Question: how does France (along with many other European countries) manage to have so much more woodland than Scotland and “do” forestry without fencing and planting?
Answer: they control grazing by large herbivores, whether livestock or deer, using completely different legal mechanisms than exist in Scotland
The fundamental failing with the legislative proposals in the Scottish Government’s consultation on “Managing deer for climate and nature”, which closed on Friday, is they are limited to proposing more of the same sort of tweaks to the system that has failed to control deer numbers for over 50 years. Professor Douglas MacMillan described some of the major flaws in those proposals on Parkswatch last week (see here). My own detailed response to the consultation built on those criticisms and I reprint it below in the hope it might help to prompt debate and a radical re-think.
There is pressing need for those who want radical deer reform to become organised and set up a campaign similar to REVIVE which was designed to promote grouse more reform. Unfortunately the response to the consultation from organisations in Scottish Environment Link (see here), which has been lobbying for deer reform for years, while containing some good points (deer fencing should be phased out) accepted the main flawed premises in the Scottish Government proposals; namely that 10 deer per square kilometre on open hill ground is acceptable and the new compulsory powers to restore nature should only apply to specific areas, rather than the whole of Scotland (how Scotland could possibly phase out deer fencing with deer densities of 10 per square kilometre was not explained).
It appears the voluntary organisations involved in the LINK response (RSPB Scotland, Woodland Trust Scotland, Trees for Life, John Muir Trust, National Trust for Scotland, Nature Foundation, Plantlife Scotland and Scottish Wildlife Trust), many of whom own land, may have become primarily concerned with protecting their own interests rather than the wider public interest. Deer Management Nature Restoration Orders, if effective, would make it much easier to manage land in conservation ownership but do nothing for everyone else. It also appears they lack the courage to challenge sporting interests more generally, just as happened with grouse moor reform where the animal welfare organisations had far more success in achieving their objectives than the conservation organisations.
Whatever the explanation, the LINK organisations have not stood up for nature and climate as strongly as they should have done and it is now up to their members to make their views known and get them to take a more radical approach. In my view the decision by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to boycott the whole consultation (see here) presents a major opportunity in this respect. It means the Scottish Government and MSPs will no longer have to waste time listening to gamekeepers views. Instead, Lorna Slater as Minister responsible, could be listening to how deer management is undertaken on the continent and working out how those lessons could be applied in Scotland.
Managing deer for climate and nature: response to consultation from Nick Kempe
The Report of the Deer Working Group, published in December 2021, was extremely thorough, provided an important analysis of how deer numbers in Scotland had increased and why various iterations of legislation intended to control deer numbers had failed and made many useful recommendations which were then accepted by the Scottish Government in their response in March 2021. The report, however, failed to consider how deer were managed abroad and whether a different approach could be applied in Scotland. This was in large part due to the early death of Simon Pepper, the working group chair (see here). This meant that the report did not consider alternative ways of managing deer – including radical reform of the laws on hunting – and that its recommendations were effectively limited to tinkering with the current system.
The second major failure of the report is that it basically accepted NatureScot’s working assumptions about deer densities compatible with the protection of nature – i.e. 10 per square km – when evidence from places like Glen Feshie and Mar Lodge has proved that natural regeneration only takes off when deer are reduced to two per square kilometre. The clear implication is that 10 deer per square km is still likely to be very damaging to the natural environment. While the Scottish Government in their response to the Deer Working Group indicated that target density should be kept under review by NatureScot, so long as it is endorsed by the Scottish Ministers (it is enshrined in the current Biodiversity (see here)) it is unlikely to change.
The proposal to create Deer Management Nature Restoration Orders (DMNROs)
It is, to the Scottish Government’s credit, that it accepts “Scotland is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world”, that with the climate and nature emergencies the need for a more radical approach to nature restoration has been recognised (i.e that the report of the DWG is now out of date) and it is acknowledged that the creation of DMNROs is intended to do this. More specifically, while not explicitly stated, the Scottish Government appears to realise that it cannot attain its 30×30 target (30% of land in Scotland managed for nature by 2030) with high deer numbers. Hence it appears to the proposals for DMNROs.
