Deer Hunting RTE 1

Richard308

berettaman wrote: »

Logically speaking then they will be looking for Great Whites to be released off the Saltees to keep the seals in check.:rolleyes:
They really are away with the fairies.

Well there hasn’t been a great white seen off South Africa in a few years (think orcas the cause no whaling allowed)

tudderone

berettaman wrote: »

Logically speaking then they will be looking for Great Whites to be released off the Saltees to keep the seals in check.:rolleyes:
They really are away with the fairies.

:eek:, you'd be afraid to go for a paddle !

Grizzly 45

Rather long-winded,and a lot is irrelevant to the topic iMO.


The RTE Prime Time programme discussed wild deer management in Ireland in a TV programme aired on June 8th, 2021 @ 21.30. While such discussion is welcome, it is important it does not unintentionally vilify wild deer or have unintended consequences for the conservation and management of wild deer, in particular, wildlife crime and the illegal killing of wild deer/ deer poaching. Often comment around wild deer and their management can be arbitrary and unqualified as a result of political or landowner pressure.

A contributor to the program on behalf of the Wicklow Deer Management Project, a project overseen by the Wicklow Uplands Council, claimed there were no “recreational hunters” (a term used by some agencies to describe licensed hunters) in the project, despite the programme presenter introducing two licensed “recreational” hunters as part of the project.

The Wicklow Deer Management Project contributor further suggested that such licence holders only cull male deer and were not assisting with deer management. The most recent cull data from the National Parks and Wildlife Service show just under 20,000 female wild deer were culled by licensed deer hunters in Ireland, the culling of female deer is an essential activity in managing deer numbers. Despite been in receipt of substantial taxpayer funding, it has been suggested that the project has not produced any cull or deer management data, the project has excluded many local stakeholders, and is deemed to be a failure by some. Local deer management groups are generally considered a best approach in deer/ land use conflict areas. Such conflicting and misleading comment is unhelpful to the project and the important role of managing deer at a sustainable level.

Below is a statement issued to the programme editor by the Irish Deer Commission which provides factual information on matters such as:

Overview of current deer management in Ireland
Challenges for deer management in Ireland
The illegal killing of wild deer
TB and wild deer
The introduction of the wolf and contraception as a form of deer management
OVERVIEW OF DEER MANAGEMENT IN IRELAND

Deer are a protected species under our Wildlife Acts and an important part of our natural heritage with deer present in Ireland since Neolithic times over 5,000 years ago. Our three common deer species are Fallow deer introduced by the Normans to County Wicklow in 1169, the Sika deer introduced by Viscount Powerscourt into Co Wicklow in 1860, and the red deer present in Ireland for over 5,000 years.

Deer numbers at sustainable levels are an asset and benefit ecosystems, however where deer numbers become excessive, they can have negative impacts on land objectives such as farming, forestry, and the wider ecosystem. In the absence of a natural predator, it falls on licensed deer hunters to manage their numbers.

Data supplied to the Irish Deer Commission (IDC) by the National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) show 5,838 deer hunting licences were issued by the Wildlife Licensing Unit of NPWS under Section 29 of the Wildlife Acts in the 12-month period up to February 28th, 2020. Over the last 10 years the number of licences has grown by 56%, or 257% since 1999/2000

Further data provided by NPWS show 44,381 wild deer were culled by licensed deer hunters in the 12-month period up to February 28th, 2020. Similar data shows an increase of 42% in the number of deer culled over the last 10 years or 380% since 1999/2000. It is important to note this data is based on annual hunter cull returns which is not independently verified.

Despite claims of growing wild deer populations, in the absence of national and verified deer density data, the true wild deer population is unknown in Ireland. In the absence of data, the current levels of annual deer culling maybe appropriate, require additional culling, or have negative consequences for the future conservation status of our wild deer. Anecdotal evidence from those involved in wild deer management would suggest a small number of localised areas have excessive wild deer numbers and these areas should be supported, where in most areas’ wild deer are being managed at a sustainable level. County Wicklow accounted for 36% of the national cull in the 12-month period up February 28th, 2020, with five counties accounting for 75% of the national annual wild deer cull. County Wicklow is unique in terms of wild deer and their management due to large areas of private and state land ownership, and the management of wild deer in these areas.

