View Full Version : GOD BLESS THE NATIONAL TRUST!!!
they realy can be most helpfull when looking for game................
:You_Rock_Emoticon::You_Rock_Emoticon::You_Rock_Em oticon::You_Rock_Emoticon::You_Rock_Emoticon:
LOL,Now Now Mr.Fish, no mention of mouching on ere or we'll be locked down
spiritofold
17-11-2008, 15:07
:lmao::lmao::lmao:
Only you could do that :You_Rock_Emoticon:
Water boatman
17-11-2008, 15:09
I am probably going to come across as a bit dim here =;, but I don't get it :confused::biggrin: Must be the time of day!!Or my age.....:cool:
spiritofold
17-11-2008, 15:16
I bet he's got his realtree cammo stuff on and is hiding near the sign ;)
I am probably going to come across as a bit dim here =;, but I don't get it :confused::biggrin: Must be the time of day!!Or my age.....:cool:
same here :confused:
listen ...shush !!! shuuusssh !!! ....can you hear it ? it's called tumbling tumbleweed Whoooooosh :redface: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Lol... I dunno if I should say what Fish is going on about..
Let me just say Fish could enjoy venison...:wink:
spiritofold
17-11-2008, 17:47
As could the dog...
Firecrest
17-11-2008, 22:46
If somebody owns the deer and the public pay to maintain them, you don't have a right to go shoot them. And be carefeul about incriminating yourself on the net like this.
i NEVER shoot deer! as for incriminating myself it would appear i am better versed in law than you,
Firecrest
18-11-2008, 10:44
If you dont shoot the deer then don't joke about it. They are poached enough from the Trust , there isnt enough for every tom **** and harry to go get their free venison.
Cairodel
18-11-2008, 10:47
Ooooops...!!
Where's Toddy....???? :o :o :finga:
and it also put the site and Scotty et al in the position of publically endorsing illegal activitiies.
Pack the insults in please, we're easy going here but there is a line. :rolleyes:
Fish, Eds makes a valid point. As a result, I've no choice but to take the picture down. PM me if you have any issues with this.
spiritofold
18-11-2008, 15:12
If an NT deer wanders onto my land, it will end up in my freezer :)
If an NT deer wanders onto my land, it will end up in my freezer :)
:You_Rock_Emoticon::You_Rock_Emoticon::You_Rock_Em oticon::You_Rock_Emoticon::You_Rock_Emoticon::You_ Rock_Emoticon::You_Rock_Emoticon:
If an NT deer wanders onto my land, it will end up in my freezer :)
And you would be entitled to do so Andy, given that deer are wild animals and not 'owned' by the NT. This has been a strange thread, I must admit that I didnt quite get the point in the first place and am even more confused now it has been edited:confused:
Andy2112
21-11-2008, 13:16
I'm just confused but i presume it was to do with a picture now removed ? Am i right ?
spiritofold
21-11-2008, 13:26
Yeah, the picture made the post...
Very good mate!!:lmao::lmao::lmao:Ooooops...!!
Where's Toddy....???? :o :o :finga:
British Red
22-11-2008, 19:39
If you dont shoot the deer then don't joke about it. They are poached enough from the Trust , there isnt enough for every tom **** and harry to go get their free venison.
Now there is an interesting point.
I assume that such a post is made with some solid information to back it up. So please, firecrest, point us to your information on relative deer populations in England over, say, the last 30 years. Show us how they are declining and need to be protected since they are "poached enough".
Show me you know that deer populations are not expanding to the point of requiring a cull.
Or of course admit that you have not made any study at all on deer population statistics and haven't a clue how destuctive they are and why landowners need now to cull at least 50%.
Do they only need protecting becuase they are "furry and cute"? Deer are far less endangered than Cod. Or native crayfish. Or Red Squirrels that "cute" greys force out. Deer need shooting since the bleeding heart liberals prevented hunts paying for the damage they do in order to hunt them.
When they could be hunted (with hounds) they had a value - as people with money would compensate landowners for the right to hunt them. Now they cannot be hunted, I notice the anti hunting mob won't actually pay to compensate fo the damage they do. So they get shot. And are still expanding. A farm owner I know is paying to have them utterly erradicated - from a commercial standpoint it amkes sense.
They are a breeding pest and need to be culled - legally of course
Red
Firecrest
22-11-2008, 21:15
What makes you think im agaisnt a cull? deer need culling and are done so on a regular basis. how destructive they are to landowners is the land owners concern if deer are on their land. I referred specifically to national trust deer, the original picture insinuating poaching, areas of land owned by the trust not private land owners so most of your post isnt relative. As somebody else pointed it reflects badly on the site to be seen to endorse illegal activity, and the picture was removed for that reason.
We have a local national trust park near us we a small deer herd in an otherwise urban area. There is gangs of eastern europeans who take them on a regular basis and it has become a problem (though they don't phrase is like that in the news) this is mainly what I am referring to - the public pay for this, it isnt in the middle of nowhere.
As for insinuating I do not know facts and act only on "furry and cute" impulses, you can meet me at a meet and Ill shove that perception where the sun don't shine red! ;) (Im joking with that!)
no such thing as a 'national trust deer' they roam where ever they fancy,and for your info national trust land is privately owned and not public property.
its a shame that a picture that was supposed to be funny,which hundreds of people across 17 forums found it to be , had to to be taken down due to one single person.
Firecrest
22-11-2008, 21:59
its privately owned by a publically paid for charity.
its privately owned by a publically paid for charity.
yes put not publicly owned by legal definition ,ie not kept at the tax payers expense but infact supported by amongst other things public voluntary contribution.It was formed in 1895 and is a charity registered under the Charities Act 1993.
Firecrest
22-11-2008, 23:37
yes put not publicly owned by legal definition ,ie not kept at the tax payers expense but infact supported by amongst other things public voluntary contribution.It was formed in 1895 and is a charity registered under the Charities Act 1993.
