Public is Ignorance!!!

As for the law in scotalnd regarding trespass, my understanding is, that you may walk/roam wherever you may please providing you do not interefere with the normal land management activities, or cause criminal damage.

griff

We have to adapt to increased public access... to blanket paint "joe public" as ignorant (griff) just won't work in 2004.
As a National Trust tenant farm I used to chase miscreant walkers with a quad bike. All it did was make my life miserable, I got stressed and cursed them up hill and down dale.
Signing and education are the secrets.
This right to roam only gives access rights to open mtn. moorland, and publically owned land.
Check out www.countryside.gov.uk/widerwelcome/open-access

Hello all,thought I'd throw my 2p worth into the ring,ok firstly I live in the country,in the highlands of Scotland north of Inverness.
Secondly I shoot,mostly Roe,but on occasion red and Sika.
Scotland,is,or at least north of the central belt,is comparitively sparsely populated,and I can see no real reason why any major land owner should have any problems with people wanting to enjoy the wild open spaces,as long as they respect the land and any activities that are going on,perhaps education is the answer to the problem,not prevention of people going there in the first place.
I'm afraid the "how would you like me in your garden" argument doesn't really hold up on the scale of land ownership that we are talking about,morally it is not the same thing...if you look on the web (who owns Scotland web site)you will get a fascinating insight into the machinations of land ownership,lots of it owned by Grand Cayman account this and Lichtenstein account that.
I have experienced no problems with "mr+ mrs public" enjoying the countryside,and dont see why the selfish few should.
I could further go on about the number of deer in the highlands and how the cull numbers have not been met...why is that?....is it because stalking is seen to be reserved for certain "class's" of people and not others,if deer stalking was more readily available to all this would soon solve the problem.
Scotland isn't a playground for the rich and ordinary folk genuinely do not like it to be treated as such.
I for one will continue to wander where I will,the store keeper from Harrods has some particulary nice estates,as does "Mr Lego" and "highland clearances" duke of Sutherland.
ok I'll get me coat!!
cheers Roebuck222

ps I never shot a deer yet with a tag in its ear.

roebuck222

Can I ask a question? Do you actually own, or have invested your own hard earned dollars (or pounds) into any of these lands opening to "public roaming"?

I don't see how the comparison between someones front (or back) garden is any different to the top of a mountain range, if both are private property. Surely the only difference is:
1. the size of the area; and
2. someone in a town wants free access and enjoyment to land that they are not willing to pay for.

I don't understand the relevance to the last sentence? Do Scottish hunters hunt in deer farm paddocks?

Dear Nitro,
in answer to your question I do actually own land in Scotland,I would estimate it at about 1/3 of a acre in the middle of which sits my house,I further estimate it would take your average rambler 30 seconds to cross this residential property from extremity to extremity.
When I so choose to go for a wander on say Balnagown estates land,one of Mr fayeds (of Harrods) many estates,it takes me 2 1/2 - 3 hours,via woodland and tracks to even get within sight of the castle,which I wouldn't dream of going near.
This is the same thing as someone crossing your front lawn?...hardly...its not even in the same ballpark.
Land ownership in Scotland is a pretty hot political potatoe,we are talking about VAST acreages of land in some instances,devoid of human life,and all the more beautiful for it,with just the flora and fauna to marvel at.
Now as previously stated,I respect the land and the usage to which it is put,can you really (the law not with standing) morally deny anyone access to such sights,if they are doing no harm.

Deer in Scotland are for the most part either a)shot by the landowner, or b)shot by paying guests.
Recent figures show that the number of deer in Scotland has reached the highest level ever to the detriment ultimately of the deer..having no natural predators eg wolves,bears etc (we shot all of them)it is only man that is controlling the numbers,and making a pretty poor job of it by all accounts,now all of the stalkers who come to Scotland and pay big Dollars to shoot a stag,and thats very good,you provide jobs etc etc.
What of all the hinds?...who shoots them? estate managers and gamekeepers for the most part,so why the high numbers?if the price to shoot red deer in Scotland was made more realistic then this wouldn't be a problem,but sadly the fact remains that paid stalking is and is likely to remain the premise of the select few.
I further believe that no deer in Scotland is owned by anyone...hence no tags in their ears,there are many who would likely contest this,however I haven't heard of any landowner saying "I'll pay for that" when a red deer impacts with a car,which is a common occurence round here.

