Deer hunting

[Xlthlx]

"So no hunting no deer in a few years. Its not a Zoo! "

What absolute tosh. There is no hunting with hounds of deer in the Peak Park and they are everywhere around here and positively thriving. Most of my farming friends love them and will not give permission for them to be shot on their land because they like to see them. Deer on Exmoor will not disappear just because no-one is allowed to chase them with hounds before they shoot them.

Oakash thanks for the clarification. I take it that you are not then using the quote you gave in order to claim that the only reason red deer herds exist on Exmoor today is because they have until recently been hunted with hounds? If it only applied 100 years ago and not today, then it's a pretty a useless quote in terms of clarifying the pros and cons of deer hunting with hounds today, isn't it?

It isn't necessarily tosh. The survival of the deer herd depends on how it is managed. If organised hunting completely disappeared on Exmoor and the Quantocks then it is highly likely that more would be shot. The problem is that at the moment there is no way of centrally controlling the numbers shot nor the gender age profile of the shooting.

The Peak District is not Exmoor and just because there is a herd there does not mean that one would survive in its current form in North Devon and West Somerset.

It's worth noting as well that the herd on Exmoor is truly wild and apart from the lakes and arguably the New Forest (where an organised system of stalking based on the commoner system exists). The Red Deer in the Peak District are feral and have escaped from deer parks.

Both Dartmoor and Exmoor had healthy wild red deer populations until the war until hunting stopped and the deer population was decimated (partly due to food scarcity). Only on Exmoor has it recovered. A large part of the reason for this is that a lot of landowners see the red deer as the property of the hunt.

 

[Xlthlx]

Also @cpTrayes please be aware that stag hunting on Exmoor has not stopped at all it has merely been modified by the ban.

Exactly the same system whereby Landowners conserve red deer on their land and leave them to be managed communally by the hunt still exists today. I can assure you of that because I live just below the national park.

 

[ester]

Been reading this with interest,

firstly henryhorn, yes, stressed meat is rubbish, it makes it have a high pH which means it is tough (known as dark firm dry meat) and changes the microbiology meaning it spoils quicker.

Secondly, from a purely biological/ecological point of view if the red deer cannot survive on the quantocks and exmoor without management then there is clearly not a niche for their survival. Therefore they no longer belong in that environment, given the damage they cause I can only assume we keep them there because they look nice. fill me in if I am missing something

I often think we fiddle too much and nature would do just fine without us.... but maybe not in the way we want it to/to look etc.

 

[oakash]

Yes Ester, you are missing something, I think! If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if there isn't a 'niche' for deer on Exmoor and the Quantocks, then they shouldn't be there, and that we allow them to be there because they 'look nice'? We allow them to be there because of the hunting, actually. But since these islands now have a landscape that, whether you like it or not, is managed entirely by humans, then every species exists because we 'allow it to be there'.

 

[ester]

Oh yes, I am aware that these landscapes are completely managed by humans, as we want them to be. They would otherwise mostly return to forest I am guessing, which I wouldnt have a problem with but many would.

so ok, they look nice, a part of 'tradition' and hence the landscape we have created and manage and we can hunt them. So 2 reasons. human reasons not ecological ones. If we left it they would either evolve to survive or not. Thats the differnce really I suppose then, all other species we 'allow' to be there because we manage the environment, deer we are more inclined to allow to be there so we can hunt them as we dont hunt everything else!

 

[Xlthlx]

Oh yes, I am aware that these landscapes are completely managed by humans, as we want them to be. They would otherwise mostly return to forest I am guessing, which I wouldnt have a problem with but many would.

so ok, they look nice, a part of 'tradition' and hence the landscape we have created and manage and we can hunt them. So 2 reasons. human reasons not ecological ones. If we left it they would either evolve to survive or not. Thats the differnce really I suppose then, all other species we 'allow' to be there because we manage the environment, deer we are more inclined to allow to be there so we can hunt them as we dont hunt everything else!

It's not necessarily true that land would just revert to forest. A lot of our land area is uplands and they have been undergoing a natural progression from forest to peat bog. This progression has been accelerated by man's interference. However if we stopped managing our uplands it is unlikely that they would revert to some kind of primordial virgin forest. One consequence might well be a massive loss of carbon both into our water supply and the atmosphere. Peat bogs store far more carbon than woodland.

 

[Xlthlx]

fill me in if I am missing something

Yes you are missing something. If we stopped managing Red Deer completely then they would survive indeed they would become far more numerous however that would have a massive impact on the rest of the ecology and on our ability to grow food and wood because they would multiply to the point where they started exhausting their food supply. Moreover they would suffer much higher levels of disease and other welfare problems.