Yes voluntary, but why should that make a difference? If i volunteer money Its because I want to end up where promised. Its pretty pointless you arguing semantics , poaching is illegal, you don't bring sites down by bragging about it in public a whine and quote the bible all you like but the bottom line is just that.
British Red
23-11-2008, 02:16
My point firecrest is that you said "there isn't enough deer for........" . There are loads of the things. Rarity is no reason not to take deer. Thats why I took issue with your post.
Now you have changed tack to "poaching is illegal", fine, I have no prolem with that - its nice of you to endorse landowners rights. I hope you feel the same about stealing all "wild food" including fungi and sloes - theft is theft after all.
Red
dont forget blackberries!
I have been a bit on the fence on this one.. I am a nature lover as most of you know, but I also love meat. You all have fair points there and I agree with Firecrest about everyone taking deer.. There would soon be an outburst if all the European communities started reducing the numbers considerably. I would be outbursting too..
But, deer are a pest and need to be controlled and hunting them has its own fraternity, which talk the talk etc.. I am not part of that, but I love eating the meat that these guys bring in.
I have always loved taking wildlife photos, and always will too, but I remember saying to Silverback (a hunter) I would rather shoot a fox with a camera than a gun, to which he replied, tell me that when you have shot your first fox...
We have a lot of poultry here and we need to protect them and so I need to stop them being eaten by a fox.. We allow out poultry free range too and that brings about more problems, but the poultry are happier for it, so we are too. We have come close to losing some to the fox though. Only last week I had to run out in my socks shooing a fox away from the chickens in broad daylight.. I have been out a few times to shoot a fox or two, but they still elude me.. I do often think about what Silverback said, and I think he is right, I reckon I would be proud of my first fox. I reckon I would stand there with the gun and my trophy, showing the world that I am a hunter too. Whether that would be more important than all of my current fox photos, I do not know, but at least our chooks would be a bit safer...
People should not just go and take deer by poaching them, but as pest management, I have no problem..
spiritofold
23-11-2008, 14:50
Can you eat fox?
British Red
23-11-2008, 14:57
Wholly agree with everything you say there Jon. I'm not for one moment in favour of illegal hunting but people do need to be aware of the realities of animals.
The idea that there is some scarcity of deer is laughable - populations are at historically massive levels. They cause huge crop damage, massive numbers of road accidents and indeed are in some areas becoming sickly and weak due to lack of predation.
As you know I'm more often found with a camera than one of my guns in hand but I'm not blind to the realities of animal lifestyles and the necessity to manage them.
As for endorsing illegal acts I agree we should not endorse illegality - and that covers taking anything animal OR vegetable or trespass (or stealth camping as some would have it)
Red
the french ocasionally do! oops is that racist!?
Bernie Garland
23-11-2008, 15:07
I whole heartedly agree with you Jonny,the problem we have now though is the Pc brigade.
They have know problem killing slugs,greenfly and any other pest ruining there veg on the allotment or in the garden.
No problem getting rid of rats and mice.
But when you get a bit bigger, to fox's, deer,rabbits,and Newcastle united supporters,its all ooh aint they nice,and not a case of the damage and disease they bring
But with that many people living in citys and towns, living a virtual life on there computer they think they know it all, they just aint got a clue about life outside there comfy virtual frontroom.
Bernie
Wholly agree with everything you say there Jon. I'm not for one moment in favour of illegal hunting but people do need to be aware of the realities of animals.
The idea that there is some scarcity of deer is laughable - populations are at historically massive levels. They cause huge crop damage, massive numbers of road accidents and indeed are in some areas becoming sickly and weak due to lack of predation.
As you know I'm more often found with a camera than one of my guns in hand but I'm not blind to the realities of animal lifestyles and the necessity to manage them.
As for endorsing illegal acts I agree we should not endorse illegality - and that covers taking anything animal OR vegetable or trespass (or stealth camping as some would have it)
Red
And I agree with you too mate, but as you are aware, it is a sensitive matter and not all are hunters, so maybe some care is taken in the forum which caters for all.. I suddenly realise this is the hunting and trapping part though, which may dispell my arguement..
I think we all need to realise there are all sorts of people who bushcraft and that some parts may upset some folk, which I think is fair enough..
Anyone for some venison...?
There was a film I watched based on a Farley Moway story I think it is called Never Cry Wolf, and the native Canadian tells a story of how the caribou got sick. Then there was a cure designed for the disease by God or some such entity, namely the Wolf. The wolf wandered through the herd removing the disease and the herd stayed healthy and strong. By removing all natural predators, we are allowing the possibility of ill, genetically poor animals from thriving and possibly making their species weaker as a result. Culling a species that is over populated is now our responsibilty as we have broken the circle of life. Que naff Elton John song!
Bernie Garland
23-11-2008, 15:25
Anyone for some venison...?
Got it for my dinner Jonny :biggrin:
Bernie
I whole heartedly agree with you Jonny,the problem we have now though is the Pc brigade.
They have know problem killing slugs,greenfly and any other pest ruining there veg on the allotment or in the garden.
No problem getting rid of rats and mice.
But when you get a bit bigger, to fox's, deer,rabbits,and Newcastle united supporters,its all ooh aint they nice,and not a case of the damage and disease they bring
But with that many people living in citys and towns, living a virtual life on there computer they think they know it all, they just aint got a clue about life outside there comfy virtual frontroom.
Bernie
Yes.. It is always different when you get a bigger animal. They become more real to us and in our face.. Most homes have fly spray but as soon as someone goes out with some deer spray, the whole pc gang kick off..
Saying that, I still have sympathy with those who love animals and do not want any harm to come to them, and I do think we need to cater for all in bushcraft. Afterall, some bushcrafters will be veggies..
