In terms of relative damage caused, we could quite easily replace the word 'deer' for 'human'. I wonder how a story of that nature would go down.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
OT - Proof that scientists are indeed mad!
(15 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
Are you proposing a cull of politicians, planners and road engineers?
"
"There is evidence that deer reduce the number of woodland birds - especially some of our much loved migrant birds species like Blackcap and Nightingale, and resident species like Willow Tit. We have a problem."
"If true, that's only matters if people like birds...
The problem with reports like this - or media reports of reports - is that it undermines itself.
I'm sure that in some places there are too many deer which have caused damage, reduced biodiversity etc.
So it's about sensible management - can't really argue with that, but the '50% must die' headlines will probably make it harder!
Cutting down trees for roads is natural evolution. Deer becoming successful at the expense of other animals and vegetation isn't...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Bring back the wolves.
Posted 12 years ago # -
In terms of relative damage caused, we could quite easily replace the word 'deer' for 'human'. I wonder how a story of that nature would go down.
Huh, yes I agree! But I do also think that if we have created a problem ourselves (such as by killing all the natural predators) then we have to have the guts to deal with the consequences. Even if the animal is considered cute or pretty. But as Chdot says, it shouldn't be a blanket killing, that would be silly.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"that would be silly"
Just like many deliberate or accidental decisions!
We seem to be going though a period where politicians are scared to make decisions unless it's all been approved by focus groups.
If they do things because of conviction or 'gut feeling' they get asked for the 'evidence' that it will 'work'.
Then there are scientists whose 'evidence' - or at least conclusions - seem to defy common sense.
Maybe it was always like this(?)
Posted 12 years ago # -
Venison is delicious.
Posted 12 years ago # -
First question anyone gets asked when they tell people they hit and killed a deer round here (which happens pretty frequently in the winter):
- did you take it home?
And if they say no
- where is it?
Roadkill deer are usually gone pretty quick though... a friend of mine hit one, drove home, told her husband (all upset about it) - he got straight in the car to collect the venison but too late, someone had beaten him to it.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@sallyhinch I don't know if this is an urban (or rural?) myth, but I'm sure Speyside-dwelling relatives told me that it's illegal to take a deer carcass home if you have killed it with your vehicle. However, it's perfectly legal for the next driver to take it home as found roadkill.
Posted 12 years ago # -
yeah, I've been told that too.
I've never hit a deer on my bike but I did startle one so much it fell over. (and following on from the dog thread elsewhere - I did ask if it was okay. I'm not sure what I would have done if it answered. Probably move back to the city)
Posted 12 years ago # -
Could be myth, but I understand that in Scotland one can't legally collect the game you kill on the road (presumably to prevent people aiming for the poor beastie? Maybe it's considered poaching). However, the person behind can collect the road kill...
As for the difference culling humans, I think there's a residual idea of the intrinsic value of human life still present in this post-Christian society. I fear we might either slip into making all life sacred, or possibly none...
And by some moralities at least 189,931 humans were culled in England & Wales in 2011, some healthy, some diseased.
India has a severe problem with a selective cull of females, such that the male/female ratio for breeding purposes is disturbed.
Robert
Posted 12 years ago # -
Same for pheasants too.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I've often wondered about pheasants and the extent to which they affect the British ecosystem.
They're gamebirds bred in captivity then released into the wild for entertainment. The majority will be shot and, I presume, eaten; but a considerable minority obviously survive long enough to make suicidal dashes into the path of cyclists and cars. To do this, they must be depriving a native species of a food source.
I wonder if any studies have been done into this?
We should probably eradicate them. Local food for local creatures...
Posted 12 years ago # -
I think there's a lot of little copses and woods round us that only exist as shelters for pheasants. On balance, they probably do more to provide food for the other birds than the pheasants (which are generally fed grain even after release) consume. You could argue where the fun is in shooting what's basically a fancy chicken, but mine not to reason why
On the other hand, gamekeepers on the big estates were probably responsible for almost wiping out harriers, wild cats, pine martens, golden eagles, kites and sea eagles to protect the (native) grouse, which aren't reared in pens so are more vulnerable to predation.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The highlands are the way they are in part because there are too many deer - but of course the big shooting estates want to keep a good number of deer because it makes it easier for the people who pay extraordinary sums of money to come and shoot deer to do so. If you look at places where the deer are excluded or kept lower in numbers then you can see the trees coming back.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Glenfeshie being an excellent example. Deer numbers are being managed without relying on miles of deer fences. Most attractive glen in Scotland IMO.
And look at all the moorland being managed to support a grouse population. It's hardly nature in action.
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
