Managing deer for climate and nature: consultation analysis

5 Deer welfare (Q14–Q20)

5.1 Part 3 of the consultation paper set out proposals related to the competency of individuals to undertake deer management activities and the possible development by NatureScot of a code of practice to provide guidance and minimum standards relating to deer management activities.

5.2 The consultation asked seven questions on this issue.

Question 14: Do you agree with our proposals that everyone shooting deer in Scotland should meet fit and competent standards as evidenced by having achieved at least Deer Stalking Certificate Level 1? [Yes | No | Don’t know]

Question 15: Do you agree with our proposals to establish specified competence levels for those deer management activities which currently are only permissible under authorisation by NatureScot, such as night shooting, driving deer and out of season shooting? [Yes | No | Don’t know]

Question 16: Do you agree with our proposals that the requirement for an individual authorisation from NatureScot to carry out activities such as night shooting, driving deer and out of season shooting could be replaced by registration on the Fit & Competent Register where deer managers must have evidenced their competency to undertake specified activities? [The Fit & Competent Register should replace individual authorisations for these activities | There should be a Fit & Competent Register as well as individual authorisations for these activities | There should only be individual authorisations for these activities | Don’t know]

Question 17: Do you agree with our proposals that use of a shotgun to kill deer should be subject to stricter regulation? [Use of a shotgun to shoot deer should require registration on the Fit & Competent Register | Use of a shotgun to shoot deer should require registration on the Fit & Competent Register and an individual authorisation from NatureScot | Use of a shotgun to shoot deer should require an individual authorisation from NatureScot | Use of a shotgun to shoot deer should not be restricted at all | Don’t know]

Question 18: Do you agree with our proposals that any capture of live deer should be individually authorised by NatureScot? [Yes | No | Don’t know]

Question 19: Do you agree that NatureScot should develop a statutory Code of Practice, which could provide guidance and minimum standards on topics such as animal welfare and disease prevention, on the live capture of deer in Scotland in collaboration with stakeholders for use in future? [Yes | No | Don’t know]

Question 20: Please provide any further comments on the proposals set out in this section here.

Meeting fit and competent standards (Q14)

5.3 Question 14 asked respondents if they agreed that everyone shooting deer in Scotland should meet fit and competent standards as evidenced by achieving at least Deer Stalking Certificate Level 1.

5.4 Table 5.1 shows that, overall, 74% of respondents agreed and 24% disagreed. The remaining 2% said ‘don’t know’. Similar proportions of organisations and individuals agreed with the proposal (78% and 74% respectively). However, individuals were more likely than organisations to disagree (24% versus 14%). Almost all conservation and animal welfare organisations (94%), and around two-thirds of land management, deer and sporting organisations (69%) and ‘other organisation types’ (67%) agreed with the proposal.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

A more detailed breakdown of responses by organisation type is shown in Annex 3, Table A3.14.

Establishing competence levels for deer management activities (Q15)

5.5 Question 15 asked respondents if they agreed with the proposal to establish competence levels for deer management activities currently only permissible under authorisation by NatureScot. Examples of such activities included night shooting, driving deer, and out of season shooting.

5.6 Table 5.2 shows that, overall, 81% of respondents agreed with the proposal and 16% disagreed. The remaining 3% said ‘don’t know’. Organisations were more likely than individuals to agree (87% versus 80%). Almost all conservation and animal welfare organisations (94%) and a large majority of land management, deer and sporting organisations (88%) agreed with the proposal. Around two-thirds of organisations in the ‘other organisation types’ category (64%) 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 A3.15.

Registration on the Fit & Competent Register (Q16)

5.7 Question 16 asked respondents if they agreed that the current requirement for individual authorisation from NatureScot to carry out certain deer management activities should be replaced by a requirement to be listed on a (proposed) Fit & Competent Register.

5.8 Table 5.3 shows that, overall, around half (51%) of all respondents agreed, 24% thought individual authorisation and listing on the (proposed) Fit & Competent authorisation should be required, and 14% said that individual authorisation should be required. The remaining 11% of respondents said ‘don’t know’.

5.9 The pattern of responses was similar for organisations and individuals. However, organisations were more likely to support replacing individual authorisation by NatureScot with a requirement to be listed on the (proposed) Fit & Competent Register (58% versus 50%).

