Walking Forum

Main Boards => News and Articles => Topic started by: Bigfoot_Mike on 05:45:53, 15/05/20

Title: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 05:45:53, 15/05/20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52667502 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52667502)


This really makes me angry.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: Skip on 05:52:54, 15/05/20
Indeed - and it's justified anger.

Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: richardh1905 on 08:54:18, 15/05/20
Time that the so called sport of grouse shooting came under some very close public scrutiny.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: WhitstableDave on 09:04:53, 15/05/20
Sadly, there are a great many people who take pleasure in killing and maiming animals - whether these be mammals, birds or fish.  >:(
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: Jac on 09:51:29, 15/05/20
Time that the so called sport of grouse shooting came under some very close public scrutiny.
+1
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: April on 20:06:47, 15/05/20
Time that the so called sport of grouse shooting came under some very close public scrutiny.

+2
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: ninthace on 21:16:08, 15/05/20
The difference between "managed" moorland and proper moorland can be seen in the North Pennines where the MoD Warcop range meets the adjoining grouse moors.  Despite their conservation message, the evidence is there for all to see in terms of biodiversity.  Grouse moors are a superficially attractive heather mono-culture punctuated by unsightly shooters' tracks and gin traps all over the place.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 08:51:36, 16/05/20
The difference between "managed" moorland and proper moorland can be seen in the North Pennines where the MoD Warcop range meets the adjoining grouse moors.  Despite their conservation message, the evidence is there for all to see in terms of biodiversity.  Grouse moors are a superficially attractive heather mono-culture punctuated by unsightly shooters' tracks and gin traps all over the place.
There was controversy in the Cairngorms last year, as gamekeepers were shooting mountain hares to protect the grouse, apparently due to some disease or parasite that might pass on.


Culling deer to protect the environment and the greater good of the herds is one thing. A by-product is excellent venison which is more animal friendly than farmed meat. Breeding grouse and other game birds purely so that someone can enjoy killing them is another thing altogether, particularly with the damage this causes flora and fauna.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: richardh1905 on 09:31:24, 16/05/20
Indeed - culling deer is necessary as they have no natural predators, and an excess of deer degrade the diversity of the environment.


There certainly is a problem with deer numbers - many of those bluebell woods that people have been photographing are under threat from Muntjac Deer, which consider them a delicacy.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jun/10/ruralaffairs.anthonybrowne (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jun/10/ruralaffairs.anthonybrowne)


Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: rural roamer on 13:09:42, 16/05/20
The bluebell wood that I posted pics of the other day cull the deer. ( we did see some deer across the fields at a distance while we were there. ) This time last year when we were there, there were notices up announcing that they were carrying out a “deer management” programme. I think it’s quite a problem round our way.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 14:36:58, 16/05/20
Red deer herds in the Cairngorms can be large. I have seen several hundred at a time. There have been some large culls on the estates around Braemar. We get roe deer here in the wooded parks and occasionally in the garden.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: ninthace on 15:04:43, 16/05/20
In Devon we have a lot of Red Deer and Roe Deer.  My neighbour culls them from time to time and my freezer sometimes benefits accordingly.   A lot of the deer on Exmoor are riddled with TB which is another reason to cull them.  Unfortunately it also makes them inedible.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: WhitstableDave on 15:12:07, 16/05/20
It never surprises me in the slightest how quickly anger at killing one type of wildlife turns to the necessity of killing another... and, oh yes, how good the other tastes.  ::)
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: richardh1905 on 15:32:07, 16/05/20
Red deer herds in the Cairngorms can be large. I have seen several hundred at a time. There have been some large culls on the estates around Braemar. We get roe deer here in the wooded parks and occasionally in the garden.


