Author Topic: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?  (Read 3267 times)

Bigfoot_Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2032
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #15 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 donít 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 shouldnít be called a sport, as there is no equivalent opposing side.

WhitstableDave

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1051
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #16 on: 18:16:03, 16/05/20 »
Because they donít 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 shouldnít 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'.


ninthace

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7238
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #17 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.
Solvitur Ambulando

Jac

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2560
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #18 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. 
« Last Edit: 19:06:19, 16/05/20 by Jac »
So many paths yet to walk, so little time left

WhitstableDave

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1051
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #19 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'!  :)

ninthace

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7238
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #20 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.
Solvitur Ambulando

andybr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #21 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

richardh1905

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5495
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #22 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.



« Last Edit: 09:27:09, 17/05/20 by richardh1905 »
WildAboutWalking - Join me on my walks through the wilder parts of Britain

Bigfoot_Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2032
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #23 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 havenít 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.

richardh1905

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5495
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #24 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.
WildAboutWalking - Join me on my walks through the wilder parts of Britain

ninthace

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7238
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #25 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.
Solvitur Ambulando

Bigfoot_Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2032
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #26 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.

ninthace

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7238
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #27 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.
Solvitur Ambulando

richardh1905

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5495
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #28 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.
WildAboutWalking - Join me on my walks through the wilder parts of Britain

richardh1905

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5495
Re: An unfortunate side effect of restrictions on walking?
« Reply #29 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.
WildAboutWalking - Join me on my walks through the wilder parts of Britain