Conclusions that the increasing wild deer cull returns are linked to an increasing wild deer population should be avoided as data shows the increase in deer culled has a direct corelation to the increase in the number of hunting licences, with the average remaining at 7/8 deer culled per hunter, per season, since 2004. Often expanding wild deer range (the area where deer are present) is confused with deer density (the number of deer).

An unknown factor for wild deer populations in Ireland is the impact of Covid-19, deer management was not considered an essential activity with no wild deer culling in many areas during the 2020/21 open wild deer season, this combined with a worldwide crash in venison prices and delays in the issuing of hunting permits by NPWS, could potentially create the perfect storm in terms of negative impacts for farming and the wider ecosystem by wild deer.

Landowners who suffer genuine crop damage from wild deer can apply for a permit under Section 42 of the Wildlife Acts to cull wild deer outside the open hunting season (September 1st to February 28th) data shows less than 0.25% of landowners have such a requirement suggesting wild deer conflict or high wild deer densities is the exception but where these problems occur landowners should receive additional support in managing wild deer.

Wild Deer Management Challenges – the management of wild deer in Ireland is an emotive topic and often can lead to entrenched and polarised opinions, with NPWS on the receiving end of continuous pressure from interest groups, in particular farming interests who perceive wild deer as a pest or vector of disease.

The management of wild deer is the responsibility of the landowner, or the owner of the sporting rights, this includes our six National Parks where wild deer management is the responsibility of NPWS. A basic requirement of wild deer management is a plan or a deer management plan, where the wild deer population is known by sex, age and species combined with other herbivores, local habitat and land use factors a cull plan is devised. Under a recent Freedom of Information Request by an IDC member, we were informed only one of our National Parks (Glenveagh, Co Donegal) has a wild deer management plan. This shocking statistic highlights the lack of priority, and wild deer management knowledge. This situation has continuously deteriorated since 2008 due to a recruitment freeze, lack of resources, and poor succession planning in NPWS. On a positive and hopeful note, a recruitment campaign is currently underway within NPWS, and this should support wild deer management going forward.

Renowned wild deer management academic and international advisor Professor Rory Putman recently stated regarding the current wild deer management position in Ireland, “it is crucial the management decisions are well-founded, not simply arbitrary, seat-of-the pants as a result of political and landowner pressure” such interference has become the norm in recent years.

The illegal killing of wild deer/ Deer Poaching –

The illegal killing of wild deer, or deer poaching is a significant problem in Ireland. Although wild deer are a protected species under our Wildlife Acts and an important part of our natural heritage criminals are increasingly exploiting wild deer for financial gain, creating animal welfare issues and a risk to human health. After drug importation, firearms and human trafficking, wildlife crime generates the highest illegal income for criminals across Europe.

Deer poaching is a rural crime that puts rural communities and livestock at risk of death or serious injury. Deer poachers are criminals, and no friend of law abiding hunters, deer stalkers, nor do they play any part in the conservation of our wild deer and have no regard for animal welfare.

In 2019, following a successful meeting between the IDC and senior members of An Garda Siochana, dedicated wildlife liaison officers of Inspector rank were appointed in each of the Garda divisions nationally, these individuals act as a dedicated liaison for investigating suspected deer poaching incidents.

TB and Wild Deer –

It is important to fully acknowledge that TB is a devastating disease for farming, the farming community, and rural Ireland.

TB including bovine TB can occur in many of our wildlife species such as foxes, hedgehogs, badgers, deer, and even domestic pets. Except for the badger, which spreads TB in a unique manner through its urine, TB in deer and other wildlife is normally at very low levels with no evidence of ability to transmit to cattle. The Oireachtas Agriculture committee heard recently that only three wild deer in Ireland tested positive for TB in 2020 versus over 23,000 plus cattle testing positive for TB, however this has not stopped the recent unwarranted vilification of wild deer as a source of TB in cattle.

