Managing deer for climate and nature: consultation analysis

1 Introduction

1.1 Between January and March 2024, the Scottish Government carried out a public consultation on proposed changes to deer management legislation in Scotland. This report presents findings from an analysis of the responses received.

Policy context

1.2 The effective management of wild deer has been seen as a vital component of land management in Scotland for more than eighty years. More recently, it has also been recognised that achieving sustainable deer populations is fundamental to Scotland’s ability to meet its climate and biodiversity goals.

1.3 The Deer Working Group (DWG) was established in 2017 to review the statutory and non-statutory arrangements for the management of wild deer in Scotland. The Working Group’s report, published in February 2020, made 99 recommendations – around half of which were legislative in nature – on how best to modernise Scotland’s approach to deer management.

1.4 Following publication of the DWG report, the Scottish Government asked the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission (SAWC) to consider and provide advice on any welfare impacts of the DWG’s recommendations. The SAWC report was published in February 2021.

1.5 The Scottish Government published its response to the DWG’s report in March 2021, accepting the vast majority of the recommendations. A commitment to implement these was included in the Programme for Government 2021–22.

1.6 In developing its proposals for implementation, the Scottish Government also considered whether there was a need for additional powers for NatureScot (above and beyond those recommended by the DWG) to address issues of biodiversity and habitat loss caused by wild deer. These additional powers are relevant in the context of the Scottish Government’s climate change plan which has prioritised, among other things, targets for tree planting and peatland restoration.

About the consultation

1.7 The Scottish Government’s consultation on deer management, Managing Deer for Climate and Nature, was published on 5 January 2024 and closed on 29 March 2024. The consultation was open to the general public but was specifically targeted at (i) landowners and those involved in deer management, (ii) animal welfare groups, and (iii) public bodies, non-governmental organisations and third sector organisations working on issues relating to nature, the environment and climate change. The consultation paper comprised six parts (or ‘themes’) as follows:

• Enhancing the natural environment (Part 1)
• Compulsory powers and compliance (Part 2)
• Deer welfare (Part 3)
• Changes to close seasons (Part 4)
• Venison (Part 5)
• Kept and farmed deer (Part 6).

1.8 The questions covered under Part 1 focused on issues relating to climate change and biodiversity loss and invited views on possible additional powers for NatureScot. The questions covered under Parts 2 to 6 arose directly from the DWG report and (some of) the recommendations for legislative changes arising from that report. (In total, 21 of the 99 recommendations from the DWG report were addressed under these themes.^[1])

1.9 The consultation paper was published on Citizen Space, the Scottish Government’s consultation platform. Respondents could complete an online questionnaire or submit a response by email or post.

The consultation questionnaire

1.10 It should be noted that there were some differences between (i) the online consultation questionnaire and (ii) the version of the questionnaire contained in the consultation paper (which was the same as the Word version available for download from the consultation webpage). In particular, the questionnaire in the consultation paper contained a small number of questions that did not appear in the online questionnaire.

1.11 Specifically:

• The fifth question under Part 1 – Do you agree that if financial incentives for deer management are created, individuals subject to DMNROs should be automatically eligible for such support? – did not appear in the online questionnaire.
• No space was provided in the online questionnaire for comments relating to three open questions:
  • Question 5: (In Part 1) If you do not support cost recovery, what alternative non-compliance measures, if any, would you recommend?
  • Question 22a: (In Part 4) If you do not agree with our proposals to change the season for female deer, what if any, further actions would you recommend to support increased management of female deer?
  • Question 29a: (In Part 6) 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?

In the online questionnaire, these three open questions were combined with a separate open question (in each section) asking respondents if they had any other comments to make on the issues raised in these sections. Thus, a single space for comments was provided for two open questions in each of these three sections.

1.12 In relation to the first point above, the omission of this question from the online questionnaire meant that Question 5 under Part 1 was addressed only by respondents who submitted their views by email using the Word version of the consultation questionnaire. Moreover, as will be seen in Chapter 3 of this report, only around half of these respondents provided an answer to Question 5.

1.13 In relation to the second point above (and its sub-points), respondents put comments on these questions into whatever space was provided in the online questionnaire.

About the analysis

1.14 Frequency analysis was undertaken in relation to all the closed (tick-box) questions and the findings are presented in tables throughout this report. The total number shown in each table indicates the number of respondents who answered that question. In a small number of cases, answers to the closed questions have been added at the analysis stage.^[2]

1.15 Qualitative thematic analysis was undertaken in relation to respondents’ comments. The aim of this was to identify the main themes, as well as the full range of views submitted in response to each question (or group of questions), and to explore areas of agreement and disagreement in the views of different groups of respondents.

A caveat about the findings

1.16 As with all consultations it is important to bear in mind that the views of those who have responded may not be representative of the views of the wider population. Individuals (and organisations) who have a keen interest in a topic – and the capacity to respond – are more likely than those who do not to participate in a consultation. This self-selection means that the views of consultation participants cannot be generalised to the wider population.

1.17 For this reason, the approach to consultation analysis is primarily qualitative in nature. Its main purpose is not to identify how many people held particular views, but rather to understand the full range of views expressed and any concerns that respondents may have. The qualitative analysis also helps to illuminate responses to the closed questions and gain insight into people’s views.

The report

1.18 The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

• Chapter 2 presents information about the respondents and responses to the consultation.
• Chapters 3 to 9 present the results of analysis of the responses.

1.19 This report also contains four annexes as follows:

• Annex 1 contains a numbered list of the consultation questions. The questions were unnumbered in the consultation paper but have been numbered during the analysis of responses for ease of reference in reporting the findings.
• Annex 2 contains a list of the organisational respondents classified by organisation type.
• Annex 3 contains tables for all the closed consultation questions, with a detailed breakdown by organisation type. Note that the tables in the main body of the report use a smaller (simplified) set of organisational categories.
• Annex 4 contains details of the response rates for each consultation question, with a breakdown by respondent type.