Managing Deer for Climate and Nature: Analysis of consultation responses

Executive summary

1. Between 5 January and 29 March 2024, the Scottish Government carried out a public consultation on proposed changes to deer management legislation in Scotland. These changes arose from recommendations made by the Deer Working Group (DWG) in its report of February 2020. The consultation also sought views on additional powers for NatureScot (above and beyond those recommended by the DWG) to address issues of biodiversity and habitat loss caused by wild deer. The main findings from an analysis of the responses received are summarised below.

About the consultation

2. The consultation contained 30 questions on six themes: (i) enhancing the natural environment through the introduction of Deer Management Nature Restoration Orders (DMNROs), (ii) compulsory powers and compliance, (iii) deer welfare, (iv) changes to close seasons for female deer, (v) venison and (vi) kept and farmed deer.

3. The analysis was based on 1,605 responses – 107 from organisations and 1,498 from individuals. Organisational respondents comprised (i) land management, deer and sporting organisations (48%), (ii) conservation and animal welfare organisations (34%), and (iii) other organisation types (19%). The latter category included public bodies, food sector organisations and a small group of organisations that did not fit into any of the other groups.

Overview of key findings

4. The consultation questions mainly invited respondents to state whether they agreed (‘yes’) or disagreed (‘no’) with a specific proposal. The responses indicated broad support – over 60% of respondents said ‘yes’ in each case. There was particularly strong support for proposals relating to deer welfare and kept and farmed deer (75%–85% of respondents agreed with these proposals). Among organisations, a large majority of conservation and animal welfare organisations supported nearly all the proposals. By contrast, a large majority of land management, deer and sporting organisations disagreed with the proposals on DMNROs, on close seasons, and on the use of emergency powers.

5. However, regardless of whether they supported or opposed the proposals, respondents often raised concerns and caveats in their comments. In addition, it should be noted that around half of the individuals who responded to the consultation answered ‘yes’ (in some cases ‘don’t know’) to nearly all the tick-box questions without commenting further.

Part 1: Enhancing the natural environment through the introduction of DMNROs

6. Respondents in favour of DMNROs often said that deer overpopulation was the main obstacle to ecosystem recovery in areas of Scotland. This group thought deer numbers need to be reduced as a matter of urgency. Respondents opposed to DMNROs gave four main reasons for their views. First, they thought there was no need for DMNROs and that using (and amending, if necessary) existing legislation was preferable to introducing new legislative powers. Second, they argued that deer are only one of a range of factors that have led to ecological change in Scotland over many years. Third, they thought that DMNROs would penalise landowners who may have little control over the deer passing through their land. Finally, they supported the current voluntary approach to deer management and opposed proposals which, in their view, would make nature restoration ‘compulsory’. Those who raised this point suggested that the process of DMNRO designation was likely to be slow and ‘argumentative’ and could lead to legal challenges.

7. There was little comment on the proposed criteria for DMNROs among those who agreed with them. Among those who did not support DMNROs (or the criteria proposed for them), there was a repeated view that the proposed criteria were ‘subjective’ and that a lack of clarity would make it difficult for land managers to anticipate and respond to them.

8. In relation to cost recovery, respondents who opposed DMNROs argued that incentives should be offered to landowners to encourage compliance rather than recovering costs from those who did not (or could not) comply. Those who supported DMNROs often made similar comments, suggesting that any individual subject to a DMNRO should be eligible for financial support and advice to enable them to comply. However, this latter group wanted any financial support to have clear conditions attached.

9. Respondents made a range of other comments on the topic of DMNROs. Respondents of all types thought there needed to be greater clarity about how DMNROs would operate in practice. Those who supported DMNROs often suggested areas of Scotland that should be prioritised for use of DMNROs. The latter group also raised concerns about the use of fencing as a recommended deer management measure.

Part 2: Compulsory powers and compliance

10. Respondents of all types agreed that good quality data were essential to the effective management of deer populations. However, there was a common view that data availability varied across the country and was particularly poor in lowland areas. Conservation and animal welfare organisations often offered suggestions about how data quality and availability could be improved. Land management, deer and sporting organisations said they already shared information with NatureScot on a voluntary basis and were happy to continue to do so. They therefore queried the need for further legislation in this area.

11. Conservation and animal welfare organisations largely supported a proposal to increase the period over which NatureScot could ask for information on planned culls from 12 months to up to 5 years. Other respondents – particularly land management organisations, deer groups and some individuals – said the preparation of 5-year cull plans (with annual updates) was already common practice among deer management groups. Some in this latter group suggested that any request for 5-year plans should be restricted to (upland) areas where data were more likely to be available to support such planning. Others questioned the value of a 5-year cull plan given the likely impact of external factors during that period.

