Forum menu
..someone talk to me about over-population of deer in Scotland.
I am starting to form a view that the deer population is artificially high, and bad for environment and economy.
I have read a couple of bits recently about massive over population of deer. We are involved with some tree planting at work with NTS, and again all sorts of 'hints' and 'personal views' about looking to cull massively (like 60-80%...) to reduce deer back to a natural level and allow more regeneration, other species etc.
I also have spoken to more people in our local area who suggest that the supposed income from field sports is pretty small fry compared to other outdoor pursuits overall - and yet we are told constantly to steer clear of hills during autumn, to stop disturbing deer and how valuable the deer (and other game) is to the economy. In our back yard we have hunters, maybe 2-5 per day for a few days a week, for a few months a year paying £100-300 per head, per day and employing a couple of people. But we have 40-60 kids for 10 months a year paying £50 per day and employing 20-25 people....
Awaits the only opinion which really matters......that of a medical professional.
Welcome to the 21st century.matt_outandabout - Member
..someone talk to me about over-population of deer in Scotland.
I am starting to form a view that the deer population is artificially high, and bad for environment and economy.
Thing is, the value of large estates is often based upon how many deer there are. It is therefore in the landowners interests to keep the numbers high.
Yup - lots of evidence. There is a number of deer per acre that is sustainable - some estates are ten times this.
They feed the deer in winter so that they don't die off. go to Ben Alder estate and many other places and you can see the damage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3130670.stm
Red deer are vermin and need to be massively culled to try to gain some biodiversity and to prevent erosion
I can now sleep in peace.
But....does this mean TJ is pro stalking and shooting? After all, that is control of vermin with a positive economic factor. After all, Scotchlandshire has to pay for itself somehow.
🙂
Matt - do you know a Dan Watson who works for NTS? He'll tell you all about deer if you ask him.
Aye, Dan is one of the chaps I have been chatting too.
Should have been clearer - its not a 10 or 20% cull needed, it is a 80%-90% cull needed...
Dan is an absolute machine. Tell him that George who volunteered at Moffat with him a few years back was asking for him.
CFH - I have no issue with culling so long as they take the right beasts in enough numbers. Shooting is the best way of doing it. If we can get mugs to pay to do it thats fine - its cheaper.
Shooting deer is not needlessly cruel unlike hunting with dogs.
Bears and wolves are the solution!
I've seen the damage they can do in a night to a field of barley or grass, there's thousands of them up Glenfiddich way and he doesn't fence off his land very well. A huge problem. Make a right mess of your car when you hit them too.
Far far too many and they're almost tame, almost no sport in shooting them IMO.
Check out info from the deer commission.
Great eating in them tho, a cull would surely drop the price of venison for a while too. Win win situation!
I was at my butcher earlier today buying 8 legs of venison, but it was two dear.
:WAGGLE:
I also have spoken to more people in our local area who suggest that the supposed income from field sports is pretty small fry compared to other outdoor pursuits overall - and yet we are told constantly to steer clear of hills during autumn, to stop disturbing deer and how valuable the deer (and other game) is to the economy
Problem is also that most guns want a set of horns to mount above the fire. NTS have just been fined for not killing enough IIRC in Cairngorms.
If we could cull the large estate owners at the same time, that would be good.
Then re-introduce a species that was almost exterminated during the formation of those hunting estates. Humans.
Could you not introduce deer stalking as an activity for the kids - I know we have several who spend their lives playing COD who would love the opportunity to play with real guns!
This.epicyclo - Member
Then re-introduce a species that was almost exterminated during the formation of those hunting estates. Humans.
Turning the empty glens into productive, populated glens with a supply of cheap electricity is exactly what's needed.
Turning the empty glens into productive, populated glens with a supply of cheap electricity is exactly what's needed.
why?
I'd put it to you that the important issue, is that Deer populations in Scotland vary.
There are more than once species of Deer, and each has its own effects on its local environment, for the sake of simplicity, we'll limit the discussion to Red deer, as I think thats the main species you're pointing to as "controversial"
The first thing I'd cast out there is that they're a native species, forced into an artificial landscape - the open moors are, largely, an artificial creation (that long predate the victorian hunting estates) as are most of the Scottish woodlands... this makes the balance hard to achieve, since we're starting from a false position - For the past forty years, the deer have been forced onto the hill, with extensive large fenced plantations restricting deer from their "natural" wintering grounds - so you end up with a large population of deer coming down into a fairly small area that they can access, whereas if there were no fences at all, there would be a much lower density of overwintering deer - in addition to this, the nature of much of the forest is cash crop conifer, which does not provide the understory of plants and trees that, in the past, would have allowed deer to overwinter without excessive damage.