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

A more detailed breakdown of responses by organisation type is shown in Annex 3, Table A3.16.

Regulation of use of a shotgun (Q17)

5.10 Question 17 asked respondents if they agreed that use of a shotgun to kill deer should be subject to stricter regulation.

5.11 Table 5.4 shows that, overall, there was a mix of views on the regulation of using a shotgun to kill deer:

• 43% of respondents thought use of a shotgun to shoot deer should require registration on the proposed Fit & Competent Register
• 28% thought it should require registration on the proposed Fit & Competent Register and individual authorisation from NatureScot
• 11% thought it should require individual authorisation from NatureScot
• 8% thought the use of a shotgun to shoot deer should not be restricted at all
• 10% of respondents said ‘don’t know’.

5.12 The pattern of responses was similar for organisations and individuals, although organisations were somewhat more likely than individuals to favour a requirement for registration on the Fit & Competent Register (52% versus 43%). By contrast, compared to organisations, a larger proportion of individuals favoured registration on the Fit & Competent Register AND individual authorisation (29% versus 23%), or no restrictions at all (8% versus 0%).

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

A more detailed breakdown of responses by organisation type is shown in Annex 3, Table A3.17.

Capture of live deer (Q18)

5.13 Question 18 asked respondents if they agreed that any capture of live deer should be individually authorised by NatureScot.

5.14 Table 5.5 shows that, overall, 75% of respondents agreed and 17% disagreed. The remaining 8% of respondents said ‘don’t know’. A large majority of both organisations and individuals agreed with this proposal (82% and 75% respectively). There was also general agreement among land management, deer and sporting organisations (77%), conservation and animal welfare organisations (94%), and organisations in the ‘other organisation type’ category (70%).

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

A more detailed breakdown of responses by organisation type is shown in Annex 3, Table A3.18.

Developing a statutory code of practice (Q19)

5.15 Question 19 asked respondents if they agreed that NatureScot should develop a statutory code of practice for matters relating to deer welfare.

5.16 Table 5.6 shows that, overall, 81% of respondents agreed and 12% disagreed. The remaining 7% selected ‘don’t know’. A large majority of both organisations (79%) and individuals (81%) agreed with this proposal; however, individuals were more likely than organisations to disagree (13% versus 2%), while organisations were more likely than individuals to select ‘don’t know’ (18% versus 6%). Almost all conservation and animal welfare organisations (97%) agreed with the proposal. Most land management, deer and sporting organisations (67%) and a large majority of organisations in the ‘other organisation types’ category (80%) also agreed, with most of the remaining respondents in these groups saying ‘don’t know’ (29% and 20% respectively).

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

A more detailed breakdown of responses by organisation type is shown in Annex 3, Table A3.19.

Other comments (Q20)

5.17 Question 20 asked respondents for any further comments they had in relation to the proposals covering deer welfare. Altogether, 446 respondents – 59 organisations and 387 individuals – provided comments at this question.

5.18 There was widespread agreement that deer welfare was very important and, as can be seen from Tables 5.1 to 5.6 above, there was fairly strong support for the proposals in the consultation paper. In general, however, the respondents who provided comments at Question 20 (both organisations and individuals) raised concerns and caveats about aspects of the proposals which they thought required to be addressed. These views are discussed below under headings related to (i) the requirement for mandatory registration based on Deer Stalking Certificate Level 1, (ii) options for certification, (iii) access to the register and the requirement for individual authorisation in specific circumstances, and (iv) the use of shotguns to kill deer. A final section summarises other issues raised.

Requirement for mandatory registration based on Deer Stalking Certificate Level 1

5.19 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’ (see Question 15 above).

5.20 Five main concerns were identified with the proposal, namely that (i) this was unnecessarily bureaucratic, and would be likely to 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 who were involved in shooting deer as tourists, as part of a recreational sporting experience, or deer stalking novices, (iv) the Deer Stalking Certificate Level 1 (DSC1) was not the appropriate ‘gateway qualification’, and (v) access to relevant courses was limited, and expensive. Each of these concerns is discussed further below.