The unanswered question, however, is why we should limit control of deer to limited areas for nature restoration and not more generally as happens on the continent? Doing so would have significant benefits not just for nature (high deer numbers impact on the ecological health of peat bogs and woodland) but for commercial forestry (enabling Scottish forestry to come in line in the continent where there is very little need to plant trees and deer fencing is almost unknown), farming (damage to crops), road traffic accidents etc. The issue with the DMNRO proposal therefore is not that more powers are needed but that any new powers need to be applied much more widely.
The criteria for DMNROs as currently proposed contain a number of serious weaknesses:
- The consultation states that criteria to determine where DMNROs might be applied will be developed but gives no consideration to the complexity of doing this;
- If similar methodology was adopted as in the selection of protected areas and which NatureScot now uses to establish whether Sites of Special Scientific Interest, for example, are in un/favourable conditions this is likely to be incredibly labour-intensive process. It is also likely to be unworkable given current resource constraints. The proposed process as described substantiates these concerns: “There would be a defined and transparent process for selecting an area for a DMNRO, including publication of assessment material, consultation with interested parties and Ministerial approval. There would also be an appeal process which we expect would mirror the appeals process if NatureScot were to intervene using existing powers, and this would be a statutory appeal to the Scottish Land Court”.
- As proposed the criteria are self-contradictory. DMNROs “can only be ordered where there is social, economic or environmental benefits to be achieved through nature restoration”. In other words nature restoration itself is insufficient. Why then call them DMNROs? This wording appears to have been lifted from the DWG report where it is was being used to make a rather different point, that control is needed not just because of damage to the natural heritage but because of other interests. With various landed interests claiming a reduction in deer number would harm the rural economy and social fabric – wrongly in my view but they are still claiming it – this proposal as worded would make DMNROs very hard to enforce.
- It is also not clear why the Scottish Government believes DMNROs would be any more effective than the powers NatureScot already has, including those under Sections 7 and 8 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 but also other powers available to it such as Nature Conservation Orders. Those powers have almost never been used. The Report of DWG recommended the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee of the Scottish Parliament should instigate a short inquiry into why NS had not used its powers in relation to Caenlochan (where voluntary S7 Agreements have been in place for years at great cost and very little effect) but this has never happened. The Scottish Government in its response to that recommendation said this was a matter for the Committee BUT given they have not acted on the recommendation, it would now appear beholden on the Scottish Government to do so. This would help ensure that any new powers are workable and are likely to bring about the desired changes.
In short, the risk is the DMNRO proposal will introduce lengthy, costly and bureaucratic processes open to legal challenge with little guarantee of positive outcomes. It would be far better to adopt a standard across Scotland of a maximum of 2 deer per square kilometre (where there are no sheep and less than that where there are) and require all land-holdings above 50 ha to produce Deer Management Plans (see here) . We know that only when deer are reduced to 2 per square kilometre nature starts to recover.
Elsewhere in Europe there is far more effective control of deer than in Scotland as a result of fundamentally different laws on hunting, which makes control of deer a community responsibility rather than a privilege of private land-owners. Generally, communities then set targets for numbers and culls which allow other forms of landuse include “nature” to thrive. As a result in countries like France most tree establishment in forestry is through natural regeneration and takes place without any need for forest fencing. Our system hunting in Scotland allows sporting estates to transfer the costs of deer management onto other forms of land-use with disastrous consequences. DMNROs would not be necessary on the continent and we need to question whether a different approach would not be more effective here.
Compulsory Powers and Compliance
The proposals in this section are basically designed to implement recommendations of the Deer Working Group to tweak/fine-tune the existing legal framework to make it more effective. From that perspective they all appear reasonable and would represent an improvement on the current situation. It is unlikely, however, that taken alone they will be sufficient to deliver the changes the Scottish Government wants to see, even if current targets are accepted.
