Author: Playfair Walker

Victor Clements writes:

The incident that has been recently reported in Knoydart is almost unprecedented in Scotland, with 86 stags being shot and left on the hill to rot away in the name of conservation management. Like many people, my initial reaction to it was not to believe it, but as more information became available, the reality of the situation became, if anything, much worse than anyone might have imagined. I say that as someone who has had many thousands of deer shot to protect native woodlands and the wider environment.

As a woodland advisor myself, and some-one who is tasked with pulling together deer management plans, including one for Knoydart, my default position must always be that individual management objectives must be respected, and that these objectives should be incorporated into wider plans if possible. Occasionally, I come across objectives which are either unrealistic or which would extract too high a cost for an outcome which is likely to be marginal or uncertain. In such cases, it is important to speak up and say that.

In my estimation, the John Muir Trust (JMT) objectives at Li & Coire Dhorcail fall very squarely and obviously into that category, and I say that with complete certainty and conviction.

The basics of woodland regeneration
We have been having this argument about tree regeneration and deer for about 30 years now in Scotland, whether fences should be used or not. Those with an interest in deer reject the idea in principle, and fear the cost that must be extracted. Others passionately support the principle, but often assume it can just simply be implemented everywhere with the same expectation of success.

After 30 years or so, we now have plenty of experience of these things, and we know that regeneration schemes will work in some situations but not in others.

To regenerate trees in the presence of deer there are two basics:

• You need to try and generate so much regeneration that the local deer population cannot get on top of it. This requires you to try and achieve a certain critical area. It is more art than science, but in practice, the bigger the area the better, and the more chance of success you have. Small, isolated areas are extremely difficult, and are almost always too impractical to consider. Large areas of regeneration of pioneer species such as birch or Scots Pine become very difficult to stop once they get going. They may get knocked back in some years, but deer cannot prevent the roots from growing, and as long as that is occurring, the trees will gain in strength, and will eventually push away.

• Partly related to above, you have to be able to try and disperse the deer impacts over a large area of woodland. If an area of young trees is the only option for deer, then they will severely damage it. The same area of trees in a wider complex of woodlands is much less likely to be targeted.

It follows from the above that where you have large woodland areas across many properties, you have better options for dispersing deer impacts over that whole area and consequently, achieving regeneration without fences is much easier, and the number of deer that require to be shot to achieve it is much less, at least as a percentage of the whole. In practice, such habitats are capable of sustaining high deer densities with very high productivity, and so an ongoing commitment is required to keep numbers within reasonable bounds.

The areas in Scotland where tree regeneration works tend therefore to be those areas with an extensive woodland network already. Central Speyside, middle Deeside, Loch Katrine in the Trossachs, parts of Argyll. In all of these areas you can see extensive native woodland regeneration achieved by deer control without fences. Controversy has often been generated of course, but the important thing is that very significant areas of new woodland have actually been delivered. While the cost in terms of deer can be high, there have at least been some tangible outcomes, roughly in balance with the cost extracted. This is of course a subjective judgment that we can come back to later.

A large number of organisations and private estates now have experience of making these things work, including NGOs such as the RSPB, the Woodland Trust, the National Trust for Scotland and Trees for Life, as well as the Forestry Commission and SNH. Some, such as Trees for Life in Glen Affric or the National Trust at Ben Lawers, have been astute enough to acknowledge that in some situations, native woodland areas need to be consolidated within fenced enclosures before more extensive regeneration schemes might be contemplated in the future. They take the long-term view, and that is the right thing to do when the woodlands you are wanting to manage are separated from other woodland areas. You have to think in terms of phases. Phase One is to consolidate what you have got. When that is achieved, Phase Two can be to look towards a meaningful extension of the area.

