Deer cull?

I'm literally sickened and heartbroken to find out about the planned Deer cull. For an organisation who supposedly respects wildlife especially! I don't want to receive the standard copied and pasted response that every other caring person has both on here and social media. I just want you for a second to remember that NO-ONE has the right to take another beings life. That is not the answer to any solution. I understand the problems you are having. But taking the lives of innocent animals is never okay and for an organisation that solely exists to preserve life, it's almost laughable. Have we forgotten the bigger picture here? Lets all of us try to remember. Why is no-one speaking about this? Why is there no petition to stop this. Lyndsay

Unknown said:

I don't want to receive the standard copied and pasted response that every other caring person has both on here and social media

Sorry Lyndsay, none of my responses have been copy & pasted, they're all my own thoughts - and remembering the bigger picture is precisely why this sort of control is necessary.  Unless you want a world devoid completely of mankind, I'm afraid you must accept that this sort of thing will happen.  As a species we have shaped the world to suit us.  We have killed off predators that may attack us or our livestock, cut down trees so we can plough fields and plant crops and generally use the natural world as a resource to make our lives more comfortable.  Now there's a whole different conversation to be had about how much of that use and abuse should have happened, but as we sit in our comfortable warm homes discussing it over electronic gadgetry whilst waiting for dinner (or breakfast in my case) to come along, I believe that it is necessary for us to accept the world as it is and do our best to leave it in no worse a state than it was when we started - especially if that means controlling a problem we made ourselves.

So the reason there's so little support for people arguing against the cull is, I suspect, that most people on here at least, recognise the situation as one that is sad but necessary.  No-one enjoys it, but life isn't always a bed of roses and we have to accept it and move on.  If you cannot accept it, then you have every right and opportunity to disagree.  We are already "speaking about this" despite your comment to the contrary.  You can start a petition against it, you can write a letter to your MP or the local newspaper.  You can explain to us what you would do to resolve the immediate problem and prevent such things happening in the future.  You can let us know of the steps you make personally to avoid negative impact on animals, start a new thread on the benefits of being a vegan.  Lead by example.

All living creatures, sooner or later, will die of something.  In the case of the deer, we as humans have several options;

- Do nothing, and allow the deer to multiply to whatever level they can reach uncontrolled: this will have consequences for the health and wellbeing of the deer and their effect on the health and wellbeing of other creatures that the RSPB is supposed to protect.

- Cull the deer in a humane manner, imitating the effect of the natural predators we have eradicated in the past.

- re-introduce natural predators: Wolves, anyone?  And having seen film of wolves in action against deer, I can only say that this natural death looks a lot crueller than shooting.  This is the option that they chose  in Yellowstone, but I'm not  sure that it would be welcome in Leighton Moss.

- some kind of birth control?  Difficult to implement, and with the risk of introducing powerful drugs into the environment.

I live near the Royal Parks in SW London, each of which keeps a manageable herd of healthy deer by annual culling.  I think the RSPB have taken the right decision.

There is not 'little' support, those on here do not reflect the general public, just a few people who are RSPB supporters, clearly not supporters of all wildlife! There are plenty of people against this cull as can be seen on various social media sites

Thanks for all your responses people! As for coping and pasting I should have been more clear - I was referring to the response given by RSPB to this sort of question, not any of you users as I saw the same standardised response repeated on many sites.. Kathy if you have links to any of the social media sites that would be great :) as currently the only ones I can find are from 2012? I'm glad that we could all have a discussion about this anyway. Obviously I do understand the reasons behind the decision, but surely we can all agree it's better to not kill than kill? Whistling Joe, I completely agree with you saying how we shouldn't leave the world in a worse state than we found it (In fact I'm sure we all do on here) Just for me personally, I had to say something in defence of the deer, but we're all different. (totally agree that we're having this conversation on gadgets in the comfort of our own home too - really I should be out there helping more with conservation instead of having this conversation lol) Secondly: I most definitely am campaigning about factory farming too for anyone who is worried about that, would be glad to chat more about that with anyone who has any concerns :) And lastly that's actually a really good idea, and I would be happy share any info I have on veganism if anyone was interested in that sort of thing. :) Thanks, Lyndsay. x

Kathy I've just found the page :) www.facebook.com/.../338301006378699

What really bothers me is that the RSPB seem to be so reactive when it comes to dealing with 'unwanted' species - there seems to be one response alone which involves killing. However much representatives from Leighton Moss defend their actions to kill Red Deer by stating that they have considered other options, the fact remains that they have never tried other options, only considered them. There is a lack of research available on non-lethal deer management, and the RSPB should be getting in there and showing itself to be innovative and progressive - they should be commissioning research on alternative methods to killing, yet they choose instead to take advice from organisations who have vested interests in promoting killing as the only alternative. There are a group of local people who have said that they are willing to volunteer to help with any research studies on non-lethal management of Red Deer at Leighton Moss, it is up to the RSPB to make use of this free resource, whilst increasing it's scientific knowledge base. Bear in mind that the intention is to have an ongoing cull every year - surely the RSPB as a science based organisation, needs to explore alternatives to killing?

Hi Lyndsay

While I don't agree with your position on conservation bodies occasionally having to cull species in order to deliver other conservation objectives. I respect it.

I'm struggling, however, to understand the logic underlying your assertion that: 

Unknown said:

 NO-ONE has the right to take another beings life.

Who confers such rights and who administers them? Human beings evolved as predators and have been taking and consuming other creatures since day one. Nature designed us that way.

We have created laws which, quite correctly, impose penalties if we commit murder (which is something a human can only do to another human) and if we harm a life form that has been given protection by the same legal system. Personally I think that laws should expressly prohibit "pleasure killing"  (hunting purely for amusement) but I don't have a serious problem with sustainably harvesting (as humanely as possible) some species for food.

But the argument here is something different entirely. We are talking about sustainably reducing numbers of one or more species that are over-abundant to protect the habitat of far less numerous and far more vulnerable species. I'd prefer to see the reduction achieved by natural processes (wolves and lynxes) but we haven't got any of those and this isn't about to change. If deer numbers weren't a problem at national level I'd be advocating a trial of natural chemical repellents (available from the nearest zoo with big cats or wolves) but simply displacing deer from Leighton Moss reserve into the surrounding landscape isn't really an answer.

My moral compass (which IMHO works far better than legislation or bronze age mythology) tells me that culling in order to reduce inconvenience to some peoples' hobbies is wrong (cormorants, mountain hares, goosanders, assorted mammalian and avian predators), and so is culling badgers on the basis of flawed science. I'm no longer convinced by the need to cull grey squirrels - we just need culling of pine martens to stop. Foxes don't need culling at all unless they present a clear and present localised danger to one or more species of conservation concern. 

North American Mink have to go and it will take more than intolerant otters (though their efforts are very much appreciated). 

Great post with sound sense, but don't expect some of those on here to agree, some of whom I am sure work for RSPB themselves and are perpetuating the need for a cull.  You are dead right RSPB need to be progressive and innovative but just take the easy option, kill, kill, kill.

Actually I think you will find RSPB are stating they intend to cull 10 deer, so you think this amount will make any difference to habitat! BTW 'nature designed us that way' to excuse eating meat!!  Vegetarian diet is possible actually and very healthy, many illnesses are caused by eating meat!