I do hear the point this is in the hunting section, so shut the feck up Jon.. :)
Got it for my dinner Jonny :biggrin:
Bernie
good on yer bud... We have lamb...:biggrin:
There was a film I watched based on a Farley Moway story I think it is called Never Cry Wolf, and the native Canadian tells a story of how the caribou got sick. Then there was a cure designed for the disease by God or some such entity, namely the Wolf. The wolf wandered through the herd removing the disease and the herd stayed healthy and strong. By removing all natural predators, we are allowing the possibility of ill, genetically poor animals from thriving and possibly making their species weaker as a result. Culling a species that is over populated is now our responsibility as we have broken the circle of life. Que naff Elton John song!
If that is true Spam, how come red deer are doing so well..?
I hasten to add, I am not anti any of this, I can just see both sides and I think some hunters should appreciate not everyone is for them. Despite most hunters being very pro wildlife..
Crikey, I should of been an ambassador...
spiritofold
23-11-2008, 15:47
I love see'ing deer in the wild. Everytime i see them its kind of special :) Its a shame they have to be culled/hunted but there you go. Its what humans do...
As long as the animal is dispatched properly, i have no problem with hunting.
Bernie Garland
23-11-2008, 15:53
good on yer bud... We have lamb...:biggrin:
How could you Jonny :)that lovely little bouncy spring lamb:)
You are awful but i like you :biggrin::)
Bernie
fully agree with that Andy..
Bouncy lambs taste nice though Bernie...AS YOU DAMN WELL KNOW...
Mint sauce or no mint sauce is the main question though...
We recently swapped a turkey for a lamb.. We were asked if we wanted it dead or not....:o
I am going to see how to butcher a lamb soon. A friend does his own. It will be interesting me thinks... :-/
spiritofold
23-11-2008, 16:01
People are far too cushioned when it comes to getting food. Supermarkets are to blame.
Have i opened another can of worms?
British Red
23-11-2008, 16:04
Got it for my dinner :biggrin:
Bernie
Been processing yesterday and today.
In sequence
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3230/3049984219_f9792dc104_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/3050816690_2207c7f4f2_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3147/3049984205_d4b4695b06_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/3049984213_ebb4bd1a92_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3229/3053437008_96ded3866f_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3277/3053437012_9cfa8affd7_o.jpg
Couple of hours to go...........
Have i opened another can of worms?
Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, just cos I eat worm...
Long ones, thin ones, fat ones, short ones, all kinds of worms..
Bite their heads off, suck their juice out, throw their skins away..
Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, Just cos I eat worms...
Hang in there Red...
Tell you what... This house smells damn good with that lamb in the oven....
If that is true Spam, how come red deer are doing so well..?
Becuase they are being culled! The genetically poorer creatures are taken down leaving the strong, healthy virile beasts to continue the species. Culling is the only way to have these majestic creatures on this small island without the population spiralling out of control and bad genes getting set into the gene pool.
Bernie Garland
23-11-2008, 16:18
Looking good there Red,our dehydrator packed in, Maxine done some in the oven, but it never stops around long,so looking about for a new dehydrator, as can't knock it out quick enough :biggrin:
Bernie
Texan Man
23-11-2008, 16:19
On the subject of lamb have you ever done a spit roast one Bernie?
I've had it in Greece and it was superb :)
Bernie Garland
23-11-2008, 16:36
On the subject of lamb have you ever done a spit roast one Bernie?
I've had it in Greece and it was superb :)
There easy to do Steve,had a chat with Gary at middlewood about doing one at the Midland instead of a pig,you can eat them pink and quicker to cook :biggrin:
But you don't get a lot on them if there's a fair few of you :biggrin:
At Middlewood we had tea, supper, and breakfast, and still some went home with a doggy bag:)
Bernie
robin wood
23-11-2008, 17:54
Ooh I am a bit late in on this can I join in I love a heated debate (so long as it doesn't get unpleasant)
First let me state my position, pro culling, anti poaching, particularly if its done with long dogs as the original picture implied.
We have a local national trust park near us we a small deer herd in an otherwise urban area. There is gangs of eastern europeans who take them on a regular basis and it has become a problem
Since you are in Manchester I suspect that is Lyme Park? I believe though am not 100% sure that is a fenced deer park with effectively farmed not wild population. Certainly many Trust estates for instance Knowle in Kent where I worked for a while have fenced dear populations.
no such thing as a 'national trust deer' they roam where ever they fancy,and for your info national trust land is privately owned and not public property.
Not true see above, I have also worked at properties such as Hatfield Forest in Essex that were centres for large populations of wild deer.
They cause huge crop damage, massive numbers of road accidents and indeed are in some areas becoming sickly and weak due to lack of predation.
As you know I'm more often found with a camera than one of my guns in hand but I'm not blind to the realities of animal lifestyles and the necessity to manage them.
Red
OK Red you are quick to jump on other folks cases and insist on sources, can you quote your scientific evidence for "in some areas becoming sickly and weak due to lack of predation." and I want evidence of both parts of the statement please.:)
By removing all natural predators, we are allowing the possibility of ill, genetically poor animals from thriving and possibly making their species weaker as a result. Culling a species that is over populated is now our responsibilty
There are lots of creatures in this world that have no natural predators (all our birds of prey for a start, most large sharks and whales and I am sure lots of nasty poisonous beasties that nothing wants to eat, not sure if anything actualy preys on shrews for instance) Are you suggestoing that the sparrowhawk population is genetically poor because of lack of predators taking out the weak ones? Left to their own devices such creatures reach a balanced population depending on what the land will suport. I think we need to be truthful about the aims of culling namely to limit damage to farm and forestry crops, culling is expensive and no one does it for the benefit of the deer.
Becuase they are being culled! The genetically poorer creatures are taken down leaving the strong, healthy virile beasts to continue the species. Culling is the only way to have these majestic creatures on this small island without the population spiralling out of control and bad genes getting set into the gene pool.