The woods at Li & Coire Dhorcail
The woods at this location are very small and isolated, but there has been a significant area of native woodland planted behind fences in West Knoydart over 20 – 30 years or so, including on JMT land. The woods at the centre of this dispute have been planted and fenced by John Muir Trust themselves, so, in the recent past, they have not objected to the principle of fencing areas. The small pinewood remnant on their property is actually within a fenced enclosure, and the mixture of regenerated trees and additional planting has helped secure that area. It is a small proportion of the overall pinewood remnant, with by far the greater area lying on an adjacent private estate, and designated as an SSSI. Although this has been grazed by deer for decades without any regeneration taking place, a plan is currently being taken forwards with SNH and that is likely to be delivered in the very near future, possibly in 2016.

It is therefore very misleading for the John Muir Trust to say that its deer cull is being carried out to secure the future of ancient woodlands. In practice, the key areas are already either secure, or are about to be secured on adjacent land. There is no point in trying to jump the gun and try to move forward to a new phase without consultation with other stakeholders in the area. At Li & Coire Dhorcail, a period of consolidation must be completed first.

The wrong dynamic
In recent years, JMT dismantled the deer fences around a 30 hectare planted block of trees, opening them up for shelter, which effectively drew deer in to that area, directly adjacent to the small area of natural regeneration that lay outwith those fences. The current deer culling practices are designed to try and protect that small area, but the dynamic created is all wrong. Instead of working with neighbours to try and disperse deer over a wider area, JMT has created a situation where high impacts on regeneration are guaranteed. Killing more and more deer will not resolve that situation. The cost that must be extracted is out of all proportion to the environmental outcome that might arise. The area they seek to protect is tiny, and has no local or national strategic value. There are much more important woodland areas in Knoydart that are being restored and managed with no publicity or controversy whatsoever, on both public and private land. JMT could learn something from them if only they would engage a bit more.

The bigger picture
When you look at the wider West Knoydart area, it is immediately apparent that 1200 – 1500 hectares of new native woods have been planted over the last 30 years or so, and that process is ongoing. This is a very significant area of woodland, covering up to 25 per cent of the entire area. In terms of native woodland habitats and networks, it is this growing area of young trees that has strategic value in West Knoydart. In the short term, it is all behind fences because much of it is still vulnerable to deer. But also in the short term, the area enclosed is constricting the available deer range, and forcing deer onto the small sheltered area on JMT ground, ensuring that it is heavily damaged, and requiring them to kill large numbers of deer.

But within the next 10 – 15 years, a new dynamic will arise. When the time comes to open up all these newly planted woodlands, deer impacts will then be dispersed over a much wider area. There will be less need for deer to go down into Li & Coire Dhorcail. The extent of these new woods is such that regeneration outwith their boundaries may well then be possible, even without fences. Deer footprints will create regeneration niches, and profuse seeding species such as birch will almost certainly be able to take advantage of that. At that point, these woodland areas will start to expand naturally. If they don’t, and deer are judged to be the limiting factor still, then the deer population can be reduced a bit more, but that would be a more transparent and structured process at that point.

My assessment of the woodland situation in West Knoydart is that JMT is trying to act too soon. They have generated a situation that is likely to fail, and are killing deer out of frustration and anger. That is not a good place to be if you are an environmental NGO that relies on public donations and legacies for its income.

JMT needs to wait for another 15 years or so until their neighbours are in a position to take down fences and disperse deer over a wider area for them. That will then allow all those involved with native woodland projects in the area to progress things together, in a properly collaborative manner. A significant ongoing deer cull will still be required, but not at the level currently taking place, and with more certainty of a meaningful outcome.

Fifteen years is a long time in the life of an employee, but it is a short time in the life of a woodland, or in the life of a mountain. JMT needs to take the long-term view.