So, we see a large population of deer forced into a small number of unfenced woodlands, that get hammered, since their "natural" winter grounds are either fenced, or of little or no food value (replaced with thicket conifer) - red deer are a wide ranging species, so if you plant something nice, and there's nowhere else for them to go, then they'll come.
How can we get round this?
Clearly fencing is important, but the old days of fencing off the whole forest edge to keep the deer on the moor need to go - forest management needs to become more receptive to the deer, protecting smaller areas for a shorter amount of time, and providing sacrificial protection for the crop trees. Thinning and then Fencing a number of small areas to allow them to regenerate for 5-10 years, and then moving on to protecting another small area, will create a far better "patchwork" of varied forest growth, that is more robust to deer activity, (and, importantly, better for a whole variety of reasons) than a blanket "fence deer out of the trees and force them onto the hill" policy which see shite conifer dominated woodlands and massive winter starvation of deer. The argument should never be "trees or deer" it should be "trees and deer"
Good forest management, allied with good deer management, can create a sustainable population - there are a number of area's where that will need significant culling - but all the culling in the world won't make any difference if you just draw in a marauding herd of starving deer from miles away over winter, because they've go nowhere else to go.
So, my answer - Thin the forests by at least 50% to open up for regeneration (which would be a radical and extensive remodelling of the current forestry system, that would be for the better all round, and a huge leap forward in biodiversity for all species) , take down all the big deer fences that are keeping deer on the moor, and replace with fences no bigger than 50Ha.
Thats Red covered, and maybe Sika - as for Roe and Muntjac... I'd point you towards the work by Ronnie Rose...
Shame thats a load of nonsense Zulu.
if you just draw in a marauding herd of starving deer from miles away over winter, because they've go nowhere else to go.
Has been proven not to happen. Empty a glen of deer and it remains empty for many years.
You cannot have trees and deer unless numbers are reduced dramatically. The deer are worse than goats for eating everything in sight. its so very obvious when you see a hillside half of which is fenced off. Young trees one side, none the other. Or an estate that has heavily culled the deer - regeneration occurs. Then go to one of the estates with massive overpopulations of deer, Ben alder, Fisherfield ( when I was last there) and see the "green desert" and the massive erosionsee shite conifer dominated woodlands and massive winter starvation of deer. The argument should never be "trees or deer" it should be "trees and deer"
No conifer plantations in the areas that are under threat, no non native monoculture conifers are being planted now. Its caledonian forest that is being regenerated. Nothing to do with cash crop trees
Deer numbers are many times a sustainable level - some estates 10X the sustainable level. Deer numbers have doubled in 40 years.
The only answer is massive culling. 3/4 of them at least to be removed. they are vermin. they destroy the landscape. Feeding them should be made illegal so the weak die off over winter
"If we can get mugs to pay to do it thats fine"
Germans, apparently:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b0144rqc
With all due respect guys, what evidence do you have to support your claims that there is a massive "over population" of deer on Ben Alder?
What constitutes a 'natural level of deer' or and natural level anything is is totally subjective as all these things are managed. The NTS and other agencies are busy planting trees in an attempt to realise their vision of what a 'natural landscape' should, in their view, consist of. Curiously though they are trying to create habitat that although rare in scotland is perfectly common in vast areas of Europe and Russia. In devising these fanciful habitats they are destroying habitats that are common in scotland - but which are also pretty much unique to scotland. They're just not habitats that appeal to our victorian tastes for the sublime
Deer are only problematically over-populous in the context of trying to create/ recreate these idealised landscapes, and also in the context of having them come crashing through your windscreen a little too frequently
The NTS and other agencies are busy planting trees in an attempt to realise their vision of what a 'natural landscape' should, in their view, consist of.
Is the 'natural' landscape they are trying to create not merely a recreation of the landscape we used to have in Scotland before it all got chopped down? I see enough bleached tree stumps sticking out of peat bogs to make me think the country didn't used to be blanket bog...
Which, for me, would make them massively problematically over-populous. I don't WANT scotland to look like one massive deer/grouse farm...Deer are only problematically over-populous in the context of trying to create/ recreate these idealised landscapes
roz31573 - MemberWith all due respect guys, what evidence do you have to support your claims that there is a massive "over population" of deer on Ben Alder?
The erosion, the lack of tree cover, the denuded devastated landscape. If you walk on the estate you can see. the deer are fed in winter leading to unsustainable high population levels
A 13h says - its not that long ago much of Scotland was tree covered with mixed woodlands - hence fisherfeild forest ( that has no trees) and so on.
