Comments on: Unconfirmed Roe Deer Deaths

By: craig green

craig green — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:42:22 +0000

Its a few deer, get a grip.

By: bob dootson

bob dootson — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 23:44:22 +0000

Lucy wrote: roe deer can be a bit of a menace to woodlands flora and fauna, preventing natural regeneration of woodland plants.

Bob writes: there is a greater menace to woodlands flora and fauna, preventing natural regeneration of woodland plants.
Shall we recomend a 20% – 25% cull to prevent an increase.

By: Lucy

Lucy — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 02:15:49 +0000

Personally I love roe deer and find them very magical to look at. As beautiful as these animals are, though perhaps beauty is not the best indicator of what to protect, roe deer can be a bit of a menace to woodlands flora and fauna, preventing natural regeneration of woodland plants let alone what they do to farm crops. Roe dear are on the increase in this part of the country and now have no natural predators so in some cases are invasive. Woodland and farmland can cope with manageable levels but the forestr commission recomend a 20% – 25% cull just to prevent an increase. The prospects of an ever increasing deer population would be disasterous for the locall ecology.

I am vegetarian as I am opposed to unneccesary or unbeneficial slaughter of animals. Though I think when it comes to protecting our countryside and protecting habitat for endangered species (hazel coppice for dormice for example) then it makes sense to cull deer populations.

Fencing is terrible idea for such vast areas where would this go, all way round the resevoirs? and the rivers? and the farmland also? Roe deer would need 1.5m fencing at least the costs of this would be astronomical. I’d be miffed if they spent my water rates that way.

Lucy

By: philjay

philjay — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:08:27 +0000

Not sure Ann, I sent a letter via email to Bolton News last wednesday rebuking UU most strongly, however it hasn’t appeared yet. Maybe not a big enough story to warrant printing. Perhaps if others care to write to BEN we may stir a bit of interest.

By: Ann Jones

Ann Jones — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:59:19 +0000

Has anyone been on the United Utilities website and read their “commitment to environment, habitat and wildlife”. There’s a lovely photograph of three Roe deer with the caption
“Roe Deer grazing, a common sight on United Utilities land around Rivington and Macclesfield”. It’s hypocritical to say the least in view of their recent slaughter of these magnificent animals. Any suggestions as to how we can show the general public the true colours of United Utilities? Guardians of the environment they are not, at least not at Rivington.

By: Eileen Thomasson

Eileen Thomasson — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:02:02 +0000

Its to much like hard work for them to put a fence up to keep the deer out.Anyway its more fun using the deer for target practice.

By: bob dootson

bob dootson — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:25:28 +0000

If UU are stuck for fencing, maybe they could use the unclimable metal fence that they removed from Lever Park.
Or is FENCING, TREES and DEER treated the same ?
They only know how to bring them DOWN !

By: Mrs Kathleen Bell

Mrs Kathleen Bell — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:21:30 +0000

I spoke to a National Trust person today at Lyme Park. They have a herd of red and fallow deer. I knew they had a water treatment plant in Lyme Park so I asked if the deer ever strayed into the plant and if they did did they contaminate the water.

I was told that although the treatment plant is contained and away from the deer sanctuary, deer do occasionally stray into the plant and if they do they are just herded out. I explained the situation with the roe deer in Lever Park and how 3 had been shot, because United Utilities said they could cause contamination in the water.

I was told that deer do not contaminate the water and the reason the roe deer would have been shot, was because United Utilities deem them to be a problem in Lever Park, because they damage trees and other vegetation.

By: David

David — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:28:28 +0000

Deer and water supplies don’t mix. Cryptosporidium is present in deer droppings (as it will be in most animal droppings). The World Health Organisation has produced some scientific research (see links at the bottom of this comment).

However…

Cryptosporidium will only be an issue if the deer had direct access to the water treatment works. United Utilties need to get their house in order. The best way to stop deer posing any threat to the water supply is by using an effective fence. Nothing high tech or complicated, just a simple FENCE, using materials you could get from B&Q.

United Utilities really aren’t doing their job. Protecting the watersheds is a primary duty. Deer droppings in the water supply is a major health and safety issue to humans. Cryptosporidium kills people. Let’s hope no Cryptosporidium got into the water supply this time. If it does, we might live to regret it!

DEFRA might well be interested in this case, if not because of the deer cull, then from the public health implications.

The WHO study is here:
http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/05801/0127/058010127.pdf

More research here:
http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/water-efficiency/gains-from-improved-drinking-water/improved-drinking-water-04.htm

…and here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18653946

By: Eileen Thomasson

Eileen Thomasson — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:03:23 +0000

I have just found out from my sister who asked at a wildlife park if it is true that deer contaminate water.They said its not true,they will have culled them because they deem them to be a nuisance.