So nitro despite what you may have been told size does matter

Cheers Roebuck

roebuck

I asked the question as I find here usually the people who claim access should be available to all also co-incide with not owning any but wanting the advantages and benefits of ownership. Same thing with their house block, they also claim it is a different issue as well.

Now when I find someone cutting firewood on my land without asking I follow them and if game enough cut some firewood off their land too. Don't see any difference myself.

One of the great benefits of land ownership is peace and tranquility. I can honestly say I could not live in Europe for long. Never was there not people everywhere. Go for a walk in the Black Forest and count 500 persons in the afternoon. Hunt roe deer in Northumberland and have 200 "roamers" walk by in the morning. I would go crazy.

I knew a rich man here too who claimed deer in Aust didn't belong to anyone so poaching while illegal wasn't "really" a crime or unethical. Of course deer are not native here as in Scotland and were introduced by the landowners at some time or other. I always wondered if his justifications could be used against him. Does he "really own" the land his mansion sits on? Or is it just in trust for the future? Maybe the water in his swimming pool belongs to everyone so could be used by everyone? The water did after all come from the sky and God at some point or other.

I am being faecious (splg?) and am not having a go at you. Everyone has different opinions.

I asked the question at the beginning of this thread to see what people thought of the idea.


PS Why is Mr Al-Fayed singled out? I understand he is a British citizen.

Mr Roebuck, being one of those who have paid hard earned monies to stalk the highlands and other parts of the UK it is very disconerning to have walkers or anyone else mess with your pursuit. The privacy is one of the things that attraced me to the highlands. I have only hunted a couple of properties in your area, Tricity (sp), Cambus Moor and Rose Hall. I truly enjoyed my self but sure wouldn't have if I found a stalker behind every other tree or bush. I have a small wood lot here that I try to keep for my family and friends to hunt on and have found most trespassers believe the property belongs to them. Like most property owners I will grant passing rights if ask. Is it too much trouble to request permission to trespass, ask the owner or keeper, it shows respect and most people appreciate that respect they have earned. I worked hard and saved to own property while other have pissed it away on other things like down the drain in the Pub, eh.

Nitro,

yes land ownership is a very emotive subject,not only in Scotland,the UK, but across the whole world.It is far to simplistic to say that its a battle between the haves and have nots,much land all over the world has been obtained in a fair and ethical manner,much of it has not,either recently or historically.
I know a few very rich farmers and count them amongst my friends,they own,live on and work large tracts of land,they also know down to the last square yard what exactly they own,they dont for the most part have any problem with walkers IF and only IF they respect the land ie no littering,leaving gates open,and letting dogs go unchecked etc etc. This why I really believe education to be the answer.
They have a real passion for the land and all its beauty and are not small minded and jealous enough to keep such things to themselves.
Of the Many absentee landowners in Scotland,I often wonder how many would be actually able to tell you what exactly they owned...this is the scale I'm talking about,to own so much land and not know whats yours,but still complain at someone out walking,seems niggardly to me.

I also would have no problem with "old jock" taking one for "the pot"...I am NOT talking commercial slaughter here.
It goes on in every community in the highlands,always has done and always will,are these people viewed in the small towns and villages as criminals? of course not,has the taking of said deer damaged the numbers? of course not.
The consequences of getting caught however far outweigh the actual "crime".
Deer management,or lack thereof in Scotland is a very contentious subject,but basically the people who own the land make the laws and decide policy...which clearly isn't working...is it time for a change?

Cheers Roebuck.

ps Mohammed Al-fayed never was and probably never will be to the best of my knowledge a british citizen,after his accusations regarding the demise of his son in Paris,I rather doubt the policy makers in the upper echalons of british society will be granting him a passport anytime soon,However they did grant his brother one ....just to show that....hey we dont victimise and hold grudges.

pps love your Oz wine

Access and stalking is a red hot issue.

We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in right to roam. Unseen are the incentives being offered for landowners in the shape of increased grants for increased access. Permissive paths in effect give carte blanche for blanket access. The latest scheme is a grant payment for public access IN PERPETUITY.