In respect of the proposal to improve data, it is important to note that Deer Management Groups are not at present keeping information and plans they are current expected to produce up to date. Indeed, the quality of data and information publicly available has gone steadily downhill in the last decade and that appears unlikely to change unless there are more far-reaching reforms.
Deer Welfare
The Deer Welfare proposals are basically designed to ensure people killing deer do so in a humane manner. That is something almost everyone will support.
However, it is worth noting how this fits with the Scottish Government’s current approach to animal welfare which is haphazard to say the least and reflects the continued the power and influence of sporting interests. To give one example, while the recently passed Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill will make snares illegal, foxes are not afforded the same level of welfare protection as red deer and there were no proposals in that bill requiring those wishing to shoot foxes to be on a Fit and Competent Persons register. Similar hypocrisy applies to the succeeding clause on close seasons for hind: if close season are justified for hinds on welfare grounds, why not for foxes?
The proposals grouped under this heading could also have unintended consequences by making it much harder for small landowners, such as crofters, owners of small areas of woodland or indeed people with large gardens to control deer than at present. Few of these interests are likely to have either the time or money to meet the requirements of the Fit Persons register without financial support. It is therefore of crucial importance that the Scottish Government consults those interests and then produces a costed plan of how it will help them meet the requirements. Otherwise, the risk is we come even more dependent on the large stalking estates to reduce deer numbers when the evidence shows they are the least likely landowners to want to do this.
The option in the consultation to ban the use of shotguns to kill deer should be rejected. While it is recognised that shotguns are a less humane means of killing deer than rifles, small landowners are unlikely to own rifles or be able to meet the requirements for their use. Because of this the Deer Working Group did not include any recommendation to ban shotguns – just that generally they were better not used – and neither did the Scottish Animal Welfare Committee when commenting on the DWG recommendations. It is strange therefore that the Scottish Government has consulted on this but if they really want the need for small landowners to use shotguns the answer is to reduce deer density across Scotland to 2 per square km. While deer numbers are allowed to remain as high as 10 per square km on open hill ground damaging incursions onto smaller land-holding are inevitable. Small-holders should not have to fence their properties, including gardens, to keep deer out and should have a right to protect their properties against damage caused by deer.
Changes to close seasons
The Scottish Government’s implementation of the recommendation of the DWG to abolish the close seasons for stags last year was welcome although taken alone its impact will be limited because the more pressing issue is to reduce numbers of hinds https://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/2023/06/24/red-deer-and-the-natural-environment-what-differences-will-the-changes-to-the-legislation-make/ .
Instead of adopting the recommendations of the Deer Working Group to change the closed season for shooting hinds of all species of deer to” 1st to 15th April (inclusive) and end on a date in the period 31st August to 15th September (inclusive)” is proposing the closed season should run from 31st March to 30th September. The consultation states this is a result of recommendations from the report of the Scottish Animal Welfare Committee, which it asked to consider the DWG proposals. The SAWC report (see here), however, did not actually recommend these changes.
It appears therefore that the proposed changes may have come because the Scottish Government is fearful of the Scottish Gamekeepers who have recently announced they are boycotting the whole consultation because of their concerns about shooting pregnant hinds (as far as I am aware the SGA has not shown similar concerns about shooting vixens). Whatever, the reason the new closed season as proposed will make reduction in deer numbers far harder. This is evidenced by the various quotes the Scottish Government has included in the consultation from bodies by other landowning organisations, e.g “It is clear that shooting female deer is the solution to population control and culling male”. The dates recommended by the DWG should therefore be adopted.
The whole rationale behind closed seasons as a means of protecting the welfare of hinds and their offspring, however, merits further review. The intention is to protect hinds during the last stages of pregnancy and their young while they are dependant on them. However, there is now good evidence to show that where deer numbers are high the number of still-births and mortality among red deer calves increases dramatically. In such circumstances, it makes no rational sense to make it unlawful to shoot a hind that has lost its calf. The difficulty, of course, is establishing which hinds have calves and which may have lost them. That could potentially, however, addressed over time through the fit and competent persons register – i.e. people with the training, knowledge and time to establish whether hinds had calves could be allowed to shoot those without during what would become a “controlled” rather than “closed season”.