Patience is required at Li & Coire Chorcail. Whether JMT decides to take a longer view depends on whether their objective is to regenerate trees, or to generate conflict. On the face of it, the current situation there seems to be designed to generate the latter for political effect. I do not say this lightly, but it is clear to me that those 86 stags were killed as part of a wider political lobbying campaign, and their deaths had very little to do with woodland regeneration at all. JMT themselves admit to killing these animals because Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) would not give them an out of season licence last year. This cull was therefore to send SNH and the panel reviewing such licences a message not to deny them their right to kill what they want, when they want to.

The reason that SNH withheld the licence is that they were not convinced by the JMT rationale for killing more deer in that location. This is the crucial point to understand. Is there actually a justifiable reason for them doing what they are? Even SNH suspect not. They want to see a better analysis of what is actually happening there. You cannot kill any animal with a clear conscience unless you have good reason for doing so.

Li & Coire Dhorcail in context
At the moment, all this is taking place in the context of the Land Reform Bill which is passing through the Scottish Parliament, and that may involve additional legislation for deer management. The John Muir Trust has been lobbying heavily for a new statutory system of deer management, and has full time professional staff who can spend all of their time bending the ears of key MSPs. It is not likely that they are telling them how they actually implement deer management on some of their own properties. For this reason, it is important that others do not duck their responsibility to report it.

Recommendations going forwards
Stepping back from the immediate horror of what they have been prepared to implement at Li & Coire Dhorcail, and it is horrible, what strategic lessons can we learn from the Knoydart Deer Massacre?

On the basis that there should be no criticism without recommendation, I would put forward the following suggestions as to how the current system of deer management in Scotland could be strengthened:

• We need to acknowledge that potential conflict situations will always arise where deer are involved, and one person’s definition of public interest will always differ from the next. Potential conflict situations will always arise, and some of these may not be possible to resolve at a Deer Management Group level. There needs to be some sort of arbitration mechanism or expert panel set up within SNH that can “take a view” on difficult situations. Outside expertise should be sought where required. Many such situations are not black and white, and a degree of subjective judgement will often be required, but it should be possible to analyse any situation in a systematic manner and come up with a way forward. The view arrived at should inform the need for special authorisations, or in determining the overall appropriate cull levels. It can be reviewed as required. In the situation above, it is clear to me that the current culling approach is not appropriate and is unlikely to create any useful outcomes. The organisation involved does not actually have much expertise in regenerating woodlands, certainly in comparison to many other NGOs. Someone else has to make the binding decision on the way forward if they cannot agree a solution with their neighbours themselves.

• While we already have mechanisms for compelling landowners to shoot more deer where under culling is the issue, we do not have a recognised mechanism for preventing over-culling if the wider public interest in an area might be damaged from that. It is also the case that some private properties can simply be too greedy in their deer culls, with little thought of how that might impact on others. We need a mechanism where the right to cull deer on your property can be suspended if it is in the public interest to do so. Culling excessive numbers of deer for unrealistic regeneration schemes might be one example where that should apply, but there are other situations too.

• Finally, what John Muir Trust did in Knoydart is illegal in many if not all other countries, and would be regarded very clearly as being a wildlife crime. It is not illegal here, mainly because most people would never contemplate doing this, and how can you define an offence for something that you think would never be contemplated? But John Muir Trust have contemplated doing it, and then followed through on it. They have also done this on Ben Nevis in 2011, much to the disgust of walkers there. With increasing numbers of roe deer now present around areas of habitation in central Scotland, you can see how some people might be tempted to reduce impacts in a similar manner if they thought it was legal, but creating a public nuisance by doing so. MSPs need to consider changes to the 1996 Deer Act to make it illegal to deliberately kill and leave deer in the way that has happened here. If they don’t, then they are signalling that this is acceptable practice, and this is the standard of deer management that we now wish to see in Scotland. We have to remain very conscious of how we are viewed by visitors from abroad, as well as being answerable to the public at home.

In conclusion, when someone kills animals in this manner, and deliberately leaves them in the full knowledge that others will find them, then they have done that to create a reaction.