Red Deer herds would naturally have been managed - by wolves. Wolves took out weaker animals and also dispersed them. Wolves and deer existed in balance.

If we stop managing Red Deer populations completely then in the absence of their natural predators they would manage themselves. This would entail numbers escalating until the ecology can no longer support them causing large scale damage and loss of bio diversity and then crashing as diseases break out and large numbers of animals start to starve to death.

 

[ester]

thanks xlthlx

I was guessing on the forest front, I wasnt sure given the height of the moor whether that was enough to limit growth.

I assume that you mean re the food (I get the wood bit ) that the deer would become more numerous and hence spread out over a wider area which would include food growing regions? As the only 'food' on exmoor are the sheep and hill farmed sheep is not the best (economically) way of raising food so that I would guess we could probably do without them but atm they also assist in keeping the moor as it is.

I often just wonder if we are preserving biodiversity for biodiversities sake, or through some guilt. Even before we arrived to the level at which we now exist many many species have been lost, it changed over time, time and time again it would continue to do so if we let it, we just choose not to. Everything does exist in balance, the wolves have been removed, nature would fine a new balance if we let it, it might not be ideal for us but it would. I dont really have an issue with welfare problems/starvation in wild animals that is how it works, naturally.

 

[Faithkat]

Yes you are missing something. If we stopped managing Red Deer completely then they would survive indeed they would become far more numerous however that would have a massive impact on the rest of the ecology and on our ability to grow food and wood because they would multiply to the point where they started exhausting their food supply. Moreover they would suffer much higher levels of disease and other welfare problems.

Red Deer herds would naturally have been managed - by wolves. Wolves took out weaker animals and also dispersed them. Wolves and deer existed in balance.

If we stop managing Red Deer populations completely then in the absence of their natural predators they would manage themselves. This would entail numbers escalating until the ecology can no longer support them causing large scale damage and loss of bio diversity and then crashing as diseases break out and large numbers of animals start to starve to death.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point out that deer now have no natural predator in this country. I live on the edge of the New Forest where the keepers have had to cull the deer for years. I saw a report a couple of years ago which stated that there are more deer in Britain now than there have been for more than a thousand years because they are no longer hunted for food and there are no predators. There are serious welfare issues in parts of the country as the land cannot not sustain their numbers (I saw a distressing report from Scotland during the snow) but perhaps this is nature's way of controlling the numbers. However unpalatable, their numbers must be culled - perhaps the reintroduction of wolves would be better (cool thought!)

 

[combat_claire]

thanks xlthlx

I was guessing on the forest front, I wasnt sure given the height of the moor whether that was enough to limit growth.

I assume that you mean re the food (I get the wood bit ) that the deer would become more numerous and hence spread out over a wider area which would include food growing regions? As the only 'food' on exmoor are the sheep and hill farmed sheep is not the best (economically) way of raising food so that I would guess we could probably do without them but atm they also assist in keeping the moor as it is.

I often just wonder if we are preserving biodiversity for biodiversities sake, or through some guilt. Even before we arrived to the level at which we now exist many many species have been lost, it changed over time, time and time again it would continue to do so if we let it, we just choose not to. Everything does exist in balance, the wolves have been removed, nature would fine a new balance if we let it, it might not be ideal for us but it would. I dont really have an issue with welfare problems/starvation in wild animals that is how it works, naturally.

Although there is a large area of moorland known as Exmoor in Somerset, it borders directly onto farm land where there are acres of arable and root crops. With farm incomes still struggling following years of historically low incomes, to suggest that we can afford to absorb deer damage to crops in the South West is both short sighted and completely wrong.

You then go on to say that biodiversity has changed over time and will go on to change again. That is only partly accurate. The UK rural environment is held in a state of suspension - if we were to allow things to evolve naturally as you support then our entire countryside would revert to it's climax state and become carr woodland. It doesn't take an economist to realise that this could not happen without having severe impacts - not only on our ability to feed the nation, but also huge economic impacts as far as tourism income and other rural activity is concerned.

 

[Xlthlx]

I often just wonder if we are preserving biodiversity for biodiversities sake, or through some guilt. Even before we arrived to the level at which we now exist many many species have been lost, it changed over time, time and time again it would continue to do so if we let it, we just choose not to. Everything does exist in balance, the wolves have been removed, nature would fine a new balance if we let it, it might not be ideal for us but it would. I dont really have an issue with welfare problems/starvation in wild animals that is how it works, naturally.