Are we talking about deer or humans here? :) I know which is closer to the limit of the countries carrying capacity. As for bad genes I have known quite a few deer populations both managed and unmanaged and have spent a lot of time with the stalker that managed the population for us at Hatfield. Of course he would take out a clearly ill animal given the chance and choice but that was a rarity. Generally he was very happy just to get a clean shot within range and would take whatever he got the chance of. I would be very surprised if anyone could find me evidence to show a managed population was healthier than an unmanged one and there are plenty of both. to study.
So if I believe the deer don't need culling for the health of the population why do I suport culling? Well I see them as no different to sheep, I eat meat so long as I know where it has come from, and am happier to eat a wild deer that has rooamed free then been culled with a clean shot than most intensivley farmed meat. I can also sympathise with the farmers and foresters whos crops they damage and Red is corect populations are at an all time high and a typical population of say 30-250 deer can trash coppice regrowth or field crops over a big area in one night.
I'd say that the crap birds of prey will die because they are crap at hunting or don't figure out the flying thing because of a defective wing. There will be other reasons for them to die too, natural selection taking place as it should. Only the strong will survive and therefore the species will be better off for it.
In the case of deer, if there was one that was a bit crap at running due to a gammy leg, not caused by injury but due to a birth defect, it could survive so long as it could get about. If it could be passed on genetically, then this could become a problem later on for the species. Culling these weaker animals keeps the herd healthy.
So in short, natural selection sorts out the apex predators as well as the ones in the food chain, but when the apex predator is removed then things become easier for the food chain and they don't lose the weak members. They have to be culled by man because we killed the apex predator in the first place. Does that make sense?!
Firecrest
23-11-2008, 19:44
My point firecrest is that you said "there isn't enough deer for........" . There are loads of the things. Rarity is no reason not to take deer. Thats why I took issue with your post.
Now you have changed tack to "poaching is illegal", fine, I have no prolem with that - its nice of you to endorse landowners rights. I hope you feel the same about stealing all "wild food" including fungi and sloes - theft is theft after all.
Red
You took issue with the part of my post you wanted to take issue with because you perceived me of being of a certain mindset. i wont be lured into sidetracking onto other issues thank you. start another thread if you like.
Firecrest
23-11-2008, 19:49
I'd say that the crap birds of prey will die because they are crap at hunting or don't figure out the flying thing because of a defective wing. There will be other reasons for them to die too, natural selection taking place as it should. Only the strong will survive and therefore the species will be better off for it.
In the case of deer, if there was one that was a bit crap at running due to a gammy leg, not caused by injury but due to a birth defect, it could survive so long as it could get about. If it could be passed on genetically, then this could become a problem later on for the species. Culling these weaker animals keeps the herd healthy.
So in short, natural selection sorts out the apex predators as well as the ones in the food chain, but when the apex predator is removed then things become easier for the food chain and they don't lose the weak members. They have to be culled by man because we killed the apex predator in the first place. Does that make sense?!
Its true about the birds I think but cannot deer be seen in the same light? They have a rut and only the healthiest males win the right to mate.
Im not anti-cull because deer are over populated in some areas, but over population does not nessisarily imply ill health and weak gene pools. Is there scientific evidence for this? if not it cannot really be used as a justifiable arguement if it isnt true. (obviously if it is then it can be)
Firecrest
23-11-2008, 19:53
There easy to do Steve,had a chat with Gary at middlewood about doing one at the Midland instead of a pig,you can eat them pink and quicker to cook :biggrin:
But you don't get a lot on them if there's a fair few of you :biggrin:
At Middlewood we had tea, supper, and breakfast, and still some went home with a doggy bag:)
Bernie
My chihuahua sat by that pigs trotter for 3 sodding days! I think she was relieved to have it taken off her in the end. guarding it was dominating her day. I tried to take the pigs head home for her but it smelt a bit funny.
I hereby apologise to British red for side tracking when I said I wouldnt :rolleyes:
and if the tree huggers saw the hell animals go through on farms and at slaughter theyed see that hunting is far far more humane to the animal.
oh and the vegetarians looking down their noses at hunting need to remember that the veg they eat was grown on land that once was covered in forests and the cute cudly animals lived in now cleared for intensive carrot rearing!
i get slammed for hunting as it may offend the sensibilities of non hunters,but what about my rights not to be offended by winging vegies and anti hunt lot?
I don't go in for scientific evidence searching when I can be eating some of my home made chocolate covered flap jack containing brandy soaked raisins, sunflower seeds and citrus fruit rind and a kuksa full of sloe vodka. I leave debunking info through Google to the likes of Turdpool!
Firecrest
23-11-2008, 20:07
I don't go in for scientific evidence searching when I can be eating some of my home made chocolate covered flap jack containing brandy soaked raisins, sunflower seeds and citrus fruit rind and a kuksa full of sloe vodka. I leave debunking info through Google to the likes of Turdpool!
Point taken. Flapjack with alcohol trumps all.
...can I have some? :)
spiritofold
23-11-2008, 20:08
I don't go in for scientific evidence searching when I can be eating some of my home made chocolate covered flap jack containing brandy soaked raisins, sunflower seeds and citrus fruit rind and a kuksa full of sloe vodka. I leave debunking info through Google to the likes of Turdpool!
:lmao::lmao::lmao:
I'd forgotten about him...
Bernie Garland
23-11-2008, 20:15
:lmao::lmao::lmao:
I'd forgotten about him...
I have to, will have to check out his journal again, but only do it when i'm down, and need a good laugh,and then realise how lucky i am,:biggrin:
Bernie
spiritofold
23-11-2008, 21:34
I cant remember the url? Wonder how his life is panning out?
Point taken. Flapjack with alcohol trumps all.