It is very important that the reaction to this is measured. No landowner in Scotland, public, NGO or private, should be able to assert their will over all others without challenge. To prevent this from happening again elsewhere, it may be necessary for SNH to intervene, take a view on an individual situation, and perhaps deny someone their right to cull deer on their land as they see fit. That does have an element of statutory deer planning about it, but it is likely to be acceptable if there are appropriate checks and balances. The irony of course is that the organisation that campaigned in favour of such changes should be among the first to be reined in by them.

Victor Clements is a woodland advisor working in Highland Perthshire. He is secretary to the Breadalbane DMG, is on the Executive Committee of the Association of Deer Management Groups, and is currently putting together a deer management plan for Knoydart.

Also see:  The Charitable Destruction of a Community Asset by Sir Patrick Grant, Chairman of The Knoydart Deer Management Community, available in full here (pdf)

Monadhliath DMG – Stakeholder Communication Case Study
Drew McFarlane-Slack, Chair, Powerpoint and Accompanying notes

 

I refer to your article (6 September 2015) ‘Deer fence would hinder ramblers’.

As in many other areas of the Highlands, deer managers in the southern Cairngorms are adapting to change and collaborative deer management is about negotiation between neighbours as to how best to meet the objectives of all concerned. The best mechanism is the deer management planning process which is moving to a new level across the 45 upland Deer Management Groups.

Given that finding a solution equates to progress, it is disappointing to see what is in fact a constructive discussion portrayed, as so often is the case, as a polarised conflict between two landholdings, and between deer or trees. Both are highly valued components of the Scottish countryside and it is possible for them to co-exist, but adaptive management is required.  Fencing, as now used successfully at Mar Lodge after many years of trial and error, may or may not have a role to play.

The landowners concerned in this matter are experienced and responsible and should be allowed to come up with workable solutions that meet their individual aspirations. In addition they should be trusted to deliver the public interest in terms of the environment and public access without other organisations that are indirectly involved clouding the issues from the sidelines.

 

The link to the article published in the Sunday Times on 6 September here http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1603413.ece

 

With 40 members and covering an area of around 150,000 ha, the Monadhliath Deer Management Group (MDMG) is the largest in the country and, in partnership with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), has recently adopted a new Strategic Deer Management Plan (SDMP).  As part of the MDMG’s ongoing commitment to partnership and openness, an event for local stakeholders was held on the Alvie and Dalraddy Estates on Tuesday 23 June to help develop the 10 year Strategic Plan. The objective of the day was to inform the widest group of local people who have interests in deer and habitat management and to invite and gather feedback from this group.

Facilitated by the DMG Chair Drew McFarlane Slack, the structure of the event was a mixture of presentations by the Plan Consultant Dougie Campbell and Q&A sessions that actively sought to ensure that all those attending had an opportunity to comment. Participants were then invited out onto the estate to continue discussion in a more informal setting.

Attendance was encouraging with around 40 people representing a broad range of interests. These included the agricultural and crofting community, local stalkers and estate managers, Agency staff from SNH, FCS and CNPA, a representative from the Scottish Government Research Team as well as local residents and businesses. Notably, at least five Community Councils were represented who very much welcomed the opportunity to attend and provided well-informed, pragmatic and extremely useful contributions. Of particular interest were the local communities who were keen to highlight the importance of deer management to an already fragile rural economy, at a time when local businesses in some of the smaller villages were struggling. They also hoped that local landowners could be encouraged to build for the future by increasing employment and land-based training opportunities, particularly for the young.

Whilst the presentation deliberately didn’t go into fine detail of the plan, perhaps more usefully highlighted was the importance of the steps in the planning process itself and of engaging with individuals right from the start. Information is a critical component of deer management planning and in this case an extensive initial data gathering period enabled priorities and areas of conflict to be identified. The next crucial step in the development of the MDMG plan was in recognising areas of common ground, upon which to build the negotiation phase.