It has been reported recently by the Department of Agriculture that the increase in TB levels is linked to the significant expansion in dairy herds. Despite claims to the contrary, there is no conclusive scientific evidence available that demonstrates wild deer can spread TB to cattle. Several areas with high levels of TB in cattle, and where landowners believed wild deer are the cause were tested by the Department of Agriculture with no wild deer testing positive for TB.

Scotland with an estimated deer population of 700,000 plus deer has been TB free since 2009 highlighting the lack of corelation between TB in cattle and the presence of wild deer. The findings of a 2014 Department of Agriculture report where 103 deer were tested for TB in Co Wicklow is often used to point the finger at wild deer, however it is important to note while the findings were substantially different to all other testing of wild deer in Ireland and believed to be once off exceptional case, there were a number of unique circumstances that contributed to the outcome, firstly wild deer were taken exclusively from farms where TB was already present in livestock which is akin to testing for the flu in a doctors waiting room in the middle of winter. Secondly the testing methodology was unique and eight times more detailed than that used for livestock so any comparison to TB levels in cattle created a false headline. Finally, the results were reported as a percentage of the total number of deer tested (103), whereas livestock are reported as a percentage of the total county population, or per thousand animals tested, all these factors give a different and misleading outcome. While wild deer can contract several strains of TB no evidence was shown that wild deer are vectors of the disease.

A Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine publication on the Wicklow wild deer TB and TB strain type findings states “these data relate to a sample of deer removed from farms in 4 DEDs that had serious TB problems in cattle in the recent past.” These deer, therefore, represent part of a localised animal population within which there were relatively high numbers of other animals infected with TB (cattle and badgers).” “The results of this sample describe what was found in the 103 animals from the 4DEDs concerned and can’t be used to infer prevalence estimates of TB in deer in this or in any other area because the sample was collected from specific farms within the 4DEDs only and is therefore not representative of all the land in the locality.” “The necropsy and culturing methodology were unique in that a single person collected all the samples and a wide range of samples were collected for culture. These results are therefore not directly comparable to other studies carried out on deer.” “Confirmed that there is no evidence to link Bovine TB incidence in deer in Ireland or the UK to Bovine TB outbreaks or persistence in cattle herds.” “The Forum considers however that if deer and cattle share feeders for example the potential for transfer exists and this should be avoided.”

The unintended consequences of flawed publications and the media headlines that follow, can lead to increased wildlife crime against wild deer, the spread of wild deer due to increased disturbance, reduced deer culls return due to disturbance and behaviour change, and misinforming the farming community.

The wolf and contraception –

As mentioned, managing wildlife can be an emotive topic and in recent times we have heard a lot of passionate views about reintroducing predators such as the wolf, or even contraception for wild deer! While the wolf is an iconic predator that brings out passion in people, its introduction would do very little to manage wild deer. Wild deer have evolved over thousands of years and are a flight animal when threatened. Deer are excellent at evading predators, for example new-born deer are born without scent to avoid detection by predators, whereas our 5.2 million sheep hold no such predator instincts. In general, Ireland has no habitat that is not managed for farming or large enough for the introduction and expansion of a large carnivore such as the wolf.

Contraception has recently been suggested as an alternative to culling wild deer. There were several trials in the United States, and all failed for several reasons, firstly it is cost prohibitive with costs of up to $10,000- $14,000 per deer, secondly every female deer must be captured or darted at close quarters, since deer are wild animals living in mountainous or forested areas this approach is not realistic and results in a high mortality levels from stress of capture. Other factors include such animals cannot enter the food chain as venison, and the ecology of wild deer mean they are transit animals travelling over large areas, or areas where no contraception has taken place.

Re-wilding and the exclusion of wild deer in favour of trees has also become a popular topic in recent times. Re-wilding means different things to different people, some see it as the reintroduction of species that once existed in Ireland, some see it as increased native tree cover, some have perceived view of the ideal habitat, or an ecosystem that excludes herbivores such as wild deer. Our views are mixed on this subject, while improving or having a balanced ecosystem is certainly a positive, but at the expense of one species over another, remember wild deer are eco-engineers and positive for the ecosystem when their numbers are maintained at a sustainable level. We are not so sure, nor do we see some forms of re-wilding working. For example, if we kill all the wild deer in one area, and fence deer out, ultimately you are creating the perfect habitat for the deer outside the fence to access once the fence is not maintained or someone leaves a gate open. A balanced approach that respects all land use objectives and species gets our vote.

