From: Nitro (Original Message) Sent: 8/15/2002 3:53 AM
I want to get a debate going. A while back it was mentioned that "deer are pests". In relation to a web site in the UK run by a member of NitroExpressCom.

I have invited Flintwood to give us his opinion and I'm sure others here will have other opinions. I personally have very strong opinions on the matter. Let's get it going.

Are Deer Pests?

First Previous 2-6 of 6 Next Last Delete Replies

Reply
Recommend Delete Message 2 of 6 in Discussion

From: FlintwoodCountryside Sent: 8/15/2002 4:59 AM
Are Deer PESTS?
well heres a debate thats been going on for years..
I feel a little like i'm signing my own death certificate here now, but my opinion on this matter is that YES, DEER ARE PESTS.
I dsont just think this though, I have reasons behind my madness,
first off, in the UK, we have 6 species of Deer. Red, Roe, Sika, Fallow, Muntjac & Chinese Water.
Now where I live in the UK, in Suffolk (east anglia) we shoto Muntjac with shotguns because they are classed as vermin here purely because of their population size and the damage they do.
As you may or may not know, shooting deer with shotguns is illegal in the UK, the minimum calibre to shoot a deer is currently a .240. But there is an exception to this law, and the exception is this:
If you can proove that a deer or species of deer is causing considerable damage to crops or forestry or similar then there is reasonable grounds for a general culling license which means you may dispatch the deer with a shotgun.
Though realistically speaking, the only deer that are shot with shotguns here are Muntjac because they are so small. Nobody in their right mind would shoot at a roe or red with a shotgun unless they were poaching.
Deer also cause a hell of a lot of damage to crops such as rape, willow etc, as well as causing damage to forestry and hedges.
Here are some pictures of the damage caused by deer:

this is the damage caused by a roe buck on a young willow tree in winter.

This is a young Roe buck damaging a young pine tree, he is actually trying to rub the velvet off his antlers.

Many english estates will also tell you that deer cause a lot of damage to woodland flors and gardens, as well as crops.
I alos feel that deer are pests because of their breeding habits. The population of roe deer in the UK increases by 33% every year. As wild deer have no natural predator, as bears and wolfs are no longer living in the UK, this means that they must be managed properly to keep the populations at a healthy minimum. Any animal species that needs stringent population control must surely be a pest?

Dont get me wrong, I really love Deer, to eat, to stalk and to photograph. For me, deer are very pretty to watch in their natural state and I love nothing more than to stalk them. But I still feel that I am stalking them because they are pests, if they werent pests then they would be protected, or they would be reared like pheasants for game shooting.

These are just my opinions, how about you guys?

Matthew O'Brien
Flintwood Countryside
www.flintwood.co.uk

Deer Management
Game equipment
Shooting accessories
Clothing
Footwear
More...

Reply
Recommend Delete Message 3 of 6 in Discussion

From: redbeard Sent: 8/15/2002 11:40 AM
Put all your pest in my frezz.In the us somemight think they are but what we need is a better way to control population...open more of the season and more lands to the hunter.I would also think bigger game bags

Reply
Recommend Delete Message 4 of 6 in Discussion

From: FlintwoodCountryside Sent: 8/15/2002 10:54 PM
I cant really comment on the state of affairs concerning deer in the US because i've never hunted there and I dont know excatly how you goys go about the whole hunting thing. But from what i've seen and heard, your woodlands and forests are humoungous, so I dont suppose the forestry companies are reallt concerned with damamge caused by deer etc.
I do however, think that the US would benefit from more stringent population building, eg, only shoot the weak, diseased, injured and small for around 3 to 4 years and then your left with good healthy breeding stock which means that you can control the population easier. At the moment I get the idea thjat people in the US go out hunting and are always looking for a really big buck..
Here in the UK, as far as deer management goes, we only shoot the crap and leave the really good bucks and does etc so that we can have a nice healthy breeding stock.
Then we can take clients out stalking for a good buck when we get a good surplus of nice deer.

Matthew O'Brien
Flintwood Countryside
www.flintwood.co.uk

Shooting in the UK
http://groups.msn.com/shootingintheuk

Reply
Recommend Delete Message 5 of 6 in Discussion

From: Nitro Sent: 8/19/2002 12:14 AM
I would say deer are definitely NOT PESTS.

In Australia they are entirely introduced species. Other species were also introduced, but the successful liberations were: fallow deer; red deer from Europe and from Asia, sambar deer, chital or axis deer, hog deer and rusa deer. Both the Moluccan and Javan sub-species.

