Managing deer for climate and nature: consultation analysis

6 Changes to close seasons (Q21–Q23)

6.1 Part 4 of the consultation paper set out proposals for responding to recommendation 8 of the DWG report for changes to be made to the ‘close season’ for female deer.

6.2 The consultation asked three questions on this issue.

Question 21: Do you agree that the close season for female deer of all species should be the same? [Yes | No | Don’t know]

Question 22: Do you agree that the close season for female deer of all species should be changed to cover the period of highest welfare risk, from 31 March to 30 September? [Yes | No | Don’t know]

Question 22a: 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 23: Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

Aligning the close season for female deer of all species (Q21)

6.3 Question 21 asked respondents if they agreed that the close season for female deer of all species should be the same.

6.4 Table 6.1 shows that, overall, 65% of respondents agreed, 25% disagreed and 10% said ‘don’t know’. Individuals were more likely than organisations to agree (66% versus 45%). A large majority of conservation and animal welfare organisations (88%) agreed with the proposal. In addition, 64% of organisations in the ‘other organisation type’ category also agreed. By contrast, a large majority of land management, deer and sporting organisations (81%) disagreed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

A more detailed breakdown of responses by organisation type is shown in Annex 3, Table A3.20.

A proposed close season from 31 March to 30 September (Q22)

6.5 Question 22 asked whether the close season for female deer of all species should be from 31 March to 30 September.

6.6 Table 6.2 shows that, overall, 62% of respondents agreed, 29% disagreed, and 9% said ‘don’t know’. Individuals were more likely than organisations to agree (63% versus 48%). Almost all conservation and animal welfare organisations (94%) and three-quarters of ‘other organisation types’ organisations (73%) agreed with the proposal. By contrast, a large majority of land management, deer and sporting organisations (83%) disagreed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

A more detailed breakdown of responses by organisation type is shown in Annex 3, Table A3.21.

6.7 Question 22 went on to ask respondents who did not agree with the proposals about changing the close season for female deer what, if any, further actions they would recommend to support increased management of female deer. However, as set out in Chapter 1 (paragraph 1.11), this question was omitted from the online questionnaire. All comments relating to this question are therefore included in the discussion of Question 23 (see below).

Other comments (Q23)

6.8 Question 23 asked respondents for any further comments in relation to the proposals on changes to the close season. Altogether, 442 respondents – 64 organisations and 378 individuals – provided comments at this question.

6.9 There was limited comment from those who supported the proposals on their reasons for agreement. For the most part, respondents who provided comments raised concerns about the proposals which they thought required to be addressed. Thus, the discussion below begins with a short section summarising the views in favour of the proposals. This is followed by longer sections setting out (i) concerns about the proposals and (ii) suggestions for alternative approaches to defining the close season(s) for female deer. A final section discusses other issues raised by respondents.

6.10 It should be noted that both those who were in favour of the proposals, and those with concerns, agreed that the definition of (any) close season(s) should be done through secondary legislation. This would enable the definition(s) to be kept under review, and to be adjusted in the light of any emerging new scientific evidence relating to breeding seasons, the impact of climate change on birthing patterns and calving periods, best practice in deer welfare, etc. There was also agreement across both groups (those in favour of the proposals and those opposed) that, if any changes to the close season(s) were to be implemented, there should be comprehensive monitoring and reporting of the number and location of all culls going forward, particularly in any ‘shoulder’ period (i.e. the periods at the beginning and the end of the close season).

6.11 The impact of climate and other environmental changes on calving periods was generally stated by respondents to result in calving happening later in the year (in comparison to previous years). However, it was also stated (in the response from one academic organisation) that the only study in Scotland to have collected data on this suggested that calving in red deer on Rum has got earlier by about two weeks over the last 40 years.

Views in favour of the proposals

6.12 Those in favour of the proposals – including almost all conservation organisations and all animal welfare organisations as well as a large number of individuals – made a number of points as follows:

• The proposals offer a good balance between the requirements to ensure deer welfare and protect the environment.
• The proposals will reduce the bureaucracy associated with granting individual out-of- season authorisations.
• The proposal to have a unified close season for all species of female deer will make it simpler for the public to understand, and easier to communicate to all relevant audiences.
• Deer stalkers will have discretion and can choose not to cull deer during the longer open season, if they think that is in the best interests of deer welfare.
• The longer open season will be particularly useful for controlling deer in woodlands and for controlling non-roe deer.

6.13 Despite agreeing with the proposals, however, animal welfare organisations also went on to express a number of concerns, as discussed below.

Concerns about the proposals

6.14 Respondents – especially land management organisations, deer groups, countryside sporting organisations, and animal welfare organisations as well as a substantial number of individuals, identified a wide range of concerns with the proposals. The main concerns covered (i) 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 lack of evidence to justify the proposals. These are discussed in turn below.

6.15 There was a great deal of comment on the (negative) impacts respondents thought extending the open season would have on pregnant hinds, (which they said would have an increased likelihood of being culled), and young calves (which they said would have an increased risk of being orphaned, and of experiencing higher mortality rates due to starvation). These concerns were mainly raised by land management and animal welfare organisations, and by individuals. These respondents emphasised that young calves were dependent on their mothers not just for feeding, but also for their social development, and that this was a long-term process. There was also repeated reference to the practical and technical difficulties of identifying and locating – and culling – the offspring of culled mothers, especially in woodlands and other locations where vegetation was thick or overgrown.