In the South East winter morning stalking has to be conducted with great care and I've lost count of the number of times that dog walkers have appeared well away from any path.

After a while you get to know the problem areas and avoid them.

Very interesting to read.

Here it is usual, that everybody can walk outside village wherever and whenever he wants (except cornfields or places he damages the harvest). This is granted by law.
But just walk, no BBQ or anything else.

To get closed an area is a big problem.

The areas near the towns, of course high frequented by walkers and dogs, do have the advantage, that there are also a lot of hunters which won't drive too far to go to their hunting estates. So iin spite of this, they pay a lot of money for. Knowing of the trouble with the people.

Best regards

The history of land ownership and use in the UK is much, much different than in the USA. The current "land act activism" is a result of centuries of abusive practices by hereditary "nobles" (often as not, "ignobles") that includes economic enslavement of crofters (tenant farmers). UK transitioned from monarchy to parliamentary socialism with no constitution. The capitalist free-market forces that resulted in the breakup of America's vast ranches and plantations never existed. And historically, UK's vast estates were public property used communally by local villagers for pastures and crops. Armed bands of "nobles" simply siezed the land and drove off the freemen of the villages and settled vassals with serfs in their place. Later they drove off the crofters (freed-serf tenant farmers) when pasturing sheep became more profitable that raising crops. So, most estates are stolen property and the legal and historical records of the UK do not hide this fact. Land records record the "grants & feoffs" as well as the "enclosures".

Wonder how long it will be before the powers that be say "hang on minute " it youv'e got the right to roam then its too dangerous to shoot!!!!
As for land ownership in Scotland, the problem of access would only be exacerbated if this governments Mugabe style land grab comes to fruition.The reason that Scotland is Scotland is because the Dukes the Lairds call them what you will have said No! to development.Times though are a changing and there is an acceptance from these large estates, that they are opening up large tracts of land to the public.
My only criticism is that in general Joe Public does not contribute anything to the management or welfare of the land but tries to interfere with their misguided morals and their perception on how they would like to see the land managed.

I wonder how many of the "Joe Public" would be willing to invest( part with their hard earned cash) in the welfare of the countryside so that they have a legitimate voice......

Roebuck.
You might have shot 80 roe in the last five years but you must be going round with your eyes and ears closed if you think that stalking is for the wealthy and the elite.
I can think of several estates the that charge anything from
�30-�50 for hind stalking and �75-�100 for stags, lets face it there only the a mans wages involved, sorry forgot the diesel for the truck, oops forgot the quad bike, silly billy forgot the insurance/the risk assessment, carcass to be transported to the dealer who's pays a "GOOD" money for a carcass..
Or is this to much to pay....

Griff

My shoot may not be in the deepest wilderness but we have a lot of problems with walkers. Personnally the rise and fall of the proleteriat and whatever happened in the deep distant smoggy past doesn't help me . The numpty that can't walk on a path, and thinks he's doing me a favour by letting his idiot dog flush all my pheasants from a cover on a jolly saturday morning walk is deluded to say the least. Not to mention the guy coursing three fallow bucks with a lurcher last season while I was in a high seat. He had the cheek to have a go at ME for not trying to shoot one of the bolting animals?!?!?

The reality is that the majority of joe public are ignorant about the workings of the countryside. The don't stay on the designated paths, dogs are not walked on leads, and the signs requesting this behaviour, (politely, for the sake of ground nesting birds), are remvoved defaced and thrown in a ditch.

I hate to admit it but if people can't "behave" then they subsequently forgo their so called rights, and spoil it for the rest.

Three guesses which side of the fence I 'm on!!

FB

Fallow Buck

I guess landowners there do not have the right to shoot dogs on sight on their land - if they are harassing stock and presumably game? On my land I would have shot the lurcher.


Jaybute

Thanks for the historical perspective. I did not think of it from that angle. However many of these properties have changed hands legitimately over this time. A trouble with looking back centuries.

