Spurtle

It's better. Yes. It affects the way deer behave. They become more alert. The countryside is a different place with wild predators so deer keep moving about to avoid them. That means they eat things across a wider area. The lynx is also an attractive animal if you're lucky enough to see one. You can't say that about a man with a gun. The fewer people wandering around with rifles the better.

Not true I'm afraid. In fact there are plans for removing many of the trees. It's also much more complex than deer damage trees and cows eat grass. Cows were supposed to be there to control the spread of birch scrub and pictures were shown to those who didn't want them there of cows eating birch. As we found out they are very bad at it. Not the only thing that the wildlife trust was wrong about. Deer eat many things as you might expect, including grass as anyone who's observed them feeding will tell you. They eat a lot of bramble in winter for example. All wildlife eats things not surprisingly. That's only a problem with those who want to control everything. In a more natural and wild state predators would keep them moving around and they don't eat everything from one area. That's why those calling for more predators such as the lynx are spot on.

Absolutely not. There should be more wildlife and less shooting. ---------- Post added 13-03-2015 at 13:40 ---------- We need better wildlife-friendly national parks. Bringing back some native wildlife that has been persecuted to local extinction in the past would be a start. It would be something to hand down to our grandchildren. The local conservation people just needs a bit of ambition. The Lynx could help to move deer around which would be a good thing. They are beautiful animals but they should be always alert for danger.

Hello. Yes, I'm a member of Friends of Blackamoor and we have been enjoying the experience of having wild red deer on Blacka for about 12 years now. They are really beautiful creatures and the hinds have a wonderful relationship with their young which can continue for 2 years. When they are 'culled' the practice is to shoot the young first and then the mother hinds. Briefly, we are concerned because the deer wander over a large area of moorland and are unpredictable. The decision by RSPB is not subject to robust public scrutiny and we believe that the count was made when a disproportionate number had gathered on Bigmoor. They usually spread in smaller groups across a large area. We think the decision to shoot about a quarter of the total population is not properly thought out and will impact on numbers across the whole of the moors. It's an issue that has been discussed on this site: http://theblackamoorsite.blogspot.co.uk/

One thing I would warn against and that’s assuming any large organisation ‘must have a good reason for doing something’. Think Rotherham and CSE, think HSBC. The safeguard should always be transparency and a healthy public scepticism. In this case the RSPB did not want this to be public knowledge. And I return to my original post here. Only when all else has been tried and the situation has become intolerable should a wildlife charity then consider taking up guns and shooting wildlife. That cannot be the case when they were insistently saying in 2013 that there were nowhere enough deer on the Eastern Moors. People get things wrong and in this case I think they have. There’s a countryside culture of shooting wildlife and conservation charities should not be playing into it. Otherwise how do you maintain a consistent position on badgers and birds of prey?

It's good to be confused. It means you ask questions. To summarise the answers you're likely to get: the RSPB wants to manage the moors so certain things grow and other things don't - very like gardening. Animals that eat plants are a bit of an inconvenience. That's the way they see it. So they shoot the deer when they decide there are too many of them. Cows and sheep also eat the vegetation. But they are different because having them on the moor means you can call it agricultural land and that brings in lots of farming subsidies. So why do they call this land wild, we may ask? Here I struggle.

This month the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is shooting large numbers of red deer on Bigmoor and surrounding areas. They would prefer the public did not know about this because they believe it’s a sensitive issue. There’s been no press information and no notices on the moors. A letter in today’s Sheffield Telegraph from Friends of Blackamoor draws attention to it for the first time. You might think that a charity dedicated to wildlife would only kill wildlife after considering every possible option and when problems have become critical over a long time. But this is not so in this case. Just over a year before they decided to kill deer the RSPB senior manager told a meeting of conservationists and environmentalists that they were having to put cows and sheep on the moors because there were nowhere near enough deer to manage the vegetation the way they wanted. Now they are killing a large number while continuing to graze with cows. They have deliberately kept this quiet, supposedly because they think the public is not mature enough to understand. Has that happened elsewhere recently?

All I can do is echo what frenchfrie says about Blacka Moor. The best parts are those where there’s been no messing about by the wildlife trust. The trouble is, whatever they call themselves you can’t trust them and they’ve not much care for wildlife. About seven years ago they had a consultation run by an independent group. They did their best to stop local people talking about the things we wanted to. At the end everyone broadly agreed there should be minimal intervention even the trust and their friends. So what did they do? They erected barbed wire, they brought in cattle which trashed the beautiful flowers, they cut down trees and poisoned scores of others. Now they’ve signed an agreement to do more of the same and they claim they’ve consulted on this when they’ve refused to answer questions. That’s a great film about Greno Woods and the people who did it should carry on campaigning. Just don’t believe the answers you get. As for the stuff about thinning etc. just look at the pictures. They tell a different story.

The film on Youtube is excellent. Congratulations to those who’ve spoken out against this. As for those who’ve complained it’s one-sided they should experience some of the phony consultations run by Sheffield Wildlife Trust in their RAG meetings. If you raise serious reservations against what they are doing you will find your concerns don’t get minuted and you might get banned from meetings. This has happened at Blacka Moor. Be very careful indeed. A lot of this is very familiar to those who’ve tried to engage with the wildlife trust. They’ve decided what they want to do and they pretend you can have a say. Well you may be able to say something but seeing as they’ve already made an agreement with some agency for the grant money and they can’t go back on it. As for the idea it’s good for wildlife don’t bet on it. What comes first is the grant for management. They’re a kind of utility outfit that specialises in getting grants for land management projects. And they carry the work out with complete insensitivity.