Different states have different perspectives. In Tasmania for example there is a season to hunt fallow and licences and limits apply. In Victoria a permit is required but any number of red deer, sambar deer can be shot, but fallow deer are protected. Other states have other attitiudes.

In South Australia once we had large herds of fallow deer and also some wild ranging red deer. Deer had and have no legal status and are considered by the government as pests. Thus they depend entirely on the goodwill of the land owner. Luckily many liberations of deer were done by the landowners ancestors and many of them want them to remain in reasonable numbers.

In the early 1970's the deer herds were decimated by pet food shooters. One property I have hunted on now has 150 to 200 deer. In 1970 it had over 1,500 deer.

We work hard to maintain the herds in a healthy and viable manner.

An example of the governments attitude is a deer hunting club I belong to was given permission to hunt deer on previously prohibited government land. The condition was that ALL deer had to SHOT OUT. These areas are water catchment forests surrounding resevoirs of drinking water. The club gave the department a polite NO! We are not interested in shooting out or exterminating the deer. It is interesting that the government also carries out mass poisoning of kangaroos and emus in these same forests.

Reply
Recommend Delete Message 6 of 6 in Discussion

From: Nitro Sent: 8/19/2002 12:52 AM
In the UK the situation might be different. Fallow deer though are also introduced. By the Romans no less. But I believe roe deer and red deer are native.

To me there is a vast difference between a population of game being in excess numbers or excess to available habitat and the species considered to be a "pest".

The distincton can be blurred. Where the numbers of a species become so in excess they become pests.

But deer can not be that much in excess in the UK. Yes they do cause damage to forests. A study of this was done on a forest in Victoria and in this study it was found yes deer did damage young trees but the percentage was negligible. If the numbers are in excess the damage does decrease to economic loss values.

But this is not an argument that deer are pests, but that good game management must occur. Control of numbers during key growing times.

A problem here is access for the hunter. If the landowner purposely limits access by sporting hunters or at a reasonable price, can he then complain about excess deer being pests?

Deer hunting and venision are also valuable bi-products of good game and land management programmes. Indeed it could be argued that applying the game management techniques of Southern Africa to the UK is preferable. These programmes resulted in properties being amalgamated, fences being removed, cattle and sheep removed and sold off and game being re-introduced. ie game farming was more efficient and profitable than cattle ranching. And good for conservation as well.

In Europe land is a very valuable commodity. It is an extremely scarce commodity due to over population by the human race. In addition agriculture is often inefficient in world trade terms and must be propped up by goverment and EU subsidies, tariffs and quotas. Questionable farming practices also occur in order to increase productivity and have resulted in animal diseases such as "mad cow disease". This occurred by the feeding of meat proteins to cattle.

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to reduce the number of farms producing cattle, sheep, crops. Increase the size of the remaining farms so they can be more broad acre effiicient. Increase the land available to forest and game. In effect carry out game ranching. The production of wild venison and game products. By products/services to the farmer could include the increased income from hunting services, rents or leases. The same taxes currently used to subsidise cattle, sheep, crops could be re-directed to compensate farmers for loss of income in switching to wild game farming. The economy as a whole would benefit by being able to purchase agricultural commodities at international market (ie reduced prices) rates.

Indeed one could argue that if deer are PESTS because of EXCESS numbers then cattle and sheep also would fit this definition of PESTS. Excess to the land and agricultural economy carrying capacity.

Flintwood said "But I still feel that I am stalking them because they are pests, if they werent pests then they would be protected, or they would be reared like pheasants for game shooting."

To me "PESTS" and "GAME" are opposites. One has intrinsic value to hunters. The other is vermin.

The word conservation means "to use wisely". An animal need not be "a pest" to make use of it. Indeed the word "game" imitates the animal is to be made "use of". Hunted and in most cases eaten as well.

Protection implies action by the government. My view is that wherever the less the governments of the world are involved the better. We hunters, landowners and hunting clubs should do the managing. We don't need "Big Brother" to tell us what to do.

Rearing game - game can be reared in the wild and indeed this is the best place to do it for truly wild game. Deer just like pheasants reared in captivity tends to lack truly gamey flavours and also is much more docile and easy to hunt.

I also think game animals have an intrinsic value. They have a value in themselves in the wild state. There is a quotation by an American Indian Chief that I will research and re-quote here when I re-find it. Yes in the modern world they do need management but the proceeds from this management have value just like rape seed, wheat, carrots, ornamental flowers, pine trees etc.

Some of my views for discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nitro

"I love smell of cordite in the morning"

http://NitroExpress.com