6.16 Respondents, particularly land management organisations and deer groups, suggested the proposals would have negative impacts on the mental health and welfare of deer stalkers – who, they said, would be ‘forced against their will’ to shoot deer in circumstances they did not think appropriate. Some of these respondents also highlighted potential negative impacts on the general public, who they said might be more likely to come across deer carcases, and hillwalkers, who would experience greater disruption of their access to the countryside due to longer open season(s). Some described these effects as posing ethical or moral difficulties for the individuals involved.

6.17 A wide range of both organisational and individual respondents did not think it was appropriate to have an identical close season for all species of deer, given the very different patterns of breeding and behaviour the individual species exhibit. There was a particular focus on roe deer, whose habits are very different to those of other species, and who tend to have their calves later in the year.

6.18 Both organisational and individual respondents queried whether there was evidence to support the changes being proposed. It was suggested that the lack of a robust evidence basis to underpin these changes was problematic.

6.19 Other concerns were raised occasionally including the detrimental impact these changes would have on (i) food quality, (ii) the market for venison, and (iii) the intention to make the culling of deer easier.

Alternative approaches

6.20 In their comments, respondents who disagreed with the proposals suggested a range of alternative approaches to defining the close season(s) for female deer. For the most part, the suggested alternatives involved extending the dates for the close season(s) beyond those set out in the consultation. This would be achieved either by starting the close season earlier than the date(s) suggested in the consultation, or by ending the close season later than the date suggested in the consultation, or both. Less commonly, respondents – particularly deer groups and individuals – suggested that the close season should be reduced further or abolished completely. Mixed views were offered in relation to whether or not the close season for all species of female deer should be identical.

6.21 The reasons offered by each of the two main groups (those who wished to see a longer close season, and those who wished to see a shorter one) are set out below. This is followed by a short section summarising the arguments made by those who did and those who did not wish to see a unified approach to the defining of the close season for all species of female deer.

Reasons for preferring a longer close season

6.22 Respondents who suggested extending the close season(s) offered a variety of specific dates for both the start and finish of the close season, with no clear ‘favourite’ date or dates identified. Some respondents suggested the current status quo should be retained, others that the dates should be aligned with those used in England and Wales, while still others suggested specific dates outwith any previously defined close season. These types of comments were offered mainly by land management organisations, conservation organisations, deer groups, animal welfare organisations, and countryside sporting organisations, as well as a range of individuals.

6.23 The main reason respondents gave for supporting the status quo was that it was thought to be working well. As far as these respondents were concerned the current arrangements (i) provided ample opportunity to reduce the number of female deer overall, (ii) enabled a high degree of protection to pregnant hinds and dependant young, and (iii) had sufficient flexibility through the out of season authorisation process to allow culls to be carried out in specific circumstances where this was deemed to be appropriate.

6.24 A range of respondents, deer groups and individuals in particular, suggested the close season should be aligned with the close season in England and Wales.^[7] These respondents suggested that it was already common practice in Scotland to delay the shooting of any roe does (because of welfare concerns for dependant young) until 1 November, although this was currently permitted from 21 October.

6.25 Beyond these specific suggestions, respondents suggested a wide variety of dates for both the start and the finish of the close season(s). The main reason given for suggesting the specific dates offered was a concern for the welfare either of the pregnant hinds and/or –more commonly – of the dependant young. Indeed, there was a widespread view that 30 September was too early to resume culling female deer without specific authorisation.

6.26 A small number of respondents, including some animal welfare organisations and some individuals, thought no culling of deer should be allowed. The reasons offered by these respondents were that (i) deer should not be treated like vermin and that (ii) deer are not a threat and do not need to be controlled in Scotland.

Reasons for preferring a shorter close season

6.27 Respondents offered four main reasons why a shorter close season (or indeed, no close season at all) was preferable, as set out in the points below.

• A range of respondents, but particularly land management organisations and deer management organisations, as well as a range of individuals, thought that much more discretion (or total discretion) should be granted to those with the appropriate knowledge and expertise about when to cull female deer.
• The Deer Working Group’s recommendations were for a shorter close season than the proposals in the consultation^[8] – respondents were not clear why the Scottish Government had not accepted the DWG proposals in full.
• A small number of respondents stated that starting the open season earlier reduces the pressure on stalkers who would have a longer period in which to cull deer.
• While respondents acknowledged the importance of deer welfare, some explicitly stated that it was a secondary consideration when ecological recovery was at stake.

Views on the introduction of a unified close season

6.28 For the most part, respondents who provided comments on whether a unified close season for all female deer species was appropriate suggested it was not. This group included land management organisations, deer management groups and countryside sporting organisations as well as individual respondents. These respondents simply emphasised the very large differences in terms of the behaviour and breeding patterns of the different species (especially of roe deer) and stated that this required the close seasons to be tailored to each individual species.

6.29 However, those respondents who had expressed a preference for aligning the close season dates in Scotland with those in England and Wales (see paragraph 6.24 above), implicitly accepted that a unified close season was preferable.

Other issues

6.30 A range of respondents emphasised that a change to the close season for culling female deer was only one of a number of ‘tools’ that could be used to reduce the size of the deer population. It was suggested, for example, that financial incentives to cull female deer should be introduced and several respondents provided detailed proposals for the introduction of a ‘bounty’. (See Chapter 9 for further discussion of other approaches to deer management.)

6.31 In their comments, respondents also discussed the recent decision to remove the close season for stags. Respondents highlighted two problems associated with this: (i) it would not have any significant impact on decreasing the deer population and (ii) it risked introducing poor quality meat into the food chain if stags were culled after the rut when they were in a weakened state. In addition, respondents did not think it was appropriate to adjust the close season for female deer as a way of ‘balancing’ or ‘trading off’ the changes which had recently been made to the close season for stags.

6.32