5.21 First, there were concerns that, at a time when the requirement for those able to shoot deer was increasing, the requirement for mandatory registration would reduce the pool of individuals available to undertake these activities. These concerns were raised particularly by land management organisations, deer groups, countryside sporting organisations and individuals. These respondents thought that the emphasis should be on encouraging more individuals (and communities), drawn from a wider demographic, to participate in shooting deer.

5.22 It was noted by some respondents, including countryside sporting organisations and a range of individuals, that deer management was currently carried out by stalkers who had been shooting deer for many years without any certification. As far as these respondents were concerned, the current system of voluntary self-regulation was working well (with almost no adverse incidents), and there was no evidence that additional bureaucracy was required.

5.23 Second, some respondents were concerned that a mandatory approach would have unintended consequences by making it particularly difficult for small landowners, crofters, owners of small areas of woodland – or indeed people with large gardens – to control deer. It was suggested that this was unfair and could be seen as discriminatory; these individuals had the right to protect their land from damage caused by deer.

5.24 Third, a wide range of respondents including (but not limited to) countryside sporting organisations, thought it was not reasonable to expect tourists, those involved in shooting deer as a recreational sport, or novices, who may have no deer shooting qualification to be excluded from involvement in shooting deer. Respondents thought that flexibility needed to apply in these situations. In general, it was suggested that so long as these individuals were accompanied by a suitably trained guide, then their participation should be allowed. However, it was also noted by some land management and countryside sporting organisations as well as some individuals, that it was common for novices to undertake limited, autonomous stalking prior to completing DSC1, and this should be allowed to continue. Some respondents also emphasised the role that income from stalking played in relation to many businesses.

5.25 Fourth, there were widespread concerns that the (sole) ‘gateway qualification’ suggested for registration (DSC1) was not appropriate (see paragraphs 5.28–5.30 below).

5.26 Fifth, and underpinning each of the reasons set out above, a wide range of both organisational and individual respondents stated that (i) the availability of relevant courses was limited, (ii) access was difficult especially in some areas of the country, and (iii) the courses were expensive, and beyond the means of many of those involved in deer shooting. It was suggested that if mandatory registration were to be required, then attendance at these courses should be funded (or subsidised) by NatureScot or the Scottish Government – as currently done in England by the Forestry Commission. This financial support would be particularly important for those not involved in commercial shooting.

5.27 Finally, a wide range of respondents implied in their comments that, if mandatory registration were to be a requirement in future, they would not support its retrospective application. That is, these respondents believed that those who were currently operating without any formal certification should continue to be allowed to do so. This was sometimes referred to – by some land management organisations and individuals – as conferring ‘grandfather rights’ on those who already had extensive experience of culling deer.

Options for certification

5.28 A wide range of both organisational and individual respondents raised concerns relating to the adoption of DSC1 as evidence that an individual was fit and competent to shoot deer (i.e. that DSC1 should be considered the ‘gateway qualification’ for access to the Fit & Competent Register). The concerns identified covered (i) the appropriateness of DSC1 in this context, (ii) the availability of alternative/equivalent qualifications, (iii) the need to review the coverage of both DSC1 and DSC2 (Deer Stalking Certificate Level 2), and (iv) the requirement for ongoing monitoring of performance following certification. Each of these concerns is discussed further below.

5.29 Question 15 suggested that DSC1 should be seen as a minimum standard for registration on the Fit & Competent Register. A range of both organisational and individual respondents supported this proposal and thought the attainment of DSC1 would provide an adequate minimum standard for individuals wishing to participate in deer management. However, other respondents – including some land management, conservation, deer management and animal welfare organisations as well as many individual respondents – did not think the DSC1 provided the skills or training necessary to shoot deer. It was noted by one individual that the DSC1 was largely a theoretical training course, with only one stalking assessment – and they did not view this as adequate. It was suggested by some respondents, including land management and conservation organisations, that DSC2 – or even an ‘enhanced DSC2’ (which might cover, for example, carcass handling, night shooting, use of thermal light-identifying scopes, etc.) – might offer a more appropriate minimum standard. It was also noted by conservation organisations and some individuals that the DSC2 qualification was already required by landowners for their staff and contractors, and that there may be an argument for rolling out the requirement for DSC2 certification more generally.