Species loss is currently running 1000's of times higher than even a few centuries ago. It's one of the biggest single issue affecting our survival chances on the planet. I'm not saying that deer affects all of this of course

"welfare problems/starvation in wild animals that is how it works, naturally." What makes you say that? Throughout their natural range Deer have predators and this is true for almost all herbivores. What's "natural" about deer not being hunted but being allowed to expand until the population starts starving?

If I locked an animal in a room and let it starve to death I could claim it's 'natural' for it to starve but that doesn't really absolve me of any moral culpability for the result. You could also argue that releasing the animal would be un natural human interference.

Through human action we have produced an un natural situation

 

[Xlthlx]

@Combat_Claire

being a little facaetious but if we were to stop farming, country sports and other activities which help maintain the countryside in it's current state a lot of it would not revert to Carr wooodland but would become suburban sprawl

 

[combat_claire]

Sad but true Xlthlx. As a well known folk song in these parts says 'they will only end up breaking what they do not understand'

 

[ester]

Oh yes, I am fully aware of all those implications, I'm not that far away I wasn't so much as suggesting farms could afford to absorb the damage done..... more that on a grander countrywide scale they are therefore then not the best places to have arable farms (we probably have built on most of those). Unfortunately I can't see wolves working great for the sheep

I just thought I would stick something in purely ecologically taking humans and our current needs out of the equation..... not that it is something that I necessarily 'support' as you say. But if we all (as in humans) upped and left tommorrow I suspect most of the world would carry on fine and things would balance out again.

I only started thinking of this borne out of discussions where people say deer need to be managed (in support of hunting them) or (like after WWII) there numbers will vastly reduce.... I always wondered why this was a bad thing when they cause so much 'damage' (to us) which just got me thinking....... always a dangerous activity

I do get that this is completely hypothetical and theoretical in the extreme and pretty much no relevance to the current real world situation

 

[ester]

xlthx

locking an animal in a room wouldnt be natural though.

I wonder (if we all upped and left!) how long it would be before a predator took our place for the deer. Conversely I suppose if they have no predators left does that mean they no longer have a place there.... unless we keep one for them.

(poor brain doing overtime now!)

Interesting that you say about 'human intervention' watching something recently about breeding in captivity and then releasing into the wild to try and maintain the species. Havent decided what I think about that, I do think that we have some responsibilities I am just not sure what they are.

I always feel for the insects, we have probably lost loads of those that we never knew existed and noone will feel bad about it! anyway I digress!

 

[Xlthlx]

If we upped and left deer would no doubt be hunted by feral dogs and large cats.

As to why we should conserve deer, you can ask that about any individual species but if we don't manage to conserve them we are in serious trouble.

As well as doing damage deer also can do a lot of good to woodland.

 

[Tom-Faggus]

"So no hunting no deer in a few years. Its not a Zoo! "

What absolute tosh. There is no hunting with hounds of deer in the Peak Park and they are everywhere around here and positively thriving. Most of my farming friends love them and will not give permission for them to be shot on their land because they like to see them. Deer on Exmoor will not disappear just because no-one is allowed to chase them with hounds before they shoot them.

Oakash thanks for the clarification. I take it that you are not then using the quote you gave in order to claim that the only reason red deer herds exist on Exmoor today is because they have until recently been hunted with hounds? If it only applied 100 years ago and not today, then it's a pretty a useless quote in terms of clarifying the pros and cons of deer hunting with hounds today, isn't it?

Well it might be "tosh" to you mate whatever that is, but I can clear it up for you.

At the moment they are thriving around here too. Have you any idea how much grass is around? Maybe lots in the Peak Park ! But not much on Exmoor after this winter. If I have 25 deer eating what is left there is not much for the sheep and lambs I am currently trying to put out in the current downpour. So...it follows if the hunt does not kill them I, and many others will. I cant understand why all groups both for and aginst hunting use Exmoor as an example now maybe they should use the "peak park"!

 

[oakash]

Absolutely, Tom-Faggus! I have always maintained that deer hunting on Exmoor has always been probably the easiest field sport to 'defend'.(why should we have to do that?) For anyone with an open mind, and taking a factually-based view rather than relying on an emotional reaction, then a balanced study of the facts shows the truth of 'no hunting no deer'. I would only emphasize your comment that you and many others would naturally shoot the deer when they predate on your grass. That means that there is no control over how many are killed. You shoot 10 on your land and a dozen move to my land and I shoot 10...and so on...until..no deer..oh dear! (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Xlthlx]

That's exactly it. Deer are fundamentally different to foxes in that they range far and wide and hence have to be managed as a whole population across many farms.