Venison
The Deer Working Group recommended better information on venison distribution was needed to address barriers to consumption. The Scottish Government in these proposals has proposed scrapping that Venison Dealers License on the grounds that considerations such as hygiene could be met through the Food Standards Scotland’s others system but in doing so has scrapped the proposals to collect more data so supply chains could be improved. This appears incoherent and self-contradictory: what is needed is a system which delivers both.
Kept and Farmed Deer
This section concerns farmed or kept deer and their potential impact on the natural environment and the proposal that deer farmers should require a license to do so seems sensible (and indeed could and should be part of a system to provide better information about venison supply chains).
There is no mention of reindeer despite the damage that some escapes are now causing in parts of the Cairngorms, an omission that should be rectified. It is also anomalous that while it is proposed the release of red and roe deer should require authorisation, other species are not covered.
The Deer Working Group made several recommendations about the need to control non-native species of deer. Yet while the Scottish Government has recognised the Muntjac are now moving into Scotland and if that is not stopped now will have far greater costs down the line, there is nothing in the proposals that would make it easier for NatureScot to control or eliminate non-natives species. That needs to be rectified. There seems no reason, for example, that people on the fit and competent persons register should not have a statutory duty to report non-native species and to cull them where possible.
Conclusion
Given the shortcomings in the recent Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill, which means that damage to nature and climate will be allowed to continue over the large part of Scotland that is managed for driven grouse shooting in the short-term (see here), it is absolutely essential that the Scottish Government takes a more radical approach to deer, whatever the discomfort this causes to the owners of sporting estates managed for deer stalking. That means revising current targets for deer density down from 10 to 2 per square km and creating new methods of statutory deer control learning from the experience abroad. The proposals in this consultation, while representing a step forward in certain respects, will not deliver that.
much to ponder here and bravely put
Very interesting ideas ….the logic is there for all to see, but the politics behind these proposals is deliberately opaque. I suspect you are right to suggest the Conservation charities (and the NP Boards) have done a deal with the sporting estates. At this rate we will never see meaningful ecological restoration. I agree we need a new radical and independent group to campaign for nature unfettered by landowning interests..
Douglas, this is absolute nonsense. There is no deal between conservation eNGOs and private sporting estates over deer management and in the way you suggest. Our views are represented by LINK Deer Group which has been at the forefront of advocating for reform of deer management in Scotland for many years, and we are making steady progress. These yards are though hard won. Please accept that it is very hard to change systems which are supported by strong vested interests. We would be happy to explain this sometime. This comment shows lack of understanding I am afraid.
Ross, I believe that the value of estate land is based upon the head of deer grazing upon it: hence the JMT fell out with their neighbours at East Schiehallion, when they heavily culled deer moving across their property from Glen Lyon. Reducing the deer population and thereby the land value would mean that method of valuing deer forest would have to be abolished, and a new one brought in, probably by an Act of Parliament.
Venison is arguably the most ethical meat one can eat, based upon the life of the animal, its natural food source, and its killing by a trained marksman, which is humane compared to being hunted and killed by predatory animals. However, the eating of venison as a staple foodstuff is another issue which needs modernising: it’s seen as the Laird’s private property which we are eating, because in feudal times hunting deer was forbidden. There’s no allemannsrett regarding hunting in Scotland. Feudal tenure for house ownership wasn’t abolished in Scotland until the early 21st century, so its continuation in either law or attitude regarding land ownership and management would have to be changed before meaningful land reform and improvements can be made.
I’m on the side of every land user here – farmers, sporting and recreational estates and wildlife conservationists: trees benefit all of us. The Norwegians regenerated a lot of their tree cover in the last century from an overgrazed state. Like Scotland, only 1% of Norway’s trees are old growth. The rest are regeneration or plantation forestry.
People value land on whatever criteria they deem to be important. Land in the Highlands is now largely valued on its potential for CO2 absorption, and this trumps everything else, including whatever deer might be there.