They have been particularly vigorous in controlling the red deer numbers on the Glenfeshie Estate, and the results speak for themselves - massive regeneration of the native woodland. One of the most beautiful, wild and peaceful places that I have visited in Britain.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: ninthace on 15:45:58, 16/05/20
It never surprises me in the slightest how quickly anger at killing one type of wildlife turns to the necessity of killing another... and, oh yes, how good the other tastes.  ::)
Odd isn't it.  I have never had a problem with people hunting to feed themselves and their families.  Round here shooting is a major industry and it makes for better looking countryside as the woods and hedges provide cover but I remain ambivalent about it.  It is the scale of it that seems wrong as it not for food but for sport.
I have taken part in shoots in France as an unarmed helper but there it was different. The hunt was owned and operated communally by the people of the area rather than as a commercial enterprise.  The number of each species of deer killed (both male and female) was controlled by an annual quota to conserve stocks and everything that was shot was eaten.  Any surplus meat was shared with the people pf the commune. There was no predator control other than for foxes, which were sometimes shot if they became a nuisance, but not many as it meant sitting up all night and you couldn't eat them.  The whole thing was rigorously controlled by the government and the fines for an unauthorised kill were huge.
They had tried introducing pheasants in the past but the foxes eat them all, so it was just deer and wild boar.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 16:41:39, 16/05/20
It never surprises me in the slightest how quickly anger at killing one type of wildlife turns to the necessity of killing another... and, oh yes, how good the other tastes.  ::)
Because they don’t have any natural predators, populations of deer need controlling to protect the environment and the health of the general population. It makes sense to not waste the result of that culling and eat the venison. Those animals generally have a better life than those raised on farms. I have no problem with eating meat, as humans are by nature omnivores. Eating other creatures is something we have in common with many other species on the planet. However, I take no joy whatsoever in killing. Breeding animals solely for gaining pleasure from killing them and destroying nature through this is a completely different matter. In my view this shouldn’t be called a sport, as there is no equivalent opposing side.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: WhitstableDave on 18:16:03, 16/05/20
Because they don’t have any natural predators, populations of deer need controlling to protect the environment and the health of the general population. It makes sense to not waste the result of that culling and eat the venison. Those animals generally have a better life than those raised on farms. I have no problem with eating meat, as humans are by nature omnivores. Eating other creatures is something we have in common with many other species on the planet. However, I take no joy whatsoever in killing. Breeding animals solely for gaining pleasure from killing them and destroying nature through this is a completely different matter. In my view this shouldn’t be called a sport, as there is no equivalent opposing side.

I readily admit to not being an expert on the subject of the mass slaughter of deer, but my instinct is to minimise the killing and maiming of wildlife whether for sport or profit.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but deer do have natural predators - just not here in the UK!

I've just read a couple of articles on the subject. A study published in the Journal of Wildlife Management in 2013 suggests that between 50% and 60% of the UK's deer population would need to be killed each year to keep numbers under control. The UK deer population is reckoned to be about 1.5 million. Therefore, it appears necessary to kill about 750,000 deer each year to keep number stable and to protect the environment.

This would be a never-ending process, so, for example, after 10 years the population would be the same while 7,500,000 deer would have been killed.

Logically, killing every single deer now would not only result in 6 million fewer deaths over the next 10 years, but also end the problem once and for all. So why doesn't this happen if deer are such a problem?...

Money, of course.

Here's a tiny example: In the 5 years up to 2018, the carcasses of 1,195 deer killed in Richmond Park were sold for £188,410 to a 'game dealer'. Let's not kid ourselves - this isn't about preventing deer from eating bluebells, it's about dressing up a highly profitable part of the meat industry as 'environmental protection'.

Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: ninthace on 18:34:36, 16/05/20
Taking your figures at face value as I am too idle to check, how does the culling of 3/4 of a million deer compare with the number of cows slaughtered in the UK.  Putting aside the logistical difficulties of finding the deer, you would have to thin the population rather than kill chunks, could it replace any part of the beef industry?


Odd this conversation came up now, I am simmering wild bambi in beer for tea tonight.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: Jac on 18:58:49, 16/05/20

Money, of course.

Here's a tiny example: In the 5 years up to 2018, the carcasses of 1,195 deer killed in Richmond Park were sold for £188,410 to a 'game dealer'. Let's not kid ourselves - this isn't about preventing deer from eating bluebells, it's about dressing up a highly profitable part of the meat industry as 'environmental protection'.

The deer in Richmond are not wild - the clue is in the word 'park'. 

I suspect that most of the venison eaten in this country is from parks. No different from any farmed animal though I think that they are not transported off to abattoirs but killed (shot) on site which in my opinion is a very much better option.

Also, they will be either Fallow or Red deer, not muntjacs, which if the article is correct are the only ones that eat bluebells.

Muntjac deer have been in this country for many years - at least thirty in Devon to my personal knowledge - and there still seem to be plenty of bluebells around.  Interesting that according to the article they eat several plants that are poisonous to other deer. 
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: WhitstableDave on 19:09:01, 16/05/20
Taking your figures at face value as I am too idle to check, how does the culling of 3/4 of a million deer compare with the number of cows slaughtered in the UK.  Putting aside the logistical difficulties of finding the deer, you would have to thin the population rather than kill chunks, could it replace any part of the beef industry?


Odd this conversation came up now, I am simmering wild bambi in beer for tea tonight.

Quick reply as I'm off to have my vegan dinner...

How does...? How about two wrongs not making a right?

Or how about - that's a great example of 'whataboutery'!  :)
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: ninthace on 19:27:24, 16/05/20
Quick reply as I'm off to have my vegan dinner...