5.30 A range of respondents – including deer groups and countryside sporting organisations, as well as some individuals – were dissatisfied with the option of DSC1 as the only acceptable qualification for shooting deer. These respondents noted that a range of other (equivalent) qualifications were available in the UK including the (i) Proficient Deer Stalker Certificate Level 1 (which is approved by LANTRA), (ii) industry-standard Wild Deer Best Practice Guidance, (iii) NVQ/SVQ Level 2 units C49/C50 relating to Game and Wildlife Management, and (iv) St Hubert deer stalking qualification. These respondents asked why the alternatives listed above had not been included, and suggested this omission was in breach of competition/impartiality rules. Moreover, they noted that some of these alternatives were governed by/assured by OFQUAL, whereas DSC1 and DSC2 are not subject to an external accreditation process.

5.31 Respondents commented at length and in detail on the current coverage of DSC1 and DSC2, and offered a variety of perspectives on what additional material, skills or assessments should feature in each case. It was suggested that a review of these qualifications should be undertaken in collaboration with the deer industry.

5.32 Finally, a small number of respondents asked whether arrangements would be put in place to monitor and review an individual’s performance against any certified standard over time. They argued that if a review process were to be put in place, resources would be required to undertake inspections, supervise re-training procedures, and handle any complaints. It was also suggested that the assessment and review of any certified standard should be undertaken by independent practitioners or an independent organisation.

Access to the register and the requirement for authorisation in specific circumstances

5.33 In general, respondents affirmed the benefits – in terms of reduced bureaucracy – of introducing a register which would allow (some) current individual authorisations to be replaced with a more generic approach. It was suggested that this would be beneficial for both the regulator and the rightsholders.

5.34 However, a small number of respondents raised specific concerns in relation to removing the requirement for individual authorisations. One land management organisation was concerned that this would result in the loss of valuable information about the location and scale of deer culling. A land management organisation and a deer group thought the removal of requirement for individual authorisations for night-time shooting would inevitably lead to an increase in poaching.

5.35 There was a range of views on which aspects of deer culling should still require individual authorisation. The capture of live deer was frequently mentioned in this regard, although some respondents noted that the consultation paper did not describe in sufficient detail the circumstances in which the capture of live deer might take place to enable respondents to decide whether individual authorisation would be necessary. Night-time shooting (especially in towns), out of season culling, and driving deer were also judged by many organisational and individual respondents to be high-risk activities in relation to deer welfare which might still require individual authorisation.

5.36 A small number of land management organisations, deer groups and individuals highlighted the situation in which deer had been inadvertently fenced into a woodland enclosure. These respondents emphasised that an individual authorisation should not be required for shooting deer in these circumstances.

Use of shotguns to kill deer

5.37 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 including cases of humane dispatch (arising from, for example, road traffic collisions).

5.38 By contrast, other respondents – including a range of organisational and individual respondents – thought there was a wider range of scenarios and circumstances in which the use of shotguns to kill deer was acceptable (or preferable). These included urban or peri-urban environments, places where the vegetation is overgrown, and situations in which farmers and small landowners (who are unlikely to own rifles) are protecting their properties against damage caused by deer. It was suggested that this was an area where evidence was limited, and further research was required to understand the implications of using shotguns in these scenarios.

5.39 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. These respondents suggested that the guidance should include advice about (i) type and calibre of shotgun/firearm, (ii) ammunition type (and whether lead or non-lead bullets should be used), and (iii) shot size and shot weight. While some of these respondents saw this as a role for NatureScot, others thought the organisation was not qualified to undertake this work.

Other issues

5.40 Two other issues were discussed by respondents in relation to deer welfare. First, it was suggested that the existence of a (public) Fit & Competent Register could pose a security risk, as those who appeared on the register could be subjected to a campaign of harassment by those opposed to culling activities. Second, there needed to be a focus on continuous professional development for all those involved in shooting deer.

5.41 Finally, it should be noted that there was limited comment in relation to views on the development of a code of practice by NatureScot. The capture of live deer was the only specific scenario which a small number of respondents, including animal welfare organisations, thought might benefit (if the need arose) from the development of such a code.