An effective national programme to control deer numbers in Scotland would allow vast areas of woodland to naturally regenerate.
The study linked below suggests this natural regeneration could capture 7Mt CO2 per annum for the next 100 years. At the current carbon sequestration price of £50/tonne that would generate an income of £350M per year, which would I guess pay for the culling many times over.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/abf467
I totally agree with you Mark, and so would have my dad.
Thanks Nick. I can assure you that the eNGOs have not done any deal with the sporting estates. Exactly the opposite. We have been battling for decades to get change. Each ‘minor tweak’ has come with a massive effort against powerful entrenched and vested interests. It is incredibly frustrating but at least in policy terms we feel like we have won the argument. The quotes from Ministers you mention being a case in point and a sea change from decades ago. But it is glacially slow. The Deer Working Group recommendations were made at the end of 2019. It will be five years till we see these presented in draft legislation. Yes we support the consultation as a step in the right direction that implements the recommendations made. Is it enough? Of course not. Is it easy to get this far? No. The SGA and allies have coordinated hundreds of responses opposing the modest measures proposed. It is also worth noting the personal and professional abuse in meetings in social media, in the press that eNGO staff attract by advocating change and implementation increased deer culls. It is also worth noting that the majority of the deer cull remains in the hands of ‘traditional’ stalkers. Imposing change without trying to take them with it is going to be even harder. We have therefore also spent considerable effort on ‘Finding the Common Ground initiative’ to try to achieve a just transition.
Mike, your comment is much appreciated. In respect of the self-proclaimed traditional stalkers criticising the Scottish Government, NGOs etc it is interesting that they make no fuss about the virtual eradication of deer from parts of the eastern Cairngorms, e.g. on King Charles estate at Delnadamph, as part of intensive grouse moor management. This suggests that the SGA will simply say what the sporting estate landowners want and it is a complete waste of time trying to make common ground with them. The target needs to be the landowners who manage land for sporting purposes and which results in areas with no deer (where the nature recovery which should then take place is then destroyed by muirburn) or far too many (like King Charles other estate at Balmoral).
“the SGA will simply say what the sporting estate landowners want ” I think this has been clear and evident for years!
Agree with Mike. Worth also adding that LINK Deer Group helped secure their independent Deer Working Group Report in the first place. As Mike says gains against strong and long-standing vested interests are very hard won. We encourage people who truly want to see sustainable deer management to get behind our efforts to secure deer reforms , not criticise, and especially without knowing the full background.
What about restoring natural deer predators?
Yes, I think that wolves would be great for the eco system. I was at a very good park in Ireland, they talked about wolves stalking deer help the deer to keep moving. This then allowed the small tress to take hold as the deer have to keep moving. The wolves will stalk and only take one or two from the herd over weeks.
Scotland and France are not a good comparison for woodland cover. The climatic and abiotic conditions are totally different in Scotland. Notwithstanding, there are too many deer here, but keeping them in check is easier said than done. Bloggers seem to think that it’s easy, though, and lack respect for the people who are doing the work. To suggest NGOs are doing deals with sporting estates is ridiculous.
The climate, geology soils etc on the continent are clearly different to Scotland but that misses the point that large parts of the Alps etc were once very overgrazed and had bare hillsides as in Scotland. The reason they now look very different is not because of that climate, geology, soils etc but because grazing is controlled. Actually, you can apply the climate, geology, soils argument to Scotland – the west and east highlands are very different in both respects and so are the southern highlands but the reason they all have bare hillsides and forestry needs to be protected by fences is due to the failure to control grazing pressures. What the continental experience shows, and why it needs to be considered, is if you have a different legal framework (where rights to shoot deer don’t primarily sit with large landowners) is that deer numbers can be controlled much better. In terms of deer control being difficult, the eradication of deer from places like King Charles’ estate of Delnadamph shows its not that difficult. If the King can do it, so can everyone else
I’m fairly new to the issues around deer management and this is a genuine question. What’s difficult about keeping the numbers of deer in check supposing there was the will to do it? When I lived on the edge of Perth I would see groups of deer in a field when I was walking to the supermarket. They are everywhere. There is a plague of deer on Arran and there is a fully licensed and trained marksman who shoots some. The number shot is limited only by the size of the appetite on Arran to eat venison. So please explain what the hard part is about killing deer?