The result of 18 months of intensive work on the plan has been to find a proposed management solution that 95 per cent of the member properties have subsequently signed up to. It is clear that finding a balance between private and public interests on the face of it has undoubtedly been a complex and challenging task, and in this case has required all those round the table to accept that compromise is necessary. This challenge however, is one not just faced by MDMG, but indeed one that all 45 DMGs throughout Scotland are currently undertaking, albeit perhaps not to the same scale or degree, but certainly with the same expectation.

As was so evidently supported and welcomed at this event, providing opportunities for wider discussion and consultation in the spirit of openness and transparency should be seen by DMGs as a valuable part of the process. Engaging in this way with the wider local interest can only help build confidence and relationships, both of which are essential components if deer management planning is to continue under the voluntary principle.

Linzi Seivwright, Consultant to ADMG

Further to the introduction of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday 23 June 2015, Richard Cooke, Chairman, The Association of Deer Management Groups, said:

“As ever it is necessary to take time to consider the implications of draft legislation and this is a considerable Bill reaching into many areas of rural land management.   The interest of the Association of Deer Management Groups and Lowland Deer Network Scotland is confined to the proposed deer management measures and the repeal of the exclusion of shootings and deer forests from the valuation roll and therefore liability to pay business rates.

“The reintroduction of so called sporting rates will be a complex matter and will represent a major exercise for the Assessors covering all rural land including public land.   In particular, as in the system pre 1995, it will be necessary to distinguish between the culling of deer, of all species, wherever in Scotland, for management and environmental reasons (not rateable) and those culled purely for sport, a declining proportion of the total annual cull of over 100,000 deer.  Our main concern here is that the additional burden of business rates may act as a disincentive to sustainable deer management and related employment.

“The new powers set out in Part 8 of the Bill look to increase the powers of Scottish Natural Heritage to require deer management plans to be written, introducing penalties for failure; also creating additional functions for deer panels.  It was clear from the Consultation Paper which preceded the Bill that the Scottish Government were considering changes in this area and we require time to look at the implications of the Bill in terms of amendments to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996.   At first sight however, in view of the current progress by DMGs across Highland Scotland in creating new deer management plans which cover the public interest aspects of deer management,  SNH is unlikely to need to use these powers other than in exceptional circumstances.   SNH has been very successful in encouraging change where it is necessary without recourse to statutory powers and, with the support of ADMG, we would expect that to continue to be the case.

“As a final point it is necessary to restate the wide range of different circumstances in which deer of all species are managed throughout Scotland, from the Highlands to the most fertile parts of the lowlands including urban areas.  We need a flexible system which allows for appropriate management in any locality.”

 

 

 

The Monadhliath Deer Managment Group (MDMG) is the largest DMG in the country and, in partnership with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), recently adopted a new Strategic Deer Managment Plan (SDMP) for the period 2015 – 2024.

As part of MDMG’s ongoing commitment to partnership and openness, the Group is holding an event for local stakeholders on the Alvie and Dalraddy Estates on Tuesday 23 June 2015. This event is aimed at local farmers, crofters, councillors, MSPs, CNPA and conservation agencies. The objective is to inform the widest group of local people who have interests in deer and habitat managment and gather feedback from this group to assist in developing the SDMP.

The day will consist a presentation on the SDMP at Alvie House with time for questions followed by a visit to a shooting bothy for further discussion and lunch. Attendees should bring their own packed lunches.

If you are interested in attending you can register by clicking here.

In the UK last year (12 months to end June 2014), retail sales of venison increased by over 400% according to Kantar Worldpanel, and that doesn’t take into account what is sold directly by butchers, the restaurant, hotel and catering trade, farmers markets, ‘farm gate’ and mail order sales. To cope with this ever-increasing demand, UK suppliers are importing venison from New Zealand, Poland, Ireland and Spain and industry experts say that the UK is losing out on a lucrative market. In 2013 the equivalent of 29,000 carcases or around 1300 tonnes were imported to the UK from New Zealand alone. But over the last year the Scottish venison market has been limbering up to meet the challenge.