Ends

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

:eek:, you'd be afraid to go for a paddle !

My response to that problem:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IAKympeUHQ

useurowname

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

My response to that problem:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IAKympeUHQ

Poor old Quint

tudderone

useurowname wrote: »

Poor old Quint

He died by the side of the road in Tourmakedy

Richard308

tudderone wrote: »

He died by the side of the road in Tourmakedy

A great talent lost in fairness and adopted son of Ireland. Only 51, he plays quint brilliantly, with impatience and calm. (Only 48 in that). Still love the movie. Thanks for the clip Grizzly enjoyed it.

useurowname

tudderone wrote: »

He died by the side of the road in Tourmakedy

Wrong, he was eaten along with his boat by a massive shark.

tudderone

useurowname wrote: »

Wrong, he was eaten along with his boat by a massive shark.

The super wouldn't sign off on his gun licence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAxKFLh61Yc

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

He died by the side of the road in Tourmakedy

Couldn't have picked a nicer spot to spend eternity.:(

JP22

Overall a good programme, balanced and no hatchet job on us and good to see two scientist’s giving balanced views also.

Contraception for wild animals, please, give me a break,…………… not long ago in this country it was illegal to have/use contraception for humans. These folk need to drop into their local pharmacy and buy a “bottle of cop-on”.

As for deer being “sentient beings”, do they apply the same logic to common everyday vermin? If their house/garden/shed/estate, etc. was infested with rats, mice, cock-roaches, flies and god forbid the poor dreaded house spider, they would be the first out with the poison/traps.

Oh wait, they wouldn’t, “we wouldn’t hurt a fly” they say, instead they will hire Mr/Mrs Rent-o-kill to do the job for them.

meathstevie

tudderone wrote: »

Unicef say there are 190 million people in India undernourished at the last count. A point has to come when we can no longer feed everyone. Apart from that, what are all these people going to work at ?

Can or want ? If you can afford a space program, the white elephant of white elephants, you can surely invest a few billion in agriculture and distribution as far as I can see. Or it could be that Mr Modi’s eyes don’t see things the same way as mine.

tudderone

meathstevie wrote: »

Can or want ? If you can afford a space program, the white elephant of white elephants, you can surely invest a few billion in agriculture and distribution as far as I can see. Or it could be that Mr Modi’s eyes don’t see things the same way as mine.

Did you see what they blew the foreign aid on a few years back ? £330 million on a statue of an oul-lad, bargain !

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46028342

yubabill

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

It can't decline naturally. They won't let it and do everything to keep it growing. It's the only way they can sustain their economic system.

Less people, means less consumers, means less profit, means less revenue, means economic collapse.

Regards adjusting naturally............thousands of years ago they reckon our population was just a few million. This was because come winter, food was scarce and we died until we discovered the farming of grasses.

Wheat, barley, oats, rice they found can be stored through the winter to feed us and our livestock so the population boomed but peaked at about 1 to 2 billion and stopped that way until around 100 years ago.

Then we had refrigeration and antibiotics and farm industrialization and the result is today.

So where do you think the line is regards a 'natural population'?

All the population growth is in poor and developing countries. Developed countries with the possible exception of Mexico (barely holding its own) are in decline - china and Russia catastrophically so - and take a look at brazil, it's also in decline.

Affluence brings the desire for more affluence, hence less kids.

Bog Trotter99

yubabill wrote: »

All the population growth is in poor and developing countries. Developed countries with the possible exception of Mexico (barely holding its own) are in decline - china and Russia catastrophically so - and take a look at brazil, it's also in decline.

Affluence brings the desire for more affluence, hence less kids.

That used to be true.

So you have countries like the UK whose population has officially increased by 30% in the past 50 years, but is really much higher. Approx 70 million, but some say 80 million.

USA, the wealthiest country. In 50 years an increase of 100%. Approx 180 million to approx 360 million.

Irelands (republic) population has increased by 40% since 1990. 3.5 million to 5 million. That is huge for a tiny country and totally unsustainable.

