In the lead up to a debate on deer management in the Scottish Parliament scheduled for 2nd May, we are issuing this short introduction to the issues and the case for reform. This follows a lengthy report by the Parliament’s Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee into the long-standing problem of managing wild deer. We welcome the Committee’s report and its call for much more rapid progress in bringing deer under control, so that people and deer can flourish in balance with the natural environment.
Scotland has four species of wild deer (red, roe and introduced sika and fallow). As wild animals, they belong to no-one; however the law gives owners of land the right to ‘take’ deer on their land, and also a responsibility to control them where necessary. Given the absence of natural predators (wolf, lynx) deer tend to multiply, causing increasing levels of damage to public interests.
This damage has been the subject of controversy for 150 years, especially in the case of red deer in the Highlands, where the creation of sporting estates led to a demand for higher numbers of “shootable” stags, by which these properties are valued.
Back in the late 1800s complaints were initially over the damage caused to crops of neighbouring tenant farmers and crofters, but as deer numbers grew during the 20th Century concerns grew over the impact on woodlands, wildlife, public safety on roads, and the welfare of the deer themselves.
Recent years have seen more issues come to the fore – overgrazing causing a general decline in ecological health and productivity of the uplands, reducing its resilience in the face of climate change. And the way that this one recreational land use is pursued on such a vast area of land, to the disadvantage of every other stakeholder interest, has placed this sector increasingly at odds with the land reform and land use objectives of the Scottish Government.
There is less ‘sporting’ interest in the smaller roe deer which frequents lowland woods and open spaces, even venturing onto road verges, cemeteries and suburban gardens; but sheer neglect has allowed this species also to grow considerably in numbers, causing a similar range of problems.
It’s not an overstatement to say that the situation has reached crisis proportions. Just considering three elements of public cost – to deal with forestry fencing, 7,000 deer-vehicle collisions, and the disproportionate cull undertaken by the Forestry Commission because other owners of land are not doing their bit – the annual total is about £15m, directly related to unjustified deer numbers.
The ECCLR Committee report is a timely alarm call. Its principal focus was on the natural heritage, where it says ‘a greater focus and urgency is now needed to address the challenges of deer management across Scotland’. But its recommendations show that the entire regulatory system needs to be re-calibrated to meet the legitimate expectations of society in the 21st Century. This would improve the landscape, transform the economics of forestry, promote the sustainable harvest of venison, contribute importantly to climate change mitigation, and revive the prospects of many forms of wildlife whose habitats have been degraded by overgrazing.
Importantly, these changes need not threaten the livelihoods of those who manage deer – quite the contrary. Deer are much more productive at lower densities, so there will always be a need for skilled stalkers to cull them humanely, maintaining a healthy deer herd in balance with a healthy and productive environment. A regenerating landscape will also support a wider range of sustainable jobs for others.
Parliament should strongly endorse the message of the ECCLR Committee, calling for urgent progress in reforming the regulation of deer management to meet society’s needs into the future.
It is part of a wider malaise, wherein our ineffective government bodies are unable or unwilling, for many reasons, to take an effective stance about private interests.
Pass the necessary laws, take the necessary actions and robustly deal with the consequences.
I support the overdue reduction of deer numbers for the environmental good it will do for our hills and would welcome a more Scandinavian approach to Roe culling in which shooters rent the right to harvest areas and are penalised if populations rise above acceptable levels. I would also welcome predator introduction in places like Knapdale, where I live, where the Forestry Comission is pulling back and there are few sheep farmers.
We have to move from the concept of management by exploitation to one of management for the environment – in all its appearance. What moment in time do we want to conserve? (1) Pre-Jacobean – essentially late warlord might, (2) Jacobean – by dispensation from the king, who was a distillation of the might of the original warlords, (3) Pre- and Peri-Victorian – a post rebellion (1715 and 1745) colonisation by those that earned reward by being victorious in those rebellions, (4) Post Victorian, – which includes indulgence for those with the a ginormous amount of money (a new condition generated by the industrial revolution) ) and/or the correct ancestors, (5) Now – which includes travel possibilities and indulgence for the moneyed, but not necessarily favoured with the correct ancestors.
When you see deer being fed in the winter by some estates and dead deer lying out on the hill that suggests there are far to many.
Take the train over Rannoch Moor and see the lone gaunt grandfather Scots pines, but no new trees growing, no re-generation, again you see the folly of allowing the deer population to grow so large.
Someone, sometime has to put this right, before there is nothing left of this land of ours.