Managing deer for climate and nature: consultation analysis

8 Kept and farmed deer (Q27–Q30)

8.1 Part 6 of the consultation paper described proposals for responding to a range of recommendations from the DWG report concerning the welfare of kept and farmed deer. It was noted that, although the vast majority of deer in Scotland live in the wild, there are also populations of deer kept in captivity – for example, farmed deer kept as livestock for the purpose of producing venison. The proposals covered issues relating to arrangements for the culling of farmed deer, the licensing of kept deer, and the authorisation required for the release of captive red or roe deer.

8.2 The consultation asked four questions on these issues.

Question 27: Do you agree with our proposals that the owner or occupier of land should be allowed to shoot stray farmed deer on that land in order to prevent damage by the deer, providing there is, by their assessment, no other reasonable or practical way to contain the deer? [Yes | No | Don’t know]

Question 28: Do you agree with our proposals that anyone wishing to keep deer as private property (i.e. not for the purpose of farming or as an exhibit in a zoo) should require a licence to protect the welfare of those deer? [Yes | No | Don’t know]

Question 28a: If you do not support the introduction of licensing for kept deer, what further action, if any, would you recommend to protect their welfare?

Question 29: Do you agree with our proposals that anyone seeking to release captive red or roe deer into the wild in Scotland should require authorisation from NatureScot, for example, deer which may have been caught and monitored for research purposes? [Yes | No | Don’t know]

Question 29a: If you do not agree with our proposals that anyone releasing red or roe deer should require authorisation, what, if any, further actions would you recommend to ensure they do not cause damage to habitats, or pose a risk to wild deer populations?

Question 30: Please provide any further comments on the proposals set out in this section here.

Shooting of stray farmed deer by landowners/occupiers (Q27)

8.3 Question 27 asked whether respondents agreed that owners and occupiers of land should be allowed to shoot stray farmed deer to prevent damage.

8.4 Table 8.1 shows that, overall, 85% of respondents agreed, 4% disagreed, and 11% said ‘don’t know’. Individuals were somewhat more likely than organisations to agree with the proposal (86% versus 77%). Almost all conservation and animal welfare organisations (94%) agreed with the proposal. Around three-quarters of respondents in the ‘other organisations types’ category (79%) and around two-thirds of land management, deer and sporting organisations (65%) also agreed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding

A more detailed breakdown of responses by organisation type is shown in Annex 3, Table A3.25.

The requirement for a licence to keep deer as private property (Q28)

8.5 Question 28 asked respondents if they agreed with the proposal that anyone wishing to keep deer as private property should require a licence.

8.6 Table 8.2 shows that, overall, 76% of respondents agreed, 12% disagreed, and 11% said ‘don’t know’. Similar proportions of individuals (76%) and organisations (73%) agreed with the proposal. A large majority of conservation and animal welfare organisations (91%) agreed, while around two-thirds of land management, deer and sporting organisations (63%) and organisations in the ‘other organisation types’ category (67%) also agreed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding

A more detailed breakdown of responses by organisation type is shown in Annex 3, Table A3.26.

8.7 Question 28 included a follow-up question inviting those who did not agree with the proposal to put forward other suggestions for actions to protect the welfare of kept deer. Altogether, 189 respondents – 25 organisations and 164 individuals – provided comments These comments are presented along with other comments made at Question 30 below.

Authorisation for releasing red or roe deer into the wild (Q29)

8.8 Question 29 asked respondents if they agreed with the proposal that anyone seeking to release captive red or roe deer into the wild should require authorisation from NatureScot to do so.

8.9 Table 8.3 shows that, overall, 87% of respondents agreed and 9% disagreed. The remaining 3% of respondents said ‘don’t know’. The pattern of responses on this question was similar among organisations and individuals. In addition, there was general agreement with this proposal across all organisational categories.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding

A more detailed breakdown of responses by organisation type is shown in Annex 3, Table A3.27.

8.10 Question 29 included a follow-up question inviting further comments from those who did not agree with the proposal to require authorisation from anyone releasing captive red and roe deer. However, as set out in Chapter 1 (paragraph 1.11), no space was provided in the online questionnaire for comments on this question. Thus, respondents simply addressed this question together with any other comments they had on Part 6 of the consultation at Question 30 and views on this question are summarised below.

Comments on farmed, kept and captive deer (Q30)

8.11 Question 30 invited any further comments on the proposals set out in this section. Altogether, 163 respondents – 39 organisations and 124 individuals – provided comments. The sections below present views on proposals relating to (i) the shooting of farmed deer, (ii) the licensing of kept deer, and (iii) the release of captive red and roe deer. A final section presents other comments related to farmed, kept or captive deer.

The shooting of farmed deer

8.12 Respondents (organisations and individuals) who indicated support for the shooting of stray farmed deer largely endorsed the approach set out in the consultation. They stressed that shooting should be a ‘last resort’, and/or that efforts should first be made to contain the deer, contact the owner, and arrange for its return. Respondents noted that farmed deer should be tagged and easily recognisable to allow this to happen. Reference was made to the FLS (Forestry and Land Scotland) policy on stray sheep which respondents said provided a suitable approach to such situations.

8.13 Some respondents raised issues relating to the rights and responsibilities of farmers in such situations, with two different perspectives presented. On the one hand, some respondents said that deer farmers had responsibilities to prevent and respond to this type of situation by installing secure fencing and taking the initiative in notifying neighbouring landowners of escapees. It was also suggested that deer farmers should have to pay for any damage caused or be fined in such circumstances. On the other hand, it was noted that deer could escape following action by third parties (for example, in damaging fencing or leaving gates open) and that it was therefore unreasonable for deer farmers always to be held responsible. Some also queried if compensation would be paid to farmers if escaped deer were shot.