How does...? How about two wrongs not making a right?

Or how about - that's a great example of 'whataboutery'!  :)
No.  It was a serious question.  Would a trade in wild venison go any way to offset the current meat trade?  Wild venison is organic and does not have to through the loading, transport and slaughter process of beef.  Moreover, it requires little or no husbandry.  Venison commands a higher price than beef too.  You started to make a point, all I was asking was for you to follow it through.  Would commercial culling of deer make economic sense because I, for one, would prefer it to the current environmental damage and animal suffering caused by an over population of deer.
Bon Apetit by the way.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: andybr on 19:48:51, 16/05/20
Commercial culling of wild deer is already a big business and is the cornerstone of the Scottish governments Framework for Deer Management. Anybody who wants to see the extent of the problem should just try driving north from Ullapool at night during the winter. It is no exaggeration to say that you take your life in your hands. I will no longer do it. The big stalking estates seem to be in decline and target the wrong animals in any case as their customers are only interested in stags. The real cull is carried out by small land owners and crofters who are given quotas which they must fulfil themselves or by employing contractors. I am not a big fan of the Guardian but they did a really informative piece on this a couple of years ago: - https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/20/deer-cull-dilemma-scottish-highlands (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/20/deer-cull-dilemma-scottish-highlands)
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: richardh1905 on 20:58:09, 16/05/20
Thanks for the link, andy - an interesting read. Everyone involved in this discussion should read it.


PS - many years ago I hit a red deer hind at 70mph on the A9 west of Blair Atholl - my Citroen AX was 6" shorter as a result, and a complete write off. I was lucky to walk away unharmed, and I share your nervousness about deer on the road. The western side of the Dirrie More is a bad spot too - I have seen dozens of eyes at a time reflected in my headlights - nerve wracking, to say the least.



Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 13:03:10, 17/05/20
That was an interesting read that shows the difficult decisions that need to be made. Deer are a hazard around here at certain times of the year and I see a fair few carcasses on the road. I haven’t killed one, but came very close, with only an emergency stop preventing a collision. They are tricky devils and having missed the first deer, you need to look out for those following who have caught out many a driver.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: richardh1905 on 13:11:33, 17/05/20
I had 3 of them leap out right in front of me when I was cruising at 70mph on the dual carriageway section of the A9 one May evening - I didn't even have time to brake. BANG - deer flying over the car, windscreen smashed, what a shock - managed to steer the car into the side of the road, smoke coming out from under the bonnet. As I say, I was lucky to walk away; would have been a different matter had it come through the windscreen.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: ninthace on 15:17:38, 17/05/20
I guess we are lucky, round here it is pheasants that think they can outrun a car.  You see them by the side of the road and at the very last second they decide to cross.  Most people average one or two a year.  Apparently, it counts as poaching if you stop and pick it up but it is legal for the car behind to do so.  Fortunately, so far my spoiler has been more substantial than a pheasants head but I think one full in the windscreen might be a different proposition.  Our local roe deer have been much better at getting out of the way - so far.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 17:32:16, 17/05/20
I have hit a pheasant at about 40 mph, as I was slowing down on the approach to a village. The pheasant just ran out from the side of the road with no warning. The bird came off worse.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: ninthace on 17:38:13, 17/05/20
I have hit a pheasant at about 40 mph, as I was slowing down on the approach to a village. The pheasant just ran out from the side of the road with no warning. The bird came off worse.
Could have been worse.  It could have been a Pelican Crossing.
I'll get my coat.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: richardh1905 on 17:55:29, 17/05/20
I guess we are lucky, round here it is pheasants that think they can outrun a car. 


In my experience, pheasants don't think much at all.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: richardh1905 on 17:56:00, 17/05/20
Could have been worse.  It could have been a Pelican Crossing.
I'll get my coat.


...or a Zebra Crossing.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: ninthace on 18:08:39, 17/05/20

In my experience, pheasants don't think much at all.
If they could they would arm themselves and organise.  At least it would make it a fairer contest with the shooting fraternity.
At present. on the one side we have the unarmed bird, on the other the prat with a shotgun.  It is a battle of equal minds, that is why they have to panic the birds with beaters, to give the prat with a gun a chance of winning.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: WhitstableDave on 18:26:01, 17/05/20
If they could they would arm themselves and organise.  At least it would make it a fairer contest with the shooting fraternity.
At present. on the one side we have the unarmed bird, on the other the prat with a shotgun.  It is a battle of equal minds, that is why they have to panic the birds with beaters, to give the prat with a gun a chance of winning.

Love it!  O0 :)
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: Jac on 19:25:23, 17/05/20
Plenty of fallow deer in the forestry on the Haldon Hills just south of Exeter.