Please do not talk about eradicating deer. That has never been and should not be the intention with regard to roe and red deer. Saying it adds fuel to the vested interest view that eradication is the aim of the conservation lobby.
Just to make it 100% clear, the only people who appear to be in favour of eradicating deer are owners of intensively managed grouse moors like King Charles at Delnadamph. Two deer per square km, which is what is compatible with restoration of nature, is not eradication of deer, it just brings us into line with other areas in Europe. It is important too to emphasise that we NEED deer in regenerating woodland, otherwise we would end up with yet more native woodland like that which is now planted behind deer fences: even aged, uniform and in consequence of very limited ecological benefit. Some grazing is absolutely necessary to produce diverse forests. As I heard Thomas MacDonnell, former conservation manager at Wildland Ltd state, “we love deer……………………..”
Just to clarify, my view is that.these proposals do little to encourage ecological restoration nationally but rather have a clear focus on keeping the Conservation sector and the sporting estates sector happy. These proposals accomplish this seemingly impossible task relatively easily.
The conservation sector is content because they can point to the new DMNRO designation, which might encourage Nature Scot to use their existing powers slightly more often in a targeted fashion. Most likely on a property adjoining their own in Cairngorms or Affric. I can forsee lots of positive media coverage about this. However I suspect this new designation will cover a very small percentage of land …less than 5% I would guess, with even smaller areas within it subject to ‘the powers’ available to NatureScot. So not really a major change at all.
Sporting estates will also be delighted because, as far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing in this package of measures that will encourage, convince or compel sporting estates to shoot more deer. And this is what is really needed!!
Overall then not much scope for environmental gains through ecological restoration nationally. It is my view that tweaking a system, that essentially gives all the power to the landowners, is a dead end. We therefore need a new system …like our European and American counterparts….that allows deer to be managed sustainably in social, economic and environmental terms.
Please see our consultation response. We want to see NatureScot use the full range of their statutory deer management powers. We want these powers to be based on enhancement of natural habitats not prevention of damage as at present. We have been pushing NatureScot to use compulsory control orders under s8 of Deer Act for years. We also want to see a cull approval system administered by NatureScot.There is no conspiracy as suggested previously.
Hi Duncan, really appreciate your engagement but the SEL consultation response as drafted appears to accept 10 deer per square km on the open hill. That number of deer is in my view and based on evidence from Creag Meagaidh, Abernethy, Wild Land Ltd and the northern part of Mar Lodge completely incompatible with the restoration of nature. Given NatureScot’s failure to use their Section 8 powers, why accept their working assumptions on Deer and damage (which are years out of date?) Nick
Couple of points here as some-one who advises on deer management and native woodlands.
The DMNRO’s will almost certainly prove to be illegal because ultimately, in the eyes of the law, “restoration” (to what and over what timeline?) is subjective, and the law does not work in that way. ScotGov can spend months developing this if it wants to, but it will fall at the first challenge. It is not as if ScotGov dont have form on this in other areas.
What might be more powerful is a “statutory cull approval system”….. with the clue to what it is being in the name. ie Statutory deer management, as called for by the DWG report. However the problem with this is that “statutory” means the law, and the law applies to everyone, not just the people you dont like. So, it would have to apply to all 55,000 landholdings in Scotland, not just the 1000 or so “big estates”. Nature Scot do not have resources for that, so that is not going to happen. I was amused by a comment earlier that statutory deer plans should apply to all areas of land greater than 50 ha. If you want densities less than 2 per sq km, as also suggested, then you could not have more than one deer on a 50 ha landholding. ie a doe (or hind) and calf would presumably trigger an action against you. There is a wider suggestion that we should have no more than 2 deer per sq km in priority native woodlands, but given that most native woodlands are less than 100 ha (1 sq km), then again, any two deer standing together would not be allowed. This is the sort of nonsense being banded about at the moment.