And so on. So where a natural check on population growth would normally happen. Now this is not the case and in reality population increase is possibly everywhere.

yubabill

When you look at the births rates, rather than the numbers of people, then the picture is very different.

Ireland has a birth rate off the top of my head of somewhere around 1.3 to 1.5. That means couples have that many children on average, so two people have less than two children, on average for the whole population. anything less than 2.1 is accepted to mean population decrease.

We've had c. 500,000 immigrants into the country since 2004, but they will also have less than 2 children.......so it's a long-term thing and takes generations to play out.

I even heard that the US now has a birth rate of 1.8.

Bog Trotter99

yubabill wrote: »

When you look at the births rates, rather than the numbers of people, then the picture is very different.

Ireland has a birth rate off the top of my head of somewhere around 1.3 to 1.5. That means couples have that many children on average, so two people have less than two children, on average for the whole population. anything less than 2.1 is accepted to mean population decrease.

We've had c. 500,000 immigrants into the country since 2004, but they will also have less than 2 children.......so it's a long-term thing and takes generations to play out.

I even heard that the US now has a birth rate of 1.8.

That's got sod all to do with it. It's all about humans on the planet and what they do.

For instance you can't stop a family in the wilds of the west of Ireland. Who contribute basically zero to the carbon emissions from burning turf and wood from their land, just so that a Dub can drive around in his Merc (diesel or electric) and go on holiday with Ryanair twice a year. And also so a politician and Dub can be seen to be green and do their bit.

That's the equivalent of banning shooting and guns to stop organized crime.

An increase in population of 40% is a 40% increase in ALL human activity and consumption.

When you grow food using bag manure (man made fertiliser) you are using oil and gas to produce that product. So you are using fossil fuels from millions of years ago to produce food for your family. that is the only way you can produce enough food for the people.

So you are robbing the past or planet to feed the present.

You are using more space for housing, roads, and work etc. That is at the expense of the other life in your country. So those animals and wildlife depreciate.

The birth rate you talk about cannot sustain the economics of the system. So the people who drive this will need more and more and higher and higher immigration to replace the falling birth rate. This means more and more consumption and less and less for everything else.

It is a policy and system which is doomed to failure. How it fails is the guess work.

yubabill

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

That's got sod all to do with it. It's all about humans on the planet and what they do.

For instance you can't stop a family in the wilds of the west of Ireland. Who contribute basically zero to the carbon emissions from burning turf and wood from their land, just so that a Dub can drive around in his Merc (diesel or electric) and go on holiday with Ryanair twice a year. And also so a politician and Dub can be seen to be green and do their bit.

That's the equivalent of banning shooting and guns to stop organized crime.

An increase in population of 40% is a 40% increase in ALL human activity and consumption.

When you grow food using bag manure (man made fertiliser) you are using oil and gas to produce that product. So you are using fossil fuels from millions of years ago to produce food for your family. that is the only way you can produce enough food for the people.

So you are robbing the past or planet to feed the present.

You are using more space for housing, roads, and work etc. That is at the expense of the other life in your country. So those animals and wildlife depreciate.

The birth rate you talk about cannot sustain the economics of the system. So the people who drive this will need more and more and higher and higher immigration to replace the falling birth rate. This means more and more consumption and less and less for everything else.

It is a policy and system which is doomed to failure. How it fails is the guess work.

World population will continue to grow until about 2050 or so. That's what you are seeing, as immigrants replace indigenous workers.

But the immigrant's home countries are becoming more affluent (and sending money home helps this a little, too).

You are seeing right now, the population growing towards a peak of about 10-11Bn. Then it will decline.

Richard308

So basically what you’re saying is we need a catastrophic event to cull human inhabitants to sustainable levels for our planet to survive? Like a pandemic, world war or massive natural/man made disaster?

Kind of sad how our progress as a race has led to the ecological decline of our planet.

Bog Trotter99

yubabill wrote: »

World population will continue to grow until about 2050 or so. That's what you are seeing, as immigrants replace indigenous workers.

But the immigrant's home countries are becoming more affluent (and sending money home helps this a little, too).