...can I have some? :)
now even we have a common like!:You_Rock_Emoticon:
British Red
23-11-2008, 22:05
My evidence Robin is my own eyes rather than a research paper. Last winter we had a lame buck that was dragging a leg, a doe that had I don't know what wrong with it but could barely stand and stagger and an old doe that I think was blind or going blind. All of these would have been quickly finished off by a predator. Thankfully in each case people were able to step in an end suffering, but we see far larger numbers now than before. Its not a surprise I guess now that deer numbers are up to over 2,000,000. However that does bring a greater need for culling - or an acceptance that weak and sickly animals die a lingering death. The farm I live in does selectively cull but given the nature of the land more deer often move in from other, less managed areas.
As numbers rise, there must surely be more weak and sick animals as we move into winter. Lack of controlled management condemns these to a lingering death that I would not wish on them.
Red
just to clarify a point as it was me that suggested best removing the photo - I eat meat, have kill for meat and have no objection to hunting for food - I've shot smaller stuff but I am too poorer shot to go for anything larger.
I though the photo was quiet funny (nice dog by the way) my only concern was how it COULD refelct on the site. Any UK site that openly has a hunting section gets snoopers - both the offical ones and those with an adgenda.
I shall rustle up some flap jack for the next meet then! The top is dark chocolate, bourneville to be precise. I trust that is to your satisfaction?
:biggrin:
piracy is illegal ,could it reflect badly if iposted a pic of the awsome captn jack sparra?
robin wood
23-11-2008, 23:26
I hope you guys won't take offense at me carrying on with this, no aggravation intended but I think why cull deer is an interesting question.
I'd say that the crap birds of prey will die because they are crap at hunting or don't figure out the flying thing because of a defective wing. There will be other reasons for them to die too, natural selection taking place as it should. Only the strong will survive and therefore the species will be better off for it.
In the case of deer, if there was one that was a bit crap at running due to a gammy leg, not caused by injury but due to a birth defect, it could survive so long as it could get about. If it could be passed on genetically, then this could become a problem later on for the species. Culling these weaker animals keeps the herd healthy.
So in short, natural selection sorts out the apex predators as well as the ones in the food chain, but when the apex predator is removed then things become easier for the food chain and they don't lose the weak members. They have to be culled by man because we killed the apex predator in the first place. Does that make sense?!
That makes sense in the genetic timescale but I am really dubious about the short to medieum term effect on the gene pool of a herd of deer of no predation vs wolf predation vs rifle culling. I agree the theory would say that given hundreds of thousands of years there could be a noticeable effect but I would be very surprised to see noticeably different numbers of birth defects in managed vs unmanaged herds.
My evidence Robin is my own eyes rather than a research paper. Last winter we had a lame buck that was dragging a leg, a doe that had I don't know what wrong with it but could barely stand and stagger and an old doe that I think was blind or going blind. All of these would have been quickly finished off by a predator. Thankfully in each case people were able to step in an end suffering, but we see far larger numbers now than before. Its not a surprise I guess now that deer numbers are up to over 2,000,000. However that does bring a greater need for culling - or an acceptance that weak and sickly animals die a lingering death. The farm I live in does selectively cull but given the nature of the land more deer often move in from other, less managed areas.
As numbers rise, there must surely be more weak and sick animals as we move into winter. Lack of controlled management condemns these to a lingering death that I would not wish on them.
Red
Red and I enjoy a debate, hope no one takes offence.
So I think that was the answer to me questioning this assertion "in some areas becoming sickly and weak due to lack of predation"
In your area you see ailing animals, are you saying they become weak due to lack of predation because of genetic defects? Or are you actualy saying that there is a higher proportion of sick animals because they don't get finished off as quickly as they would with a predator around? And yours is a managed area, would you expect the proportion of sick animals in an unanaged area to be higher?
"we see far larger numbers now than before", before what? before the number of deer increased? Do you think you are seeing a higher proportion of sick or injured animals or just more of them because there are more deer?
It seems to me your argument boils down to it being more humane to shoot sick and injured animals than to let them die a lingering death. I don't think anyone would disagree. The question is not should we kill the odd sick ones but should we cull a proportion of the healthy animals in order to control the overall population size.
As I said before I suport culling but I think we should be clear that 95% of the animals killed are perfectly healthy members of the population selected at random to keep the numbers down so farmers can make a living from growing crops and foresters can grow trees.
robin wood
23-11-2008, 23:29
piracy is illegal ,could it reflect badly if iposted a pic of the awsome captn jack sparra?
No but if you posted pics of the oil tanker currently being held by pirates with a title clearly supporting their actions yes it would.
piracy is illegal ,could it reflect badly if iposted a pic of the awsome captn jack sparra?
No it would just make you look like a gay groupie :biggrin:
British Red
24-11-2008, 05:58
I
Red and I enjoy a debate, hope no one takes offence.
So I think that was the answer to me questioning this assertion "in some areas becoming sickly and weak due to lack of predation"
In your area you see ailing animals, are you saying they become weak due to lack of predation because of genetic defects? Or are you actualy saying that there is a higher proportion of sick animals because they don't get finished off as quickly as they would with a predator around? And yours is a managed area, would you expect the proportion of sick animals in an unanaged area to be higher?
"we see far larger numbers now than before", before what? before the number of deer increased? Do you think you are seeing a higher proportion of sick or injured animals or just more of them because there are more deer?
It seems to me your argument boils down to it being more humane to shoot sick and injured animals than to let them die a lingering death. I don't think anyone would disagree. The question is not should we kill the odd sick ones but should we cull a proportion of the healthy animals in order to control the overall population size.
As I said before I suport culling but I think we should be clear that 95% of the animals killed are perfectly healthy members of the population selected at random to keep the numbers down so farmers can make a living from growing crops and foresters can grow trees.
Robin - we see much larger numbers of weak and sick deer than before the numbers rose so rapidly. Round here there has always been some hunting for meat and that took care of a certain number of the older animals. However its not keeping pace now with the numbers (those who hunt for meat don't require the amount of venison available)
I have no evidence for genetic defects although I guess that is a risk if the situation continues - I think its simply that there is nothing out there to kill off the old and sick.
