Deer should be killed every year? (1 Viewer)

[dantheman]

I think animal welfare issues and conservation issues can be very different things. For example the RSPCA and the RSPB are not the same thing ...

 

[Farnboro John]

BTW:Rabbits have long been associated with bad luck on Portland; use of the name is still taboo—the creatures are often referred to as "Underground Mutton", "Long-Eared Furry Things" or just "bunnies".[73] The origin of this superstition is obscure (there is no record of it before the 1920s) but it is believed to derive from quarry workers; they would see rabbits emerging from their burrows immediately before a rock fall and blame them for increasing the risk of dangerous, sometimes deadly, landslides.[74] If a rabbit was seen in a quarry, the workers would pack up and go home for the day, until the safety of the area had been assured.[73] Local fishermen too would refuse to go to sea if the word was mentioned.

Even today older Portland residents are 'offended' (sometimes for the benefit of tourists) at the mention of rabbits;[74] this superstition came to national attention in October 2005 when a special batch of advertisement posters were made for the Wallace and Gromit film, The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. In respect of local beliefs the adverts omitted the word 'rabbit' and replaced the film's title with the phrase "Something bunny is going on".[73]


Now as I originally heard it, the superstition arose from quarrymen using too much dynamite because the rabbit tunnels caused them to misjudge the amount, and blowing themselves up as a result. Maybe this bit has been forgotten... but the revenge of the were-rabbit was real!

John

 

[chris butterworth]

Not forgetting the truly evil "Hollow Chocolate Bunnies of the Apocalypse" by Robert Rankin. It's a wonder we can sleep safely in our beds at night. 8-P

Chris

 

[Farnboro John]

For example the RSPCA and the RSPB are not the same thing ...

Thats right Dan! Just like meerkat and market.

John

 

[dantheman]

Thats right Dan! Just like meerkat and market.

Very different. Ironically one of them kills more dogs per year than the other ... and not the one you'd think.


(And the urge to kill a meerkat grows stronger with the passing months )

 

[Farnboro John]

Very different. Ironically one of them kills more dogs per year than the other ... and not the one you'd think.


(And the urge to kill a meerkat grows stronger with the passing months )

I didn't know Meerkats killed dogs at all. :eek!:

John

 

[John Cantelo]

Me insulting and arrogant in what I say-Noooooooooooooooooooo!!!

By suggesting that you've 'evolved' (in the sense of being a higher life form) and implying that those who disagree with you have not done
so has implications of which you seem unaware. To suggest being a vegetarian is somehow 'more evolved' than being a carnivore (or omnivore for that matter) is nonsense. One could equally well argue that having a rational and practical approach to problems arising from our man made distortion of the natural world shows greater level of 'evolution'. The point is that using 'evolved' in this context (and 'rights' for that matter) is to misapply the term.

Culling deer to control their numbers because they have no predator but humans in the UK has nothing at all to do with being a vegetarian (although wasting all that protein would be silly).

 

[birdboybowley]

(And the urge to kill a meerkat grows stronger with the passing months )

Mine too.....my brother has two and they are vicious little b'stards!! He denies it and maintains they are lovely but I keep threatening him to a scene like the one in Class of 1984......

 

[Paul Mills]

Release the deer drones, calculating optimum deer-to-tree ratio with high frequency surveillance devices, selecting fittest animals via invisible blood screening, and eliminating surplus with ballistic missiles

 

[Farnboro John]

Release the deer drones, calculating optimum deer-to-tree ratio with high frequency surveillance devices, selecting fittest animals via invisible blood screening, and eliminating surplus with ballistic missiles

With infra-red Sikas?

John

 

[dantheman]

With infra-red Sikas?

Scut missiles?

 

[Paul Mills]

V2 brockets!

 

[jurek]

I am afraid this can easily become an arbitrary subsidy to forestry business and hunting, without clear benefits to conservation.

So, questions: will sale of venison pay for the deer cull? In Europe it normally doesn't, and hinds and fawns must be culled, not top stags.

How big must be the deer cull to make a difference, and how often repeated?

Who and how determined the desired state of forests (not just give some arbitrary number of deer to be killed)?

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

So, questions: will sale of venison pay for the deer cull? In Europe it normally doesn't, and hinds and fawns must be culled, not top stags.

No. Hunters will pay for the opportunity to hunt, just as they do now. The venison aspect is a red herring - there is no way that you could create a market-supply system linked to conservation, as both have competing agendas. Hunters and markets want lots of deer and a regular supply. Conservationists want much reduced deer populations.

Even now, when deer-shooting syndicates are invited to cull deer for conservation, they eventually reduce the population to a level where it's not interesting/worthwhile/enjoyable for them after a few years. So voluntary effort declines, and deer numbers can build up again.

And then you have the problem of food safety/quality guarantees.

How big must be the deer cull to make a difference, and how often repeated?

Very large, and ongoing - the guesstimate is 750,000 animals per year to keep the population stable, so that means closer to 1 million for a reduction. It is not going to happen on that scale.

Who and how determined the desired state of forests (not just give some arbitrary number of deer to be killed)?

Exactly. What is totally missing is evidence of what the optimum number of deer actually is, and quantification of what damage a given density of a given species creates in a given environment. So far, it is all assumptions.

 

[MJB]

No. Hunters will pay for the opportunity to hunt, just as they do now. The venison aspect is a red herring - there is no way that you could create a market-supply system linked to conservation, as both have competing agendas. Hunters and markets want lots of deer and a regular supply. Conservationists want much reduced deer populations. Even now, when deer-shooting syndicates are invited to cull deer for conservation, they eventually reduce the population to a level where it's not interesting/worthwhile/enjoyable for them after a few years. So voluntary effort declines, and deer numbers can build up again. And then you have the problem of food safety/quality guarantees. Very large, and ongoing - the guesstimate is 750,000 animals per year to keep the population stable, so that means closer to 1 million for a reduction. It is not going to happen on that scale. Exactly. What is totally missing is evidence of what the optimum number of deer actually is, and quantification of what damage a given density of a given species creates in a given environment. So far, it is all assumptions.

Further to Alf's pertinent post, there's also the question of weather factors limiting the numbers culled:

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/angus/deer-cull-in-angus-glens-fails-to-meet-target-1.77019
MJB