A grazing species with no predators will have population growth until all the grazing is gone.
they eat everything - worse than goats. You only have to see what happens when deer are excluded from an area to see the damage they cause
Caledonian forest is not common in other parts of Europe - it is actually unique to Scotland tho similar forest does exist in other places it is different with different species. Its to do with the gulf stream and the mild winters combined with the long summer days giving a different pattern of growth.
Forum History - roz31573
* ? Profile
* History
* Registered: October 4, 2011Recent Replies
chat While we are on Scottish game....
Interesting to join to post on a month old thread argueing about deer populations
hence fisherfeild forest ( that has no trees)
The word 'forest' doesn't necessarily mean 'like a big wood'. An area can have no trees, and never have had them to speak of, and still correctly be named a forest.
Caledonain forst is not common in other parts of Europe
Montane Scrub is very common though
Interesting to join to post on a month old thread argueing about deer populations
how dare he have an opinion on a public forum 🙄
[quote=tandemjeremy]Interesting to join to post on a month old thread argueing about deer populations
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I found the month old thread via a general internet search, it's a subject I have a vested interest in, and I joined the forum in order to address some of the points raised.
I also happen to be a keen mountain biker, a member of other biking forums, and will make use of other areas of this forum in due course.
[quote=tandemjeremy]The erosion, the lack of tree cover, the denuded devastated landscape. If you walk on the estate you can see. the deer are fed in winter leading to unsustainable high population levels
I'll bore you with some facts. It makes less interesting reading than your accusations, but at least it can be backed up with evidence, rather than opinion.
The majority of Ben Alder Estate is designated as Special Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Under European law, this "denuded devastated landscape" must be protected, exactly the way it is.
The reason for these designations is mostly the rare habitat, which is blanket bog. The habitat is continually being monitored by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), a Government funded organisation.
The maximum deer density deemed sustainable on the designated area is 12 deer per square kilometer. The deer density on Ben Alder Estate is just 9 deer per square kilometer.
The "erosion" you mention is a naturally occuring feature of blanket bog habitat, known as "peat hags".
Grazing impact by deer is required on blanket bog habitat to PREVENT the growth of naturally seeded trees. Trees dry up blanket bog, which destroys it.
Winter feeding is done as a diversionary measure to keep deer impacts on the most sensitive areas to an absolute minimum during a time of year when there is no natural re-growth and recovery.
Deer are not vermin, they are a naturally occuring mammal that is native to our shores, which have been demonised by the media.
They need protected and managed just as much as the habitat in which they survive.
All information regarding deer count figures, densities, SAC and SSSI is freely available online.
roz31573 - Member
...Deer are not vermin, they are a naturally occuring mammal that is native to our shores, which have been demonised by the media.
I am a '[i]naturally occuring mammal that is native to our shores[/i]', I've got a spear and a wolfhound. I am willing to do a bit of 'deer management'. 🙂
roz - I know the difference between peat hags and erosion. Ben Alder estate is eroded away by the deer in areas that are not blanket bog. In areas around where they feed the deer.
To say its all a protected SSSI and a blanket bog is just sheer nonsense. Hove you ever been there?
[img][url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3176/3109856353_2911316464_b.jp g" target="_blank">
You can find the bleached stumps that once was forest not that long ago.
The
apparently high densities of red deer across a large area of the south Grampians may represent a problem of overgrazing, [b]and the locally high density of deer in the Ben Alder also deserves further study.[/b]
Ben alder - deer density 15 per KM square in 2005. Have they killed nearly half the deer since then? Not when I was last there
The extent of the SAC/SSSI...
[img] 
[/img]
Indeed Druidh - and the SSSI include the high plateau for its nesting sites for dotterl and for a variety of other reasons as well as the bogs
Component SSSI/ASSIs Ben Alder & Aonach BeagBen Alder is a remote mountain massif in the Highlands, lying between Loch Ericht and Loch Laggan in Badenoch & Strathspey. There are extensive summit plateaux with much ground above 970 m. The geological composition – mainly acidic Moine schists with a band of limestone outcropping at high altitude – makes Ben Alder one of the most ecologically varied mountain systems in the western Grampian Mountains, with extensive dwarf-shrub and bryophyte heath, areas of late snow-lie, blanket mire and grassland. The large summit plateaux support a diverse and important assemblage of specialist montane birds, including a breeding population of Dotterel Charadrius morinellus. It is also important as a spring and autumn gathering ground for Dotterel from a much wider area of the Scottish Highlands, as well as being an important spring staging area for birds en route to nest in Norway.