As a result of a campaign to promote the many benefits of venison as a healthy, nutritious and delicious food, and create awareness for the need for more deer farms to cope with demand, over the last six months 200 the first four deer farm demonstration days have seen attendance totalling over 200.

In the last 18 months 80 genuine enquiries about diversification into deer farming have been made to the Venison Advisory Service (VAS), 32 visits to assess potential deer farms at sites all over Scotland have been undertaken by VAS, and 16 detailed studies have been carried out. To date work has already started on six new deer farm units, with a total planned capacity of 2500 hinds. Once on stream these six alone could effectively more than double the current Scottish farmed venison output of 50 tonnes per annum, although in order to meet demand for Scottish breeding stock it is likely that the majority of hinds will be retained while only the stags will go for slaughter.

The objective of the Scottish Venison Partnership, endorsed by the Scottish Government, is to be producing an additional 1000 tonnes of farmed venison per annum by 2020. And it’s not only the farms which will capitalise on a growing demand, but also fencing companies, feed manufacturers, processors etc. This autumn a new dedicated slaughter facility will open in Fife specifically to service the expanding farmed deer sector with a capacity of 100 deer per week.

Spokesperson for the deer and venison industry in Scotland Dick Playfair says:

“It is satisfying to see that there is now some movement in terms of growth.  While the issue of Single Farm Payment is resolved in terms of support it will be helpful to know what is in the new SRDP (Scottish Rural Development Programme) that will be of benefit to Scotland’s deer farmers, or not.

“The target for new deer farms we believe is realistic, and not as great in number as we previously thought – indeed if Scotland can achieve 100 new farms with a capacity averaging 250 hinds these could produce in the region of 750 tonnes of venison per annum and give Scotland a really firm grounding in the farmed deer sector.”

During a venison feast lunch at Ballathie Country House Hotel in Perthshire on 28 August media guests were given the opportunity to hear about highland and lowland deer management (including a few words from Ballathie’s own gamekeeper who looks after stalking on the estate), the latest on deer farms, venison industry news and also to experience for themselves the culinary and tasty benefits of venison, thanks to special dishes created by Ballathie chef Scott Scorer.

“We are delighted to have been involved with Eat Scottish Venison Day and to have hosted this lunch as part of the celebrations” says hotel manager Jody Marshall.  “Stalking on the Ballathie Estate is popular with our guests and venison is naturally a favourite on our menu.  We are fortunate that our head chef enjoys creating interesting venison dishes, making good use of the local Ballathie larder on his doorstep”.  Ballathie is featuring venison on the menu for the next fortnight to help celebrate Eat Scottish Venison Day.

Eat Scottish Venison Day is on 4th September and many restaurants, butchers and retailers are putting on special offers and dishes to mark the occasion, including Campbell’s Prime Meat Ltd offering 20% off all venison products during the month of September, Loch Fyne Oyster Bar hosting a special venison BBQ from 12noon to 4pm on the day and Ballathie House Hotel will be featuring venison strongly on the menu for the week

Visit www.scottish-venison.info for more information about this iconic Scottish product.

The Land Reform Review Group has published its final report to the Scottish Government today. Running to more than 230 pages with 62 recommendations, the report goes into detail on topics including community land ownership, changes to the current tax system, and ways towards a ‘fairer distribution’ of land ownership.

The report addresses deer and deer management in some detail, and makes a number of recommendations over and above those as a result of the recent inquiry of the Rural Affairs Environment and Climate Change Committee, most notably the setting of culls by SNH, and that all landowners would have to apply to SNH for consent to cull deer. The report says:

The Review Group considers that Scotland’s populations of native red and roe deer are important national assets that should be sustainably managed in the public interest. The Group recommends that improvements should be made to the current statutory framework governing the hunting of deer in Scotland to ensure appropriate culls are carried out to adequately safeguard public interests.