If you want nature restoration in Scotland, then I would say you need to do two things:
One is that Nature Scot should be prepared to use their current powers, and use full cost recovery powers to claim back the cost. Done effectively just once, everyone will get the message. This requires no changes to the law, and doesn’t cost anything.
The second thing is for ScotGov to incentivize nature recovery. So, if you want to see x hectares of woodland, then fund x hectares of woodland, not 50% of x hectares. Also, it is a nonsense that the average grant cost of establishing a hectare of native woodland by planting is C£5000, but acheiving a hectare of regeneration is £300….. and you are expected to GPS each bit seperately and map it with a seperate FID number, which will ultimately cost more than £300 per ha.. And people wonder why most landowners are not interested in regeneration? Provide more money for regneration, and you will get more regeneration.
In my experience, there is no shortage of landowners out there who would be quite happy to do all sorts of things to help “nature recovery”, but there is simply no coherent funding/ policy environment for them to do so.
If you use the comparison with the 20th century, woodland cover in Scotland rose from 6% to 18.5% because government had funding, research, social policy and national strategy all aligned and people, including landowners, bought in to it and made it work. OK, that applied to mostly sitka spruce at the time, but the same would apply to native species now.
Do we see should a coherence and integration of all these things now?
No, of course not. Just soundbites and weak policy statements, and nothing that might work in the real world. ScotGov are part of the problem/ solution, and they have to realize that people act on the signals they give out. At the moment, the signals are all over the place. Hence, not much progress being made.
Mr Clements. You misunderstand the 50 hectare rule. This would require properties of more than 50 hectares to submit a deer management plan and is not directly related to culling action as you seem to infer. Secondly a deer management plan would apply to all deer species…you can find lots of roe in 50 hectares I can assure you.
There is of course no “50 hectare rule”. It is just something suggested by some-one on here. But if the 2 deer per sq km becomes real enough, a deer plan will have to commit to delivering this. This 2 deer per sq km does not say what sort of deer, so if there are lots of roe deer in 50 ha, your plan, if it is to mean anything, will have to ensure that there is actually just one residing there…… which is of course, impossible.
The point I am trying to establish with the 50 hectare threshold is to ensure all landowners have to consider deer management..all species. The reason we have a deer problem in this country is the weak legislative framework that allows land owners to ignore deer management. A 50 ha wood with no deer management will generate lots of surplus animals that will go on to others property. The current system is hopeless.
No not quite Mr Clements – the requirement to produce a plan would NOT require all landowners to reduce deer densities to 2 per km2. An individual landowner plan (50 hectare or above) would of course be context specific (i.e. have to consider species, location, land use and boundary issues). Low densities of 2 per km2 are only necessary, broadly speaking, where native woodland recovery (with a view to biodiversity and carbon objectives) is the primary aim of deer policy (e.g. in the vast areas of our hills and mountains that have been denuded of woodland cover). Higher densities of roe and red could be maintained in other habitats, especially where there is active management. If, on the other hand, maintaining sporting land values for absentee investors is your aim, or providing recreational shooting opportunities for absentee landlords on holiday, then of course you might want higher than 2km2 – say 10 or more deer per km2.
The 2 deer per sq km specifically references “priority” woodland areas, but which some Nature Scot staff understand to be any native woodland. The suggestion that all landholdings above 50 ha should have a deer plan, while laudable in theory, will simply be unworkable. NFUS in particular will soon put a stop to that, and anyway, ScotGov will not fund the infra structure necessary to police it. So that will not work.
You may be right, but I think we need to start considering a new approach to deer management that attempts to reduce the significant costs deer impose on society when their populations grow and expand their range. We need to envisage a more sustainable deer economy and then work out how to get there. The current system has failed….despite 20-30 years of tweaking. Maybe 500 hectares is a more realistic threshold, but we need to raise our game significantly…the Scottish government and Nature Scot seem to have their heads in the sand and that seems to make a lot of people happy.