Game management on a property: what to consider

A property with hunting potential does not maintain its value and potential on its own: it requires ongoing management throughout the year, going well beyond the days when hunting is actually practised. This management includes, among other things, monitoring the wildlife populations present on the property, caring for the habitat that sustains them, controlling certain species when necessary, and planning harvests within the limits set in each case by the relevant authority.

This management should be understood as a cycle that repeats throughout the year, with tasks that vary by season: habitat and infrastructure maintenance work at certain times, more intensive population monitoring at others, and hunting itself within the open season applicable to each species under current regulations. Understanding this cycle helps plan the management in advance, rather than improvising task by task as they arise.

This guide reviews these aspects from a practical and general point of view, intended for whoever already owns a hunting property or is considering buying one and wants to understand what its day-to-day management involves, beyond the initial buying stage covered in the guide 'Buying a hunting property: an overview' in this same cluster.

Understanding this ongoing dimension of management before buying, rather than afterwards, helps assess realistically whether one has the time, interest or resources needed to keep a hunting property in good condition over the years. A neglected hunting property tends to lose value for that use over time, just as happens with any other asset that requires active maintenance.

Whoever does not have enough time to personally take on this ongoing management can consider relying on a professional or a gamekeeper, a possibility also mentioned in the guide 'Buying a hunting property: an overview' in this same cluster. Delegating management does not exempt the holder from their ultimate responsibility to the authorities, but it can help ensure the property receives the regular attention it needs.

In short, this guide reviews four central aspects of ongoing game management — wildlife monitoring, habitat management, species control and harvest planning — that are best addressed in a coordinated way, rather than as independent tasks, since decisions made in one of these areas usually have effects on the others.

Knowing, in a reasonably approximate way, which species inhabit the property and how their populations evolve over time is the basis of any responsible game management. This monitoring can be done in very different ways depending on the resources available: from regular, recorded observation by whoever manages the property, to more systematic methods with the support of a specialist technician, depending on the scale of the project.

Among the simplest monitoring methods are direct observation during regular walks around the property, recording tracks or signs of wildlife presence, and the use of camera traps, increasingly accessible, which allow the presence of certain species to be recorded without the need for a constant human presence. This guide does not recommend one specific method over another, because the choice depends on the resources available and the objectives of each project.

The regularity of the monitoring matters more than the sophistication of the method used: simple but consistent observation over time usually provides more useful information for management than a very detailed one-off study isolated in time. This guide recommends prioritising the consistency of monitoring over the complexity of the tools used, especially in smaller-scale projects.

The purpose of this monitoring is not only hunting-related in the strict sense: it also helps detect problems early, such as an imbalance between species, a loss of habitat in some part of the property, or the presence of diseases that could affect the wildlife. This guide does not offer specific technical guidelines for population monitoring, which are for a specialist technician, but it does stress the importance of some kind of regular monitoring existing, rather than managing the property based only on occasional impressions.

Keeping some kind of written record of observations made over time — sightings, tracks, results of previous hunting seasons — adds value compared with relying solely on memory or scattered impressions, because it allows the property's evolution to be compared from one season to the next with more objectivity. This record, even if simple, can also be useful for communicating with the authorities when information about the management of the hunting ground is requested.

Monitoring is also useful for assessing the effect of management decisions taken in previous seasons, such as a habitat improvement measure or an adjustment to the hunting harvest, allowing a check on whether those decisions had the expected effect on the wildlife populations. Without this kind of monitoring, it is much harder to assess whether the management applied is working well or whether it should be adjusted.

The property's habitat — vegetation, water, cover — is the foundation the wildlife depends on, and its ongoing management directly influences the property's ability to maintain stable populations over time. This can include tasks such as maintaining areas of vegetation that serve as cover or food, preserving water points, especially important during periods of lower rainfall, and in some cases more specific measures aimed at improving conditions for certain species.

Habitat management is not a one-off task, but ongoing work that is best planned somewhat in advance, rather than tackled reactively once an obvious problem is already detected. The guide 'Buying a hunting property: an overview' in this cluster explains, from the buying perspective, why habitat is one of the factors that most determines a property's potential; this guide picks it up again from the perspective of its ongoing maintenance.

Maintaining infrastructure related to the habitat — feeders, artificial drinking troughs, fencing if there is any — is part of this ongoing management, covered in more detail in the guide 'Buying a hunting property: an overview' regarding its initial assessment. From the perspective of management already under way, it is worth establishing a periodic routine for reviewing these installations, rather than waiting until they stop working to attend to them.

In areas with dry summers, maintaining water points is usually one of the habitat management tasks with the most direct impact on wildlife, precisely because it coincides with the time of greatest need and least natural availability of water. Checking in advance that these points are working correctly before the most critical time of year arrives is a more effective preventive management practice than reacting once a problem has already been detected.

In certain circumstances, the game management of a property may require some kind of control over certain species, either because their population has grown out of balance with the available habitat, because they cause damage to crops or to other species, or for other management reasons that the holder will assess together with, where appropriate, a specialist technician and within what the relevant authority authorises. This control is a normal part of responsible game management, rather than an exception.

This guide does not set technical criteria on when or how to apply a specific species control, because it depends on very particular circumstances of each property and each moment, and it is for the holder to assess with technical support and always within the framework authorised by the relevant authority. What is worth bearing in mind is that the balance between the different species present on a property, and between wildlife and the available habitat, is a long-term management objective, not something resolved all at once.

Species control can also be motivated by reasons unrelated to the hunting project itself, such as preventing damage to neighbouring properties with other uses, for example agricultural ones, when certain wildlife can affect them. In these cases, it is worth understanding the management of the hunting property in relation to its wider surroundings, not in complete isolation, and it can be reasonable to maintain some communication with the holders of affected neighbouring properties.

When species control responds to an imbalance detected within the property itself, it is worth approaching it with some caution and with technical support before applying any measure, because a poorly planned intervention can have unintended effects on the property's overall ecosystem, beyond the specific species being acted upon. Caution and technical judgement are, in this field, more valuable than haste to resolve a one-off problem.