3 ms·

Lack of wolves and bears has caused some interesting side effects in Southern England where I live. Namely, the deer population has exploded as their only preda

Lack of wolves and bears has caused some interesting side effects in Southern England where I live. Namely, the deer population has exploded as their only predator is now the motorcar. It's pretty cool seeing massive flocks of them and the occasional close encounter on my mountain bike; I once fed one some lettuce from a sandwich. On the other hand, they are eating all the woods, starting with the saplings which is causing real harm to the sustainability of forests. Predictably, the notion of culling some is very controversial, especially from nature loving people. But the alternative is bringing back the wolves. The wolves will do lots of wolfy things like killing dogs and eating livestock and be equally controversial. (edit: SPAG)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jnty 11y ago
It's not remotely controversial in Scotland - estates effectively have legal requirements for the numbers of deer they need to shoot each year to keep the population even vaguely under control (in fact, many campaigners complain that estate populations are allowed to keep deer populations too high to improve the commercial hunting.) This is generally accepted because, as you say, they have no natural predators. Is the situation different in England? I didn't realise it was.
- gambiting 11y ago
  I think what he means is, that while it's not controversial with anyone who actually owns property in Scotland, there's a huge public disapproval of any hunting, the purpose doesn't matter. Deer would need to be literally eating babies for any newspaper to run a story saying that shooting them is good, otherwise people immediately complain that such inhumane acts are done.
- techterrier 11y ago
  They aren't really hunted down here for sport. There's also the differing land uses - mostly arable when I am. That means that culls can be painted as "horrible farmers want to kill bambi" when the situation is more complicated. Deer can be eating crops and forests at the same time.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jnty 11y ago

It's not remotely controversial in Scotland - estates effectively have legal requirements for the numbers of deer they need to shoot each year to keep the population even vaguely under control (in fact, many campaigners complain that estate populations are allowed to keep deer populations too high to improve the commercial hunting.) This is generally accepted because, as you say, they have no natural predators. Is the situation different in England? I didn't realise it was.

gambiting 11y ago
I think what he means is, that while it's not controversial with anyone who actually owns property in Scotland, there's a huge public disapproval of any hunting, the purpose doesn't matter. Deer would need to be literally eating babies for any newspaper to run a story saying that shooting them is good, otherwise people immediately complain that such inhumane acts are done.
techterrier 11y ago
They aren't really hunted down here for sport. There's also the differing land uses - mostly arable when I am. That means that culls can be painted as "horrible farmers want to kill bambi" when the situation is more complicated. Deer can be eating crops and forests at the same time.