Deer & Wildlife Managemeent Bill Update

Dave Windle

Both bills are continuing to make their way through the Holyrood legislative process.

The Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill is further advanced and has been recently enacted. It will deliver a requirement for licensing for both grouse shooting and for carrying out muirburn. The real value of this will be in pursuing those gamekeepers who like to flout the law. At present, raptor persecution needs to be proved to criminal law standard which is very difficult to achieve given the remote areas where these crimes take place and the ease of avoiding any potential witnesses. However, a licence could be revoked on a standard of proof based on the balance of probabilities, making it easier to pressure estates to bring their rogue gamekeepers into line.

The Deer Management Bill is in the consultation phase, which was due to finish on the 29th March:

consult.gov.scot/environment-forestry/managing-deer-for-climate-and-nature-consultation/

The Bill will address the problem of ballooning deer numbers, causing significant damage to ecosystems. It proposes increasing the power of NatureScot to impose sanctions on estates where there are excessive deer numbers. NEMT has replied to the consultation and a copy of our reply (in italics) is included below.

Access stile on deer fence, by Lis Burke
Photo: Photo: Deer fencing and associated stile, useless blots on the landscape © Lis Burke Available for reuse under this Creative Commons licence

Reply to Government consultation on Managing Deer for climate and nature
Theme 1: Enhancing the Natural Environment

  1. Do you agree that NatureScot should be able to intervene, through Deer Management Nature Restoration Orders (DMNROs), to ensure that action is taken to manage deer, where deer management has been identified as a key part of nature restoration?
    Yes
  2. Do you agree with our proposed criteria for a DMNRO? These criteria are that they can only be ordered where there are social, economic or environmental benefits to be achieved through nature restoration, and additional deer management is a key factor or one of the key factors in securing that benefit?
    Yes
  3. If you answered no to the previous question, what criteria, if any, would you recommend?
    N/A
  4. Do you agree that NatureScot should be able to require a person who is subject of a DMNRO to undertake a range of actions to achieve deer management objectives in these circumstances?
    Yes
  5. Do you agree that non-compliance with DMNROs should be treated in the same way as non-compliance with existing control schemes?
    Yes
  6. Do you agree that NatureScot should be able to recover costs from the landowner where they are required to intervene as a result of non-compliance with DMNROs?
    Yes
  7. If you do not support cost recovery, what alternative non-compliance measures, if any, would you recommend?
    N/A

Further comments

Guidance needs to be given on how the different social, economic and environmental benefits might be combined to make an overall decision. It should also be given on how improved habitat, carbon management, public access, landscape and wider biodiversity combine to form environmental benefit. Exact mathematical definitions arenīt going to be helpful but some guidance needs to be provided.

We suggest that "restoration of nature" is too loose a term and should be replaced by wording along the lines of "establishment of more natural habitats".

The consultation makes frequent references to habitat assessments. Is this too loose a term? Not something for the legislation but we suggest that NatureScot produce some guidance.

Fencing is referred to too often. It is a poor solution; expensive, deer always manage to get in, deer fences kill capercaillie and grouse, and lead to unnatural rigid boundaries. The option needs to be there, but it should be clear that fencing is a solution of last resort. A fence imposed by a DMNRO is very unlikely to work without clear cull criteria on both sides of the fence, in which case is the fence necessary?

We agree that DMNROs need to applied across a large area to achieve reduction of deer numbers across that area. Some guidance on how DMNROs would be applied needs to be provided. Presumably they would apply to single land holdings but would have to be applied simultaneously to several land holding to achieve the necessary benefits across a large area.

Individuals subject to a DMNRO to reduce the number of deer on their property should not be eligible for any Government support. They should not be rewarded for having failed to manage their land properly.

Once the legislation is in place, arrangements need to be made to move existing Section 7 agreements into DMNROs

The Government needs to publish how it intends to implement the remaining recommendations of the Independent Deer Working Group Report. The public needs to be assured that all the recommendations are indeed implemented in full.

Theme 2: Compulsory Powers and Compliance

  1. Do you agree with our proposals that would allow changes to the types of information which can be requested by NatureScot (under section 40 of the 1996 Act), to be made via secondary legislation?
    Yes
  2. Do you agree with our proposals that the period of time over which NatureScot can ask for information on planned future culls should be increased from 12 months up to a period of 5 years?
    Yes
  3. Do you agree with our proposals that NatureScot should be able to use emergency powers under Section 10 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, which include the ability to enter land to undertake short term deer management actions for a period of up to 28 days, to tackle damage to the natural heritage?
    Yes
  4. Do you agree with our proposals that where NatureScot has intervened and carried out deer management actions as a result of these emergency powers, they should be able to recover reasonable costs?
    Yes
  5. Please provide any further comments on the proposals set out in this section here.

    Past experience shows that NatureScot was reluctant to use its full powers to manage deer numbers. The legislation needs to be drafted to reduce the room for discretion, making enforcement more likely.

    As per our previous comment, application of a DMNRO is the result of a landowner failing to manage deer numbers. Public funds should not have to cover poor land management practice.

Theme 3: Deer Welfare

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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?
    Yes
  4. Do you agree with our proposals that use of a shotgun to kill deer should be subject to stricter regulation?
    Yes
  5. Do you agree with our proposals that any capture of live deer should be individually authorised by NatureScot?
    Yes
  6. 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
  7. Please provide any further comments on the proposals set out in this section here.
    We agree with the comment in supporting material that this development of a Code of Practice for the live capture of deer in Scotland is low priority.

Theme 4: Changes to close seasons

  1. Do you agree that the close season for female deer of all species should be the same?
    Yes
  2. 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
  3. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.
    This issue requires detailed scientific advice. The need to manage deer welfare is important but should not be allowed to prevent the required reduction in deer numbers.

No comments were made on Theme 5: Venison and Theme 6: Kept and farmed deer.

NEMT Front Page | Previous Page | Volume Index Page | Next Page | Journal Index Page

Please let the webmaster know if there are problems with viewing these pages or with the links they contain.