400,000 Deer Could Be Slaughtered for the Sake of Britain's Woodlands

Conservationists would have us believe that it is necessary to reduce deer numbers to an acceptable population level that doesn’t cause ecological damage. When asked why populations have increased so rapidly, they tell us that deer reproduce prolifically and that there are no large predators, namely the wolf, left to control their numbers. On the face of it, that seems a reasonable argument. There is no doubt that wolves were predators of deer, but not for a very long time and probably only ever accounted for the deaths of around 5% of deer populations. The last wolf was killed in the UK around 1750, more than 250 years ago, and their numbers were in serious decline for many decades before that. So it is reasonable to assume that wolves have had little impact on deer populations for the past 300 – 350 years. With that in mind one could be excused for thinking that deer numbers would have escalated at an enormous rate over that period. But it is only in the past 60 or so years that their numbers have increased exponentially, coinciding with a thriving hunting industry and reforestation that provides shelter.

So is there a connection? Of course there is!

It’s the combined explosion of the hunting/stalking industry and tree-planting conservation charities. The somewhat strained relationship between these two groups gives a clear insight into the real reason for increase in deer numbers.

To understand this whole sorry mess, one must examine the alliance between hunters and conservationists within “deer management groups” that are overseen by the Deer Commission. The bottom line is that both groups want deer killed for different and conflicting reasons.

Hunting/Stalking Estates

For a hunting estate to be viable it requires an artificially high density of deer so that its clients have enough animals to kill to justify its existence. But as deer know no boundaries, it is necessary to have this high density population over a much wider area where they can damage unprotected saplings, ground flora and ground nesting habitats, which is where the conflict with the tree-planting charities arises. So how are these artificially high populations created and maintained? Apart from feeding deer and in some cases fencing them in, - which is not far removed from canned-hunting – the killing of stags and mature females in their prime alters the natural aging process of populations and means there is an abundance of sex driven “teenagers” producing fawns at a much higher rate than that of any natural population. In other words it, creates artificially younger populations leading to increased deer density – just what the hunters want.

Conservation charities

In the main tree planting charities are “grant junkies” feeding off the taxpayer with public access encouraged by their paymasters on a political whim. Many of their planting sites are in existing woodlands being expanded or in areas for regeneration; the aim being to make them aesthetically pleasing for public recreation. Therefore, the use of deer fencing is regarded as unsightly and unnatural, so deer are shot down to what is deemed to be an acceptable level of population density. Again, as deer know no boundaries, this can reduce the population density of nearby hunting estates by deer moving into the conservationists’ less populated area. However, this situation changes very quickly because the remaining deer have better resources, which increases their fecundity leading to an increased population. This is known as “population rebound” and has been proven to be the case in America. Reduction killing in New Jersey resulted in higher deer numbers in Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Lewis Morris County Park, Princeton, and Watchung Reservation, leaving matters worse off than if no culling had occurred in the first place.

This is the basic source of conflict between hunting estates and conservation charities. The hunters want more deer to kill, hence a higher population density and the conservationists want to kill deer down to a lower density to protect their vegetation. And the deer are the losers on both counts.

If government stopped the killing, the deer population would initially rise but then decrease, as the average age of individual deer would be much older, more territorial, and have fewer fawns.

Vehicle Collisions

Increasing vehicle collisions are often cited as being a reason for needing to cull deer. But is it that simple? Travellers using the busy A9 route to the north of Scotland will be familiar with deer grazing at night on the verges unaffected by heavy trucks passing a couple of metres or so away. There is no doubt that during rutting deer will run across roads but this quote from the Erie Insurance Company in 2002 shows that deer hunting is a major factor in vehicle collisions:

"Not surprising, the daily number of deer claims increases during mating season in late October to early November and with hunting season in late November to early December. Last year, Erie Insurance received an average of 34 deer claims a day. That number rose nearly five times on the first day of buck season and doe season for 157 and 160 deer losses, respectively."

http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/cc2002-fa-erie.html http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2002/august/hunting-collisions-survey.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itVFMR1feAk