In truth - as the government is beginning to recognise - more stalkers are required and yes a cull is needed to reduce the population to manageable and sustainable numbers.
Red
Ive been mooching through this thread :rolleyes: and heres my take, if anyone here has a dog and lets it off its lead on a public foot path on farmland is breaking the law of the land, some farmers may not mind and have fields with footpaths but thats a local aggreement, if a dog is pictured off its lead on Nat Trust land on here its down to the Poster, we cant be responsible for every ones actions can we now. :cop:.
Also Pictures can be doctord and taken before bans were in place too :rolleyes::cop: so all on the net may not be as it is first seen ( get out of jail free card number 1)
i didnt see the pic so cant comment on it. But the power of suggestion does work in many ways and a picture is percieved in different was by different people.
Also an interesting debate, the procurement of meat via mooching means is a touchy subject in some circles, lets say someone went out lets call him "Pat Roach" and his dog slipped off his collar spied a deer chased it and brought it down and by the time Pat got there it had drawn its last breath, would it be ok to take that deer, not in the eyes of the law but in the eyes of a stomach and family? then again if Pat went out with his dog purpously to nab a deer in the dead of night and under the veil of darkness did just that, just by him self for him self, one for the pot as it were would that be morally ok? Ok not strictly legal but may be morally to Pat it was ok as he needed the meat, but again moral to Pat may not be moral to another.
There is book upon book on the exploits of the old poachers, some read them and think them interesting tails of the old timers filling their bellys some may read it and think they are terrible criminals, as I said everyone has their take on life and how they choose to lead it, ill not take one side or the other on here but lets keep it friendly and accept that every one has their own opinions, and opinons posted here are are sometimes not the opinions of the site, but its not illegal to voice your opinion but please be carefull what you post and how you post it :cop:. Use your loaf as me ol dad says eh.
And yes Spiritofold you can eat Fox but I was only talking To Dave Silverback about it this weekend, but apparently it needs flushing under running water for a while or soaking in salted water to rid it of the musky fox pong, not tried it yet.
Lastly this site does not condone ANY ILLEGAL activities what so ever, all posts are made by the posters and are the posters own thoughts ,ideas, and views :cop: and we do reserve the right to moderate, publicly humiliate, whip, poke, sneer at, laugh at, ridicule, and make fun of any one we choose to \\:D/ Play nicely please or ill unleash me growler :taz: xxx :wink:
Cairodel
24-11-2008, 07:58
There is book upon book on the exploits of the old poachers, some read them and think them interesting tails of the old timers filling their bellys some may read it and think they are terrible criminals
Well I think they should all be sent orf to Orstralia.... plenty o'
rabbits there, I hear..... :o :o :o
:rolleyes: :finga:
Ive never understood how that was a bad thing you know, Hot, loads of snakes and creepy crawlies, good fishing etc bleedin heaven if you ask me ;)
getting a dog drunk is illegal! but if the bugger nicks the beer?
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m92/fishfish_01/pets/DSC01885.jpg
:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
spiritofold
24-11-2008, 10:10
:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::You_Rock_Emoticon:
Firecrest
24-11-2008, 14:00
now even we have a common like!:You_Rock_Emoticon:
flapjacks break down all barriers :partyman:
Firecrest
24-11-2008, 14:01
"I have no evidence for genetic defects although I guess that is a risk if the situation continues - I think its simply that there is nothing out there to kill off the old and sick"
can you provide evidence that shows that sick deer are able to breed?
In evolution its nearly always the opposite that is true - a small , undiverse population is what causes genetic weakness. This is what we see in Cheetahs that were reduced to only a handful about 10,000 years ago, and is seen today in Tazmanian Devils among other things. Infact I can think of no species to the contrary where a large population causes genetic issues. This is to assume natural selection relies only on the symbiotic relationship of the deers to their preditors, but the physique of the deer - its antlers and rutting behaviour says otherwise. These ritualistic mating seasons evolve specifically to ensure the strongest pass on their genes, and suggests that predation plays only a small part in gene selection. now Im not saying culling makes deer weaker like cheetahs, Im simply saying there is no evidence to sugest that culling somehow aids the gene pool of the deer when they have their own ways of keeping poor genes from being passed on. Also, don't many deer stalkers want the trophy deer? The big big male with the big antlers? There is parts of Africa where elephants now only grow small tusks because we literally irradicated the genes for big tusk by killing them.
Silverback
24-11-2008, 14:56
Allow me to add the perspective of a qualified stalker if I may. Fact: Adult Deer in the UK have no natural predator. Man removed the predators and in doing so interfered with the natural order, so it seems only right that man now takes responsibility for his own actions. The effective management of deer ends with the shouldering and discharge of the rifle however there is anything far from random about the selection and number of beasts that make up the cull or cull plan as it is actively referred to. A count must first be made by the stalker or estate to establish the approximate size of the population, this includes both male, female and young and can be extremely time consuming but is essential if you intend to do the job properly. The cull plan will then be formulated which will include a certain amount of old, young and normal adult specimens, all taken within their relative season (again designed to accomodate the breeding cycle of the species). As soon as the cull plan has been met the stalking stops whether it be three weeks into the season or right at the end. The key word here is 'management'. The removal of poor specimens does form part of the cull and is designed to weed out potential weakness in the gene pool but the key to successful management is the balance within the population as a whole. Stalking is big business and is definately on the up so effective deer management is more important now than it has ever been. Estate owners can now manage their herds more effectively than ever with people literally lining up to execute their cull plan for them and paying for the privilige. Behind all this are the excellent game keepers and ghillies who do all the aforementioned ground work and ensure that the cull beasts are meticulously selected so no one loses out be it the Estate owner, the stalker or most importantly the deer!
