Ö÷²¥´óÐã

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
« Previous | Main | Next »

Deer... can't live with them, can't live without them

Post categories:

Jeremy Torrance web producer Jeremy Torrance web producer | 16:56 UK time, Wednesday, 2 February 2011

Deer... can't live with them, can't live without them. Taken together, the findings of two separate, recently published scientific papers would seem to suggest just that.

On the one hand, says one, the closer we get to deer the more harm we cause them. On the other hand, says the other, if we leave them alone they cause us harm.

Red deer stag by Alister Kemp

I'm being overly simplistic (as you'll see when I give more substance to what the studies say below) but it's another one of those all too common paradoxes that keep appearing when we discuss man's relationship with wildlife.

So what is the substance? The argues that hill walkers in the Scottish Highlands are affecting the behaviour of red deer. The authors conclude: "Even in a situation where animals appear to be habituated to human disturbance, long-term population effects due to small but persistent changes in behaviour cannot be ruled out."

As studies of other species has shown these effects could include fewer offspring, more stress and increased energy expenditure.

On the surface this might not appear to be big news. A few deer in some remote Scottish mountains. But the area monitored - one track in - is used by 20,000 walkers each year. So multiply that by the number of tracks across the Highlands (and the rest of the UK for that matter) and factor in the and you have a bit of a problem.

So, deer... can't live with them. But what about without them? In the unlikely event that we do our utmost to avoid them, the deer would be fine. But would we? The suggests not.

We're not talking Armageddon here but if we let deer densities get too high then, the study suggests, we risk adversely affecting agriculture, forestry, road traffic and human and livestock health. That means potentially more deer-vehicle collisions, more damage to woodland, declining woodland bird numbers and greater danger of bovine TB amongst other things.

We aren't overly blessed with large mammals in this country. As studies like these show, it's a difficult balancing act co-habiting with them, on what is a small, cramped island.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    As none of our deer species are rare, and in fact have to be culled in many areas, and are in the process of changing the nature of our woodlands by eating out the understory and new saplings, I can live with disturbance causing them a small drop in fecundity...

  • Comment number 2.

    Agree with 1. I am not sure the point of either study as they appear to be minor peturbations on the larger issue of overgrazing and lack of regeration and reductions in biodiversity. Even casual walks in Scotland will show how fencing allows regeneration even of slower growing trees in apparently empty landscapes.

  • Comment number 3.

    In keeping with the new effort to eradicate the mink (released by those idiots in ALF, who presumably had not thought through the damage they have had on otter, vole and other native populations), it is now well past time to eradicate the Chinese Muntjac deer (perhaps they can be sold as venison), which has a deleterious effect on wildlife in this country. There is now a long list of imported species, flora and fauna, with negative effects, two of the most startling being the Japanese knotweed and the American signal crayfish. Solve these problems and the natives will be happier, including deer. More than that, pre-emptive measures to keep such things out would be a spectacularly good idea, even if we would not notice the difference between non introduction and what might be if introduction of an alien species went ahead.

    Anyone for Bodmin cats?

  • Comment number 4.

    KZwert has said it all, and far better than I could!

  • Comment number 5.

    I don't think having walking paths through make that much difference. I live in a house in the lake district and all my life, almost every night about 20 or so deer come out into the field across from my house, they aren't bothered if I'm outside or around, and are little effected by the cars going past next to the field.

  • Comment number 6.

    Deer of nearly all species are both dangerous and destructive. Where I live in the US we have a large resident population in town, thanks to parks, greenways, and large back gardens filled with tasty plants. I was almost attacked by an aggressive male in my own yard this year during rutting season. I love animals, but deer should be culled, especially those in residential areas where they present a hazard. If they breed less due to contact with humans, so much the better, though they seem to have adapted very well around here.

  • Comment number 7.

    Ermm reintroduce natural predators that got extinct in the meantime....

  • Comment number 8.

    The first HYS, I've encountered not, as yet anyway, to be ruined by shear nonsensical statements. Definitely remove all non natives, but where to start or rather end it? Little Owl? well that does seem to have found a niche that lay un or under exploited by native species, the rabbit perhaps, no to much of our landscape is reliant on them now.

    But Munt jack, mink, coypu, hogweed, rhododendron certainly, Sika, Fallow, chinese water et al.

    As for predator reintroduction, has my wholehearted support, we know we can reintroduce if done correctly. There are a few islands with culled red deer populations that would make a good testing ground.





  • Comment number 9.

    The best solution would be a mass cull of humanity. Starting with the type of people who think their life is somehow more valuable than other living things. Do you think a thousand deer do as much damage as a single human being? The amount of disposable nappies wasted on a single baby would do more damage than a herd of deer could in decades. What gives you the right to decide whether something else deserves to live or not?

    I remember hearing about a nice man in Germany in the 30s and 40s who had a similar idea about making the world a better place by culling those whose lives he considered less valuable than his own people's and who in his eyes were just animals and destructive pests.

  • Comment number 10.

    Mungo wrote:'I love animals, but deer should be culled, especially those in residential areas where they present a hazard.'

    It never ceases to amaze me how intolerent we are of other species that adapt to our artificial environment...

  • Comment number 11.

    I call Godwin's law...

  • Comment number 12.

    I'm not sticking up for the ALF but mink escaped long before the ALF started releasing them,as did other harmful creatures.Anyone remember the coypu?

  • Comment number 13.

    Ah yes, Godwin's Law. Curiously, though the Hoffman pyramid (developed by the Germans for decidely dubious purposes) is still used as a basis for culling deer populations according to age structure. While it serves its purpose among the younger cohorts it gets into difficulties at the top of the age range where you want to find more exceptional animals.

Ìý

Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD

Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation

Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.