Griff,
I must disagree with you somewhat on the price of stalking,a very quick trawl through the web pages found lots of estates advertising stalking,however I think you will find that for the most part you will be hard pressed to find all that many stags available for �100.
And if shooting was as you claim to be so cheap and there are so many people who want to do it,why then is the Scottish red deer population at record levels,the two things dont seem consistant to me.
And further more I think it is you who must be going round with closed eyes if you think or believe that the majority of people who take part in shooting sports are from the "masses"...that just isn't the case,they are more likely to be found at a football match.
Exceptions being possibly wildfowling on the foreshore (free land),rabbit shooting or pigeon shooting.
Historically hunting has always been for the most part the reserve of the royalty and nobility.
We are not like the US where truely it is a sport for all.

Right I'm off to find cheap deer stalking

Cheers Roebuck

Roebuck,
let me point you in the right direction:
Forest Estate.
Dalry
Dumfries & Galloway
o1644 430 230

Griff

Griff,
thank you for that nugget of information.
I shall make enquires.
I still contend however that prices on estates local to me and from what I have gleaned from the web are significantly higher than �100 per beast.
But no one seems to answer the question...if stalking is so cheap,why so many deer?

Cheers roebuck222

I would add that all my three public footpaths are well signed and waymarked at every turn. I keep them free from stock and fallen trees and I even mow them in the summer.

I greet walkers with a cheery good morning and a reminder to shut the gates. Most reply, some don't.

Roebuck,
the question is, who is saying that there are too many deer, and what are their motives?
The forestry comission advocate 4 deer per 100 hectares,which also seems to be the policy of the DCS, if that were applicable to all then glenfeshie would not be in the news!!!!
It just seems to me that the only people who are allowed to have deer are the commision!!!
We have just had a discussion with the stalkers this morning regarding DCS policy, If deer damage occurs on your own land what right do they have to tell us that it is unacceptable, and send in the contractors..

Nanny state again telling us whats good for us all!!!

Griff

Griff I agree completely. I wrote an article for a friend about this a couple of weeks ago because he was advocating a big cull of the local deer, and that land owners should not have the right to leave deer un-culled, (if that is a word??? ).

As SPORT shooters, we are all on the lookout for a bit of new stalking, and the deer number increases have helped as most landowners see us as doing them a favour. Besides that I doubt that anyone will want a big cull to exterminate herds to save crops.

If I have a herd of say 50 deer. I would guess 10 tonnes of (harvested) wheat is what they might get through in a season. Bearing in mind they eat a bit of grass and perhaps some silage maize etc etc etc, I would doubt that in retail value the damage comes to much relatively speaking. Surely it is cheaper for the Gov't to compensate farmers than hiring a hit squad to come in and kill the deer. Especiially as the Sporting value of the land will be greatly diminished after such a cull, and sporting rights are the most valuable part of land ownership in the modern day.

I have to say that I feel the gov't has some kind of hidden agenda on the Deer thing. Perhaps to implement some kind of licence system before you could shoot deer, with the knock on implications for firearm ownership... After all they can't have people sorting out the problem for them and enjoying it can they... We will all have to become sterile Traditionless (another invented word...), "deer control marksmen officers"...

Memories of the Ruddy Duck coming back to me...
Regards,
Cynical of Sussex.

Wow,



The socialists there have destroyed private property. All democratic of course as the urban proletariat are the voting majority there.



Just goes to show why the USA is a republic and not a democracy.



A democracy is when two wolves and a sheep are voting on what is for dinner. A republic is where the sheep has rights.

Griff,
once again thank you for these magnificent kernels of information.
the average stalker shoots 5 beasts,all very good and well,and as you rightly say the number keeps on growing.
Ok then here is a question...why only 5? (on average)...what might be the reason?...lets list a few..
a)time constraints,ie holiday too short.
b)cost,both in terms of head of deer shot and price to stay wherever etc.
c)"sporting aspect"..ie going out and shooting 10 might (and probably would)...might not quite be the "done thing"
and a jolly poor show to boot.

here is a possible solution...to reduce deer numbers...X number of deer too many..issue X number of tags to whoever to get a deer,profits go to the estate...more deer shot more profit,unless the economic reasoning ceases to exist in Scotland.
Maybe if old jock and his friends had a better chance at one for the pot,events like glenfeshie would not be happening.
just a thought
cheers Roebuck222