8.14 Additionally, respondents occasionally raised points about the implementation of this proposal, suggesting the need for guidelines on assessing when there was ‘no other reasonable or practical way to contain the deer’, or expressing concern about how farmed deer would be identified. The point was also made that farmed deer may have been medicated and that this would need to be checked before a carcass could be passed into the food chain.

8.15 Respondents who did not agree with the proposal (all of whom were individuals) mainly cited welfare issues. These respondents (i) said that no deer should be killed, or (ii) expressed concern that any provision of this type could be used to justify shooting non-farmed deer that had escaped from other places (e.g. from wildlife rehabilitation centres).

8.16 A range of more general points and concerns about deer farming were also expressed:

• Among organisations, some conservation and animal welfare respondents expressed support for a licensing or ID/registration system for farmed deer.
• Among individuals, there were several different views. Some expressed the view that deer farming operated within an adequate welfare framework. Others expressed opposition to deer farming (and public subsidy for this), albeit for contrasting reasons: while some were opposed on welfare or climate grounds, others favoured wild venison and thought farmed deer was detrimental to the venison market as a whole.

Licensing of kept deer

8.17 Respondents, both organisations and individuals, who supported the licensing of kept deer said that this would enhance animal welfare, provide accountability and traceability, and protect against the consequences of escape into the wild. On this final point, respondents noted the potential risks that kept deer presented to the local environment, to wild deer stock in terms of disease, and to the venison food chain.

8.18 However, alongside this support for the introduction of licensing, respondents in this group often also noted that kept deer were already covered by existing animal welfare legislation and systems. Some respondents (individuals in particular) therefore queried the need for a new licensing system.

8.19 Respondents who expressed reservations about the proposal also commonly said that deer welfare was already protected – or could be protected – via existing legislation and systems relating to other animals. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006), and the CPH system^[9] were commonly mentioned. These respondents thought deer should be treated the same as other animals, and that there was no need for a licensing system. However, respondents often also suggested existing statutory arrangements could be complemented by the development of best practice guidance. Respondents making such points included land management organisations, conservation groups, deer groups and individuals.

8.20 Other points of concern raised by respondents, individuals in particular, about this proposal included the following:

• The Scottish Government had not provided evidence to demonstrate the need for a licensing system for kept deer – it was suggested that, given the number of kept deer in Scotland, this was a disproportionate response to a likely low-level issue.
• The term ‘kept deer’ needed to be defined more clearly.
• Licensing represented ‘over-reach’ by the government, and would involve unnecessary bureaucracy and additional cost for deer owners, and a poor use of resources for those involved in delivering the system.
• Deer owners were best placed to know how to look after the welfare of their animals.
• A licence in itself would not protect deer or improve animal welfare.

Release of captive red and roe deer

8.21 Among organisations, there were several different viewpoints expressed by those who supported authorisation when releasing captive red or roe deer:

• Land management organisations (including deer groups) generally agreed that an authorisation system could address both the biosecurity risks of releasing captive deer into the wild, and the welfare issues related to the translocation of previously captive animals. They noted that release of deer could cover a wide variety of scenarios. In the case of deer captured for research purposes, it was noted that the risks associated with medicated animals entering the food chain were already covered by existing Home Office arrangements. This point was also made by food sector organisations.
• Conservation groups and some respondents from the ‘other organisation types’ category highlighted issues related to the potential release of non-native species into the wild, and the need for a coordinated approach in relation to policies relevant to invasive non-native species.
• Animal welfare organisations stressed the importance of taking account of the welfare implications for the deer to be released and the wild deer already located in the area.

8.22 Individual respondents made similar points and were particularly likely to highlight the need for a joined-up approach relating to non-native invasive species. It was also common for individuals to question the need for new provisions in this area and to believe that current arrangements were sufficient. There was also a suggestion that the need for authorisation should not apply to individuals who have taken in and rehabilitated an injured deer.

8.23 Respondents who did not agree that authorisation should be required when releasing captive deer did not generally put forward suggestions for further or alternative action (and there was no clear consensus in the few suggestions put forward, mainly by individuals). Rather, respondents offered views on, or raised queries about, the proposal. Those who commented (a small number of organisations, and some individuals) made the following points:

• They queried the extent to which this was an issue, and thus the need for a system of authorisation to be introduced. Some said that existing legislation and regulation in this area was adequate. Individuals in particular thought an authorisation system represented ‘unnecessary bureaucracy’.
• They raised questions about the scope of any system. Some suggested it should cover all types of deer, not just red and roe deer, while others said that further clarification was needed on the definition of ‘captive’ and the application of the system. Respondents mentioned, in particular, deer held very briefly for research and tagging or other purposes and released back into the area they had been taken from, and the application of the scheme to wildlife rehabilitation centres.
• They raised questions about the implementation and application of the scheme mentioning, for example, the need to take account of the circumstances of individual cases, and the potential need for authorisation on a 24-hour basis (or retrospective authorisation) when rapid release was in the best interests of a deer.

8.24 In addition to the points set out above, respondents of all types emphasised that farmed deer and non-native species of deer should never be released into the wild.

Other comments on farmed, kept and captive deer

8.25 In addition to the points discussed above, respondents expressed a range of more general views. These included various calls for (i) further consideration to be given to the regulation of reindeer and (ii) bans on kept and/or farmed deer.