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=1924
Well you won't see many Dotterels now will you, cos they'll have all buggered off, sick of you lot whingeing on!
Yes, there has been a significant reduction in deer numbers in recent years. SNH carried out a population count in March this year which concluded the deer density of 9 per square kilometer. The estate has a total population of just 800 deer on an area that covers some 24,000 acres.
Yes I've been there. I don't agree with your opinion on erosion by deer- there is more erosion done to hard ridges by hillwalkers than by deer.
The bleached stumps in the hags are far from recent, they are hundereds of years old.
Ben Alder is maintained as a shooting estate.
You cannot have it both ways Roz
Grazing impact by deer is required on blanket bog habitat to PREVENT the growth of naturally seeded trees. Trees dry up blanket bog, which destroys it.
Winter feeding is done as a diversionary measure to keep deer impacts on the most sensitive areas to an absolute minimum during a time of year when there is no natural re-growth and recovery.
so you admit there are too many deer so you have to feed them to stop them destroying the landscape in winter.
You could of course just reduce the number of deer.
roz31573 - MemberThe bleached stumps in the hags are far from recent, they are hundereds of years old.
Recent then.
Crossed posts.
Erosion by deer. The area where they feed them was a huge boggy mess well into the spring. Churned up by hundreds of deer feeding
Of course if as you say the deer population has been massivly reduced then this will have reduced the harm done by the deer.
roz31573
TBH Roz - to register and come on here with a first post with a stong view will be seen as preachy / spammy /a PR exercise.
I dont know if you are right or wrong.
Just throw some banana skins about the place.
Within minutes, this will have led to the complete destruction of entire areas of plants and stuff, and the deer will simply cease to exist in those areas. Simples.
I threw a banana skin in Swinley forest on Saturday, and there was a fire. Proof, if it were needed, of their destructive nature.
Banana skins are the most destructive thing known to mankind, and will knack the entire planet if we're not careful. Used wisely, they could save Scotland from the Red Deer Peril.
Or you could just concrete and tarmac over the areas where deer roam. Then people could drive cars to previously inaccessible places. They could even set up businesses and stuff there, and save the economy.
Why I'm not in charge of this country I really do not know....
Ben Alder is maintained as a shooting estate.
Is it? how do you know and what difference would it make?
You cannot have it both ways Roz
Deer are naturally occuring, and have just as much right to be there as any other species of plant or animal. It's all about balance, and therefore you CAN have it both ways.
so you admit there are too many deer so you have to feed them to stop them destroying the landscape in winter.
No, as far as I'm concerned, there are not too many deer.
[quote=couldashouldawoulda]TBH Roz - to register and come on here with a first post with a stong view will be seen as preachy / spammy /a PR exercise.
I dont know if you are right or wrong.
Yes, I fully appreciate this, and it's not something I make a habit of.
I have nothing to gain personally from this subject, I'm merely offering some facts about the area that I feel has been wrongly targeted in this thread.
Elfinsafety
Does the bannan skin method work on ramblers?
Roz - you say
Grazing impact by deer is required on blanket bog habitat to PREVENT the growth of naturally seeded trees. Trees dry up blanket bog, which destroys it.
Winter feeding is done as a diversionary measure to keep deer impacts on the most sensitive areas to an absolute minimum during a time of year when there is no natural re-growth and recovery.
Now either there is the right number of deer to graze the land to ensure the bogs are as they are in which case the second quote is wrong, or the second quote is right in which case the first is wrong and there is an unsustainably high number of deer.
In order to prevent further damage to the landscape you have to feed them to
keep deer impacts on the most sensitive areas to an absolute minimum
"Ben Alder is maintained as a shooting estate".Is it? how do you know and what difference would it make?
Plenty of mention of it on the web including a whole heap of praise for the gamekeeper who refers to it as such.
The difference - they keep the deer numbers artificially high by winter feeding leading to the denuded impoverished eroded landscape.
Edit - Roz -= its opinion not fact in the main. You have yours. I have mine. I have been walking and cycling the hills for decades and its very easy to tell the relative deer densities from the nature of the vegetation. I prefer and want to see more of the varied mixed woodland, the caledonian forest, the scrubland. I do not want to see Scotland as a huge deer and grouse farm stripped of all its cover - huge areas of monoculture.
If you read the snh publications you will begin to grasp how much damage the deer do. Now perhaps Ben Alder has started to put its house in order. Its an uphill battle getting the "sporting" estates to do so.
Are you one of the estate workers?
Jesus christ TJ, is there any subject you won't argue about?!. You must be a dream to live with....
Lots no beer - lots. 🙂