Firecrest
24-11-2008, 16:35
That's pretty interesting silverback. Im glad to know its so well thought out.
British Red
24-11-2008, 17:39
"I have no evidence for genetic defects although I guess that is a risk if the situation continues - I think its simply that there is nothing out there to kill off the old and sick"
can you provide evidence that shows that sick deer are able to breed?
In evolution its nearly always the opposite that is true - a small , undiverse population is what causes genetic weakness. This is what we see in Cheetahs that were reduced to only a handful about 10,000 years ago, and is seen today in Tazmanian Devils among other things. Infact I can think of no species to the contrary where a large population causes genetic issues. This is to assume natural selection relies only on the symbiotic relationship of the deers to their preditors, but the physique of the deer - its antlers and rutting behaviour says otherwise. These ritualistic mating seasons evolve specifically to ensure the strongest pass on their genes, and suggests that predation plays only a small part in gene selection. now Im not saying culling makes deer weaker like cheetahs, Im simply saying there is no evidence to sugest that culling somehow aids the gene pool of the deer when they have their own ways of keeping poor genes from being passed on. Also, don't many deer stalkers want the trophy deer? The big big male with the big antlers? There is parts of Africa where elephants now only grow small tusks because we literally irradicated the genes for big tusk by killing them.
My point firecrest isn't to do with genetic defects - indeed it was Robin that mentioned them. In my post I said I have no evidence of genetic defects - it would take a far better scientist than I am to establish such a pattern. I guess a lack of elimination of weakened animals must statistically raise a risk of perpetating inferior genes as a direct and opposite corollary to "survival of the fittest" but that is entirely sumise on my part.
My point is that lack of predation (caused by man wiping out the apex predators) coupled with a rising population is leading to more sick and weak deer dying slowly from all manner of weakness, disease and injury- the very deer that would fall prey to natual predators first which would end their suffering in a very real sense. We ahve a responsibility to manage population levels as Silverback says. But we have failed in that responsiility in the case of many species. Indeed deer populations are now believed to be at their highest point for 1,000 years and are estimated at exceeding 2,000,000 in number.
It would be great if more deer were properly managed as they are, for example, on estates as Silveback describes. Sadly around here many inhabit unfenced or marginally fenced land which is not managed as deer estates. Some is arable, some managed coppice and some pheasant and partridge shoots. Many of these haven't the time or indeed the expertise to manage the deer population as professionally and sympathetically as the qualifed estate managers do. This is very much the reason why a nationally co-ordinated cull is under discussion - so that it is not reliant on individual landowners to arrange
Red
spiritofold
24-11-2008, 18:39
Im no expert, but i've seen deer doing this:
The buck has all his females, and protects them from the advances of lesser males.
I saw a buck chase away another male, and he was really going for this other one. Whilst this was happening, a different male came along and started mating and had two of the females before the buck came over and then chased him off.
Is this a common thing with deer, males always trying it on? Just wonder what this does for the genepool etc?
Andy
Bernie Garland
24-11-2008, 18:48
Im no expert, but i've seen deer doing this:
The buck has all his females, and protects them from the advances of lesser males.
I saw a buck chase away another male, and he was really going for this other one. Whilst this was happening, a different male came along and started mating and had two of the females before the buck came over and then chased him off.
Is this a common thing with deer, males always trying it on? Just wonder what this does for the genepool etc?
Andy
Sounds a bit like some of my ex mates, and my ex marriage :lmao::lmao::lmao:
Only joking
Bernie
spiritofold
24-11-2008, 18:56
Yeah, i spose the behaviour does mimic humans :)
Firecrest
24-11-2008, 18:56
Im no expert, but i've seen deer doing this:
The buck has all his females, and protects them from the advances of lesser males.
I saw a buck chase away another male, and he was really going for this other one. Whilst this was happening, a different male came along and started mating and had two of the females before the buck came over and then chased him off.
Is this a common thing with deer, males always trying it on? Just wonder what this does for the genepool etc?
Andy
Female deer do actually have a say in who mates with them, and are making genetic calculations. They can even sneak off and mate then come back, but they make a choice. I don't know if this is always, if a female can technically be `raped` but an instance when they do this is if they see a young male who may be stronger than their stag but too young to challenge him. The female cannout count on living long enough to see a young buck mature and so she may take her chance with the young buck when the big cheese isnt looking.
And they arent the only ones. A study done in the 1950`s suggest that a woman with three children or more was very likely to have one that was illigetimate! I cannot see how they got their results but its very likely( I know the inner workins of a female mind. ha!) Female genetic strategy has rarely been studied, assuming females in many mammilian species take a passive role , but this is not the case. It makes much more sense for a woman to diversify her genetic legacy by having two children with her husband and a third by another father. We see this replicated in the apes, monkeys and also deer and seals.
Bernie Garland
24-11-2008, 19:00
Female deer do actually have a say in who mates with them, and are making genetic calculations. They can even sneak off and mate then come back, but they make a choice. I don't know if this is always, if a female can technically be `raped` but an instance when they do this is if they see a young male who may be stronger than their stag but too young to challenge him. The female cannout count on living long enough to see a young buck mature and so she may take her chance with the young buck when the big cheese isnt looking.
And they arent the only ones. A study done in the 1950`s suggest that a woman with three children or more was very likely to have one that was illigetimate! I cannot see how they got their results but its very likely( I know the inner workins of a female mind. ha!) Female genetic strategy has rarely been studied, assuming females in many mammilian species take a passive role , but this is not the case. It makes much more sense for a woman to diversify her genetic legacy by having two children with her husband and a third by another father. We see this replicated in the apes, monkeys and also deer and seals.
Thanks for that Lindsey, that perhaps explains why i look nothing like my older brothers and sisters :biggrin::)
Bernie
Firecrest
24-11-2008, 19:14
`tis usually the youngest as well lol!