The report however is not up to date in its conclusions on deer populations, nor with regard to the close working between SNH, ADMG and the Collaborative Deer Management Project that will underpin sustainable deer management under the voluntary principle going forward. Nor did the Land Reform Review Group consult with or take evidence from ADMG in the drawing up of its report or recommendations despite ADMG’s offer to do so.

For the full Land Reform Review Group document:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Review/land-reform/events/FinalReport23May2014

 

 

ADMG encouraged by Minister’s response to RACCE Committee regarding ongoing deer management and future funding support

Richard Cooke, Chairman, The Association of Deer Management Groups, says:

“ADMG is very encouraged by the constructive tone of the letter from Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Environment and Climate Change, to Rob Gibson, Convener of the Rural Affairs Climate Change and Environment (RACCE) Committee in response to the Committee’s recommendations following its inquiry into deer management and the environment last year. In particular, ADMG welcomes the provision of grant funding for the next two years to support the deer sector.

“It has long been stated that there is a strong public interest element to deer management and the provision of funding support for DMGs marks a breakthrough in terms of recognition of this by the Scottish Government.

“In terms of improving their performance, many DMGs have made good progress to date with limited resources. Now, following the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act, the implementation of the Deer Code and the inquiry by the RACCE Committee, considerable pressure has been placed on DMGs to raise their game. This includes the production and implementation of deer management plans, greater transparency and public accountability. Many of our members are already achieving this in all or part, but others are less well advanced – and we have until end 2016 to bring those up to speed.

“To this end we are currently undertaking a consultation among our membership to produce a DMG Benchmark to be launched in July. Now, this extra funding to be administered by SNH and which DMGs will be required to match-fund, will allow DMGs to increase capacity, and to further enhance deer management planning. It also bridges the funding gap until the new SRDP comes on stream in 2016 when we hope that provision will be made for more formalised and ongoing support for DMGs.”

The Association of Deer Management Groups, the representative body for those who manage Scotland’s upland wild deer, has launched a consultation on a Benchmark for Deer Management Groups at its Annual General Meeting today (Thursday 20 February) at Kingussie.

The voluntary basis of management of Scotland’s wild deer has been under scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs Climate Change and Environment Committee (RACCE) which held an inquiry into deer management and the impact of deer on the environment.  The Committee has recently sent its report to the Minister.  This stops short of recommending a regulated approach and acknowledges progress by DMGs but states that bringing all Groups up to standard is a matter of urgency, suggesting a deadline of the end of 2016.

The Benchmark is intended to provide detailed guidance to Deer Management Groups on how they should operate effectively.  It will form part of the Joint Collaborative Deer Management Project which ADMG is undertaking along with Scottish Natural Heritage.

Richard Cooke, Chairman of the Association of Deer Management Groups says:

“We are putting the ADMG draft Benchmark out to consultation to all our Member DMGs because it is crucial that they understand what they need to do if the voluntary basis of deer management is to be considered fit for purpose and to continue into the future.  It is targeted mainly at the Deer Groups that now exist across the open hill red deer range.

“The Benchmark outlines how DMGs should operate.  It covers membership, meetings, constitution; a commitment to deer management planning, adherence to the Code of Practice on Deer Management and the ADMG Principles of Collaboration; counting, cull planning and habitat condition monitoring; also training and having a communications plan.

“While many DMGs will have no problem in attaining what will be required, or indeed already do so, other Groups have a lot of ground to make up and need to take on board that this cannot be ignored and that urgent action is required.  ADMG will provide whatever support is needed to help them do so by providing training, advice and mentoring.

“The crux of the situation is that unless we can prove that the voluntary system can not only deliver the individual and collective objectives of DMG members but also meet the expectations of Government, then a statutory system remains a real possibility.”