12. With respect to the use of emergency powers, some respondents (mainly conservation and animal welfare organisations and individuals) said that it was right that NatureScot should have the power to intervene and enter land to carry out sustainable deer management in the public interest, and to recover reasonable costs where they had done so. However, respondents in this group also said that (i) effective deer management will require a combination of incentives and compulsory powers, (ii) better supported and enforced deer management plans may be more effective than further legislation, (iii) NatureScot should continue to provide advice and support to those involved in deer management, and (iv) deer management should be better resourced. Other respondents (including land management organisations, deer groups, sporting organisations and some individuals) expressed concerns about the proposed changes to emergency powers. Respondents thought the proposals lacked clarity and involved too much subjectivity. They also thought the use of such emergency powers should always be a last resort.

Part 3: Deer welfare

13. There was widespread agreement that deer welfare was very important and general support for the proposals in the consultation paper. However, respondents often raised concerns about aspects of the proposals which they thought required to be addressed.

14. Both organisational and individual respondents raised a range of queries, concerns and caveats in relation to the requirement that all those involved in shooting deer ‘should meet fit and competent standards as evidenced by having achieved at least Deer Stalking Certificate Level 1’ (DSC1). In particular, there were concerns that (i) the proposal was unnecessarily bureaucratic, and would likely result in a reduction in the number of individuals who were able to shoot deer, (ii) this would discriminate against small landowners including crofters, (iii) exceptions were needed for those involved in shooting deer as part of a recreational sporting experience, and deer stalking novices, (iv) DSC1 was not the appropriate ‘gateway qualification’, and (v) access to relevant courses was limited, and expensive.

15. In general, respondents saw benefits – in terms of reduced bureaucracy – of allowing (some) current individual authorisations of deer management activities to be replaced with registration on a Fit & Competent Register. However, there was a range of views on which aspects of deer culling should continue to require individual authorisations.

16. Animal welfare organisations and a range of individuals emphasised that they were opposed to the use of shotguns to kill deer, and that this method should be used only as a last resort in tightly defined circumstances. Some respondents, especially land management organisations, countryside sporting organisations and individuals, emphasised the importance of developing technical advice and guidance on the use of shotguns to kill deer.

Part 4: Changes to close seasons for female deer

17. Respondents who supported the proposals to change the close seasons for female deer – including almost all conservation organisations and all animal welfare organisations – thought the proposals offered a good balance between ensuring deer welfare and protecting the environment. However, despite agreeing with the proposals, this group also expressed concerns similar to those raised by land management organisations, deer groups and countryside sporting organisations (who were often opposed to the proposals). The main concerns related to (i) perceived impacts on the welfare of pregnant hinds and dependant young, (ii) impacts on deer stalkers, the public, and hillwalkers, (iii) the lack of discrimination in terms of the close seasons for different species, and (iv) the perceived lack of evidence to justify the proposals.

18. Respondents suggested a range of alternative approaches to defining the close season(s) for female deer. For the most part, the alternatives involved extending the close season(s) beyond the dates set out in the consultation, although there were also some voices – particularly deer groups and some individuals – who wished to see the close season reduced or abolished. There were mixed views in relation to whether or not the close season for all species of female deer should be the same.

Part 5: Venison

19. Respondents of all types stressed the importance of food safety and hygiene standards. Most respondents agreed with the proposal to move away from venison specific regulation, although land management, deer and sporting organisations and those in the ‘other organisation types’ category offered more of a mix of views on this issue.

20. Those who agreed with the proposal to move away from venison specific regulation thought other existing food safety legislation was sufficient. They highlighted both shortcomings with the current system as well as anticipated benefits of the proposed system. Those who disagreed emphasised the importance of food safety and protecting the food chain. They thought that licensing was an important measure in ensuring good practice and maintaining consumer confidence and were keen that this requirement was not removed without robust alternative arrangements being in place. Food sector organisations were among those giving such views.

21. There was general support for improving data gathering to support traceability and food safety, and to better understand the venison market in Scotland. Moreover, there was a broad view that the market for venison was integral to the success of the proposed package of reforms to deer management, and that action was required to address this.

Part 6: Kept and farmed deer

22. Respondents who indicated support for the shooting of stray farmed deer stressed that this 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. Respondents who did not agree with the proposal (all of whom were individuals) mainly cited welfare issues.

23. Respondents 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. Respondents who expressed reservations about the proposal commonly said that deer welfare was already protected – or could be protected – via existing legislation and systems relating to other animals.

24. Respondents who supported the proposal to require authorisation when releasing captive red or roe deer generally highlighted the benefits of this approach in reducing biosecurity risks when releasing animals into the wild and in addressing the welfare issues related to the translocation of previously captive animals. 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. Some queried the extent to which this was an issue. There was a general view that a joined-up approach was needed in relation to the release of non-native invasive species, and that farmed deer and non-native species of deer should never be released into the wild.

Other issues raised by respondents

25. A range of other (related) issues were raised across the consultation. These addressed (i) a perceived lack of clarity in the proposals, (ii) suggestions for alternative approaches to deer management, and (iii) questions/concerns about the extent to which the consultation had adequately covered the recommendations of the Deer Working Group report.