Deer cull?

Please see my piece above.  The RSPB is an arrogant organisation that purports to care for wildlife but is in fact interfering with nature in its murder of red deer.  A disgrace.  I will NEVER give a penny to the RSPB again and will encourage everyone I know to do the same.  Disgusted.

It is precisely because the RSPB cares for wildlife that it has to control deer numbers.  Man removed the predators that would naturally control deer numbers, therefore it is Man's responsibility to prevent rising numbers becoming a problem.  An ever increasing population would lead to more disease within the herd and the need for them to spread wider and wider for food, causing damage to environments that more specialised species rely on (such as Bittern and the reedbeds in this example).  Would you allow these species to die out simply to avoid the humane removal of excessive numbers of deer that's our fault in the first place?

Hi Locky. I don't know about the deer from Leighton Moss, but some of those culled from the Arne certainly end up as venison. I had an interesting chat with a guy who sells venison and he won't sell that culled from the Royal Parks as the supplementary feeding they get affects the quality of the meat.

On the original point, it's easy to forget that there is virtually no such thing as a truly wild ecosystem in the UK, they have all been altered or even constructed by humans. Add that to the elimination of all predators bigger than foxes and you have a very artificial ecosystem.

Deer are a prime example of this. Apart from the introduced species, the numbers of native species were originally boosted for hunting. Any ecosystem can only hold so many large herbivores before it becomes degraded, both to the detriment of that system and the species itself (as has been pointed out above). Deer are culled on many wildlife reserves (not just RSPB) and in the Royal Parks when their numbers outstrip the capacity of the land to support them. This is part of sensible conservation, it may not be a nice part, but it's necessary.

As someone who loves wildlife, it is always sad to hear of animals having to be culled.

However, I think the reasons given and the explanation of the process that was followed before the RSPB decided to take this action have helped me to understand why it being done.

It is still very sad, and I'm sure the staff at Leighton Moss would take no joy in it happening.

I will continue to support the RSPB.

In my opinion the good that they do far outweighs sad things like this.

Having read many posts about this cull, including posts here,after a lengthy phone discussion yesterday, and looking up information myself I conclude that deer at LM may well need to be culled given the current situation. I know the areas well that were mentioned to me yesterday and I agree that the reed bed and surrounding area is being damaged and that this population will continue to increase - however contraception has and is used elsewhere , and possibly should have been used a few years back when the population was knowingly increasing( as admitted on the phone). There seems to be varying opinions as to whether culling will work, others may well join the groups roaming LM territory - I would like to think that in future years other methods are used even though they are more expensive.

C M,  Shooting is always a difficult subject but so is contraception to some degree. Contraception in captive species is used quite often but in a wild population unless closely monitored can lead to an ageing population and also there is a possibility that the contraceptive chemical can get into the wider countryside, into predators or even the human food chain.

Population mechanics is never an easy subject for a forum like this.

Land owning conservation bodies like the RSPB invariably attract flak whenever they have to resort to culling. Sometime it is a necessary evil. With no natural predators the UK's substantial indigenous and introduced deer populations wreak havoc on woodland ecosystems particularly.

As a general principle I'm against culling except in certain very specific situations and each one has a wider wildlife conservation objective.

The real answer would be to re-introduce the apex predators but this isn't ever going to be a palatable option for the politicians. Pine Marten reintroduction could bring back the Red Squirrels by pushing back the (far easier to catch) greys. This, for me, would be a far better option than culling greys. Sadly the game shooting lobby seems resolutely anti Pine Marten.  

I'm sorry to see supporters of the RSPB become so vitriolic about something that's entirely necessary.  I don't like culling (killing) things either, but someone has to control deer numbers.  It is a plain and simple fact that there are too many deer around for the land they occupy (it's worse in Scotland), and another plain and simple fact that we humans have removed all the top predators that would otherwise control deer numbers.  So we've got to do it ourselves, whether we like killing things or not.  Annabel Rushton's note above sets out the arguments very well.  Read and understand.

My wife and I will continue to support the RSPB (as we have over 53 years of membership), and I, for one, am proud of the stance they have taken over this issue.

I don't see any difference between a herd of deer that roam pasture, nature reserves or parklands to that of Cows, Sheep, Pigs, Chickens, etc., which most non-vegetarian folk don't mind entering the food chain.    Culling or killing of an animal is never a pleasant option but more often than not it is done for maintaining integrity, manageability and sustainment of a herd/group or reared for meat ........ or all in some cases and it makes sense that the venison enter the food chain so the animal isn't killed without further purpose.  The money raised would/could go back to the reserve.  

  I would imagine that most of us on the Community care very much for the welfare of animals or why else would we be here discussing the more interesting threads about birds and wildlife but when I read some of the earlier comments on this thread  I almost feel like inventing a new word  called  "Bambi-ism"           We are all certainly entitled to our opinions, thats the importance of a democratic society,  and I think our various views have all been thrashed out and aired to the full.   I feel that Annabelle's full length reply explained very well the reason for this particular application to cull.  

@ John,  I was only mentioning the Pine Marten two days ago to hubby thinking it would be a more natural way to cut the numbers of grey squirrels down by introducing them in to problem areas but I don’t know much about the Pine Marten or how it impacts on nature in general.    Given a perfect world it would be more acceptable to have the natural predators take care of things but when there are none around for some species then a culling is often the only answer to keep the balance for the greater good of other animals, not to mention habitat.    We have 20 greys in our garden on occasion and there must be around a 1000 on our road alone with woodland gardens and I see the damage they do to the bark, stripping it off as they gnaw down their ever growing teeth.   The trees are suffering as a result and these Oak and Beech are over 100 years old, however greys is another heated subject so before I inflame this contentious topic any further and attract more unnecessary flak which kicks this “no win” debate off again, I will leave it at that  !