You are seeing right now, the population growing towards a peak of about 10-11Bn. Then it will decline.

It can't, they wont let it. They need more consumers and more tax payers. If consumers and tax payers do not keep increasing then the system they have created and we live in will collapse.

Tax pays for the system. Profits drive business. Take them away and you have..................

Grizzly 45

yubabill wrote: »

When you look at the births rates, rather than the numbers of people, then the picture is very different.

Ireland has a birth rate off the top of my head of somewhere around 1.3 to 1.5. That means couples have that many children on average, so two people have less than two children, on average for the whole population. anything less than 2.1 is accepted to mean population decrease.

We've had c. 500,000 immigrants into the country since 2004, but they will also have less than 2 children.......so it's a long-term thing and takes generations to play out.

I even heard that the US now has a birth rate of 1.8.

Anything less than 2.5 kids per family means your native population is becoming endangered and not capable of sustaining itself in comparison to the invasive/imported pouplation. Happening all over the EU BTW and this was Merkels BIGGEST mistake,opening the floodgates to qualified and trained personnel" making their way by boats across the Med.:rolleyes::

Grizzly 45

Richard308 wrote: »

So basically what you’re saying is we need a catastrophic event to cull human inhabitants to sustainable levels for our planet to survive? Like a pandemic, world war or massive natural/man made disaster?

Kind of sad how our progress as a race has led to the ecological decline of our planet.

About half a billion would be fine...If you are to believe "the Georgia standing stones":P

yubabill

We don't need a natural disaster to see a decline in the population. This is going to happen naturally over decades, perhaps a century or so.

You have to remember that humans are a part of Nature. There is a whole area of science dedicated to population dynamics.

As for the economic perspective, I'm sure the capitalists are fully aware of this phenomenon. Immigration is only a temporary fix. Maybe the Great Reset is a step towards a solution in their eyes? I have no strong thoughts on that.

Bog Trotter99

yubabill wrote: »

We don't need a natural disaster to see a decline in the population. This is going to happen naturally over decades, perhaps a century or so.

A bit nearer. Any good with this Friday's Euromillions?:)

tudderone

yubabill wrote: »

We don't need a natural disaster to see a decline in the population. This is going to happen naturally over decades, perhaps a century or so.

You have to remember that humans are a part of Nature. There is a whole area of science dedicated to population dynamics.

As for the economic perspective, I'm sure the capitalists are fully aware of this phenomenon. Immigration is only a temporary fix. Maybe the Great Reset is a step towards a solution in their eyes? I have no strong thoughts on that.

Get with the times, its not the great reset anymore, its "Build back better" !

josip

Hope I'm not hijacking the thread. I was reading about someone suggesting reintroducing the lynx to the UK as a way of controlling the deer population there and I was wondering if people thought that might work in Ireland?

Do we have enough forests to support a few lynx and would there be concerns in the farming community? I've read that lynx are solitary hunters and that sheep 'casualties' would be low. A lot less than killed by dogs every year anyway.

Eddie B

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763239#Comment_117763239

I honestly don't think we have the habitat here. UK have larger forrestry area's I'd say. We farm the vast majority of land here, and for the most part, don't have a huge amount of heavily wooded land. I'd wait to see how things go in the UK, before even considering it for here.

The introduction of beaver in UK ain't going a smoothly as they suggested, and a lot of farmers having problems with flooding already, and it's only been a few years since the re-introduction.

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117763239#Comment_117763239

Errrr...NO! Not unless you want a decimation of house pets like cats and small dogs. The lynx is well capable of killing and eating such.We don't have much natural forest left for such critters, and timber plantations are lifeless crops that don't support any sort of wildlife habitat. The lynx, like all of these predators, are adaptive and will move to the nearest handy food source.IE urban areas, where it will no doubt chow down on peoples pets.Nor BTW is a lynx capable of taking any of our native deer species.Tthey are really just a very overgrown house cat,with no tail and tufty ears. Roe deer, which are not native maybe, and possibly a weak one at that or a fawn or calf. But one trying his luck on a fully grown deer here.it would be schooled rather quickly. You need wolves or bears for that, and we are definitely NOT set up for those wandering about the countryside in Ireland.