Bernie Garland
24-11-2008, 19:19
`tis usually the youngest as well lol!
That must be it then :lmao::lmao:Wondered why i was the only 6foot one
Bernie
A study done in the 1950`s suggest that a woman with three children or more was very likely to have one that was illigetimate! I cannot see how they got their results but its very likely( I know the inner workins of a female mind. ha!)
Sounds like a very interesting study Firecrest, do you have a link, or author(s) names etc so I can have a read? :)
Firecrest
25-11-2008, 12:13
Ive looked for it but can't find it, I read it in a book so I dont know if its available online. Ill have to see if I can remember which book now because I read loads!
I'd just like to say what a damn good read this thread has been, it's certainly opened my eyes about a lot of things related to deer management. The thread started out looking fairly dodgy and had the potential to get quite heated but everybody has put their points across exceedingly well.
Cheers
Silverback
25-11-2008, 13:20
I'll second that - there has been differences of opinion but as Jim said it has been handled in an adult fashion and as a result some very valuable discussion has taken place - big up the BCL posse aye :supz:
We shall have no "biggingup" here or ill close the thread you damnd rotters ;) lol
robin wood
25-11-2008, 18:51
I'd just like to say what a damn good read this thread has been, it's certainly opened my eyes about a lot of things related to deer management. The thread started out looking fairly dodgy and had the potential to get quite heated but everybody has put their points across exceedingly well.
Cheers
I'll third that. I like to think I can be friends with folk I have differences of opinion with, life would be pretty boring if I only hung out with folk who had the same opinions on everything as me. I have even been known on very rare occasions to admit I have been wrong or change my opinion.:lmao:
Cairodel
25-11-2008, 19:23
I have even been known on very rare occasions to admit I have been wrong or change my opinion.:lmao:
Bet you haven't.....:rolleyes:
:o
:finga:
robin wood
25-11-2008, 19:38
Bet you haven't.....:rolleyes:
:o
:finga:
:lmao:
Well maybe not (not in public anyway) I am a man after all, we are always right aren't we?:)
I've enjoyed this thread. On other places it would have had Mods all over it like a tramp on dropped chips. Here, it has been allowed to go on and we have proven that we can be grown up and behave ourselves. I notice religion wasn't mentioned though, that could have gone from bad to worse, especially when i start bandying extreme ideas from the church of Jedi! :rolleyes:
:finga:
Bernie Garland
25-11-2008, 21:11
Also fair play to Firecrest, Lindsey for holding her own and taking a bit of ribbing, but still holding her own,:)
Bernie
Firecrest
25-11-2008, 21:12
Yes I agree, Ive enjoyed this thread too.
http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/compromise.jpg
*runs and hides*
Bernie Garland
25-11-2008, 21:15
Yes I agree, Ive enjoyed this thread too.
http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/compromise.jpg
*runs and hides*
Lindsey, you know the secret handshake is for bog members only :biggrin:
Dont let every one know :biggrin:
Bernie
spiritofold
25-11-2008, 21:25
Thats a dodgy looking hand. Never trust a man who wears pink or a suit!!! :biggrin:
Or a pink suit :lmao:
Been good reading this thread. Good that its not been jumped on!
Bernie Garland
25-11-2008, 21:32
I was going to lock this thread, but i thought you were all adult,and let it continue :biggrin:
Bernie
and for tea tonight is.................
Cairodel
25-11-2008, 21:43
Let's remember that the original post was meant as a joke...:confused: :confused:
But it all came out in the wash, eh...???:icon_tong
yeh didnt it! still only takes one to turn a post into an argument!
Lets just be grateful it didn't have to escalate that far eh, which is a credit to you all. ;)
Shut up Scotty or ill BAN YOU!!!!!!!! ........ oh ..... sorry ....... had a surge of power go to my head............. phew gone now its ok folks im all right..........nothing to see, move along now......... lol ;)
yeh didnt it! still only takes one to turn a post into an argument!
NO IT DOESN'T!!!!!!! :mad:
:finga:
Careful, if it even looks like it could get a bit heated, you'll have someones growler in your face and you'll get smacked down to china town to play ping pong with ting tong!
hunter180
26-11-2008, 19:00
There was a film I watched based on a Farley Moway story I think it is called Never Cry Wolf, and the native Canadian tells a story of how the caribou got sick. Then there was a cure designed for the disease by God or some such entity, namely the Wolf. The wolf wandered through the herd removing the disease and the herd stayed healthy and strong. By removing all natural predators, we are allowing the possibility of ill, genetically poor animals from thriving and possibly making their species weaker as a result. Culling a species that is over populated is now our responsibilty as we have broken the circle of life. Que naff Elton John song!
Nail and head come to mind here, well said spamel, i was reading through this with interest as both a conservationist (Qualified and over 15 years experience) and both as a hunter, I am also a long standing supporter of common sense, plain English and old fashioned values.........although I have been known to don the mask of anti-disestablishmentarianism :o when the new world order takes it's place, we can all settle down to our backwater lifes and beliefs once again content in the knowledge that fiscal stimulus and economic downturns are not important anymore, :banana:
I'le take whatever is going thank you very much.............
What a good thread this is. The sites I have been posting on recently would have turned into a duel at dawn so it has been nice to see people post and argue with manners. Well done people you should be proud \\:D/
Tomorrow morning I will be ferreting with the team and will probably 'cull' 30-50 rabbits. We have full respect for our quarry, will despatch them quickly and all will be either on our tables in a week or so and the rest off to the game dealer at £2 a body in the fur and paunched.
Used to take deer with some friends and bullx's where it was safe to do so and technically, it was poaching but the landowners were aware and needed to lose them one way or another.
Spirtofold, yes you can eat Reynard but even after 48 hours marinating it still tastes like ****e.
No one owns the deer population despite what LACS do:rolleyes:
LB
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.