My Citroen was also written off when one decided to cross the A380 in the evening rush hour.  Not nice but at least killed outright.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: myxpyr on 19:30:56, 17/05/20
on the other the prat with a shotgun.
Do you mind? I shoot for the pot and I would far rather  enjoy a low fat pheasant casserole of my own making than a Tesco chicken that has been pumped full of god knows what
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 19:39:40, 17/05/20
If pheasants are bred to be shot, then one would not really be shooting for the pot. It would be far simpler to send the pheasants to the abattoir.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: ninthace on 20:22:20, 17/05/20
Do you mind? I shoot for the pot and I would far rather  enjoy a low fat pheasant casserole of my own making than a Tesco chicken that has been pumped full of god knows what
I had a pheasant fly into the window once, I brought it inside with the idea of cooking it and a fair part of it decided it was of no further use and crawled or hopped away to find a new host - kind of put me off.
I presume if you shoot for the pot than you do not regard it as a sport, do not shoot driven birds and stop after one?
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: SteamyTea on 21:00:18, 17/05/20
I have hit two Buzzards.  One flew across the A30 near Redruth, hit the windshield and shot off behind me.
The other one was on the road to Helston.  If flew into the side window, which was half open.  Left me a lap full of feathers and wing bits.
Have hit badgers, foxes, muntjacs, pheasants and pigeons. Country boy me.
Oh and a goat.


Had a large Alsatian run into the side of my car when I was parked up.  Bent the door.
Been headbutted by a few cows.


I never seem to get seagulls though, but they still manage to make a mess of the car.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: Dyffryn Ardudwy on 16:57:41, 26/05/20
The field sports lobby, here in the Uk, is almost as powerful as the Gun lobby in the states.
Its always been the case, since the 16C onwards, that the money and influence in this country, is held by the wealthy landowners, who still cling onto their archaic practices, such as grouse shooting, and other so called activities of so called pleasure.

Two characters that really stand out as culprits in the power wealed by the field sports lobby, are the Dukes of Sutherland and Duke of Buccleuh.

In total, they own close to half a million acres of Scotlands wildest moorland, areas frequented by the Marsh & Hen Harriers.

Any thought of the illegal poisoning of beautiful birds of prey, fills me with anger, but until outdated Victorian practices of shooting game birds for so called sport and enjoyment, comes to an end, illegal poisoning will continue
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 22:56:31, 26/05/20
A few years ago many red kites and buzzards were killed on the Black Isle - over 20 dead birds of prey in a very short period. I suspect the culprits were never caught.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:42:13, 27/05/20
Although I have never hidden my disrespect for the landowner and its lobby group on this forum, I have been the victim of the RSPB's biased use of power and their flawed investigation procedures. Allowing prejudice to tip opinion is always dangerous.


An old farmer on the coastal uplands of Mid Wales gave me a perfect example of this. Widespread deaths of Red Kites had immediately got the RSPB into a frenzy of accusing farmers of poisoning and a number of prosecutions were underway. Until someone got the low down on the DEFRA postmortems on the dead birds. The true reason was malnutrition, but there may have been a bit of a local cover up, because over zealous clean up and prosecuting local farmers for not locating and burying dead livestock had denied the over spill of a well fed population in the southern Elland Valley a food source.

2 days in magistrates court and 3 days in Crown court left me on the verge of PTSD, by the time I heard of these events my sympathy went out to those caught up in the vice of do goodism and corrupt bureaucracy. As much as I dislike those kill who rare birds, I now tread warily, knee jerk reaction helps lazy investigators.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: ninthace on 11:42:22, 27/05/20
We had a problem in the Pyrenees with vultures killing livestock.  The problem was a similar issue of insufficient carrion.  Previously farmers had left dead stock where it fell but some new rule meant they had to remove the carcasses.  The vultures took the line "Patience be blowed, I'm going to kill something".  They started creeping up behind cows and horses, especially young ones, and pecking at the veins in their legs.  They kept it up until eventually the animal bled out.  The farmers then started to campaign to kill the vultures but eventually someone worked out why and order was restored.  It's called ecology - disturb the balance of nature and nature will find a way of sorting things out - you may not like the way it does it.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: barewirewalker on 09:52:54, 28/05/20
Interesting example that fits the corollary underlying both. Perhaps the grief of court proceedings were not inflicted so flagrantly in the Pyrenees.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: Jac on 10:12:15, 28/05/20
Interesting.

I've often wondered about the wisdom of re-introducing species to an environment which has changed so drastically since they were commonly resident.
Title: Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:06:18, 28/05/20
Yet the greatest trouble so often comes from the organizations and enthusiasts involved in these projects.