Yet again we have one of the environmental NGOs calling for more regulation for deer management in the knowledge that the recently passed Land Reform (Scotland) Act has given SNH additional powers to intervene. Those last resort measures were implemented only last month and ADMG did not oppose them. The Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) is also well aware that a further Parliamentary review of deer management is due later this year and that the new Act provides for three yearly reviews going forward.
All 44 Deer Management Groups (DMGs) have risen to the challenge of creating new deer management plans that take account of the public interest. Those plans have been created and offered for consultation in little more than a year. It is not helpful for the sniping to continue without recognising the efforts made across the board to develop a new approach. The step change requested by the Environment Minister last year is being delivered and will continue. SNH is currently carrying out an assessment of progress by each DMG and setting it against the 2014 baseline assessment and this will be the basis of the SNH report to Ministers this autumn.
SWT also has other recommendations in relation to deer in this paper – moving more towards a Scandinavian model of management, and changes to the seasons. One of these has already been the subject of extensive consultation and review in the Parliament; the other would require a further shake-up of management systems when, right now, we are at pains to prove that the one we have, one that is largely paid for by the private sector, works and can work well. Now is not the time to be considering any of these proposals.
This new paper from SWT, commendable in many other respects, will not influence the outcome of this year’s review. If the review finds that the voluntary approach to deer management, which pumps £140 million per annum into local economies and supports 2500 full time jobs – is up to standard, then all future lobbying for a full-blown regulated management system must stop. DMGs should be allowed to get on with their job and SWT should play its part in supporting those DMGs of which it is a member. ADMG has suggested collaboration with SWT and other NGOs but to date the offer has not been taken up.
Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story, as they say. Mike Russell is at least consistent in that he continues to assert, as he did during the Land Reform Bill stages that there are too many deer in Scotland, doing irrevocable damage to the natural heritage and that a fully regulated deer sector is the only way ahead (pre judging the outcome of the 2016 Scottish Government Review). In doing so he simply repeats the drip feed of misinformation recited incessantly by some of the environmental NGOs over many years. To be fair there has been some justification for these assertions in the past but those keen to judge must really take note that the deer sector has undergone and is continuing to undergo radical change.
What is meant by “too many deer”? Let us, for once, look at some facts.
SNH reported to the RACCE Committee in 2013 that there were estimated to be 275,000 red deer in the open hill range, covering 32,600 square kilometres.
This represents a stocking density of 8.6 deer per square kilometre overall, obviously with local variation.
There is a winter sheep population of 815,000 breeding ewes to be found in the same area (SGRPID stats 2014 for Highland, Grampian and Tayside).
Using the SGRPID formula to calculate livestock units and stocking density, if the population of breeding sheep and red deer are added together the total stocking density in the highland red deer range is 0.06 livestock units per hectare, just a fraction above the minimum stocking density required by the Scottish Government of farmers to qualify for the Basic Payment Scheme.
85.3% of designated site features where deer are present are, to quote SNH in 2015 “in favourable condition, recovering due to management, or unfavourable but with site condition monitoring (SCM) herbivore targets being met”. Thus deer impacts remain to be rectified on just 14.7% of designated sites.
Deer were reported in the media as being the main culprit in the Native Woodland Survey of Scotland (Forestry Commission 2015) but ongoing analysis by SNH has identified that just half of the native woodland area, 161,000 hectares, lies within the red deer range and that only around a third of this is in unfavourable condition owing to herbivore impacts (not just deer). Further analysis indicates that grazing impacts are no greater in importance as a threat to healthy regenerating native woodlands than introduced tree species.
Does this paint a picture of a devastated environment overrun by wild and domestic herbivores. Hardly. Furthermore domestic livestock numbers have fallen dramatically over recent decades and deer numbers have also been reduced by heavy culling which is being maintained at a level of around 70,000 red deer annually.
All these statistics were sent personally to Mike Russell by the Association of Deer Management Groups and to all his Parliamentary colleagues in February. He was also supplied with the results of a new independent economic study of the deer sector (Public and Corporate Economic Consultants Feb. 2016) which reveals that deer management in Scotland contributes over £140m annually to the rural economy of Scotland and supports 2,520 full time equivalent jobs. In terms of the Scottish Governments rural strategy, sustainability is supposed to be about a virtuous balance of economic, environmental and social outcomes. So for those who want to further reduce our red deer population please think about the impact in terms of jobs and rural communities.
What exactly is meant by those who call for full regulation of deer management? The deer sector is already highly regulated. In addition to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, the Wildlife & Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 and now the additional powers of intervention introduced in Part 8 of the soon to be Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 (which, incidentally, ADMG supports), we have the Scottish Government joint agencies 20 year policy document Wild Deer – A National Approach, the SNH Code of Practice on Deer Management, the ADMG Benchmark and Principles of Collaboration, the SNH Guide to Deer Management Plans: Delivering the Public Interest, the SNH DMG Assessments System (Baseline Study in 2014, repeat Assessment Spring 2016) and the 80 practical guides of Wild Deer Best Practice. Furthermore we have the second RACCE Review to be carried out in the Autumn of 2016. They talk about the Voluntary Principle, but there is really not much wriggle room in that tight framework, just enough flexibility to allow for the practical application of deer management at local level.
Deer management has become enmeshed with land reform. When I saw Mike Russell in January he expressed his conviction that voluntary deer management had failed and that regulation was the only way ahead. He said it was “not about class warfare” although I had not suggested that it was! We really need to consider deer management, with the public interest very much in mind, objectively, and on the basis of evidence. Deer in Scotland have been researched exhaustively and the facts are available and some of them are summarised above. Furthermore the continuing obsession with single species management obstructs what all agree is necessary which is to move to a landscape scale, holistic and adaptive approach to management to optimise economic, environmental and social outcomes.
Richard Cooke
Chairman
The Association of Deer Management Groups
March 2016
The annual general meeting of the Association of Deer Management Groups (ADMG), the organisation representing those who manage Scotland’s upland red deer, took place at Kingussie on Friday 26 February 2016.
Attended by almost 200 deer forest managers, owners, and other representatives from the sector, there was much discussion in connection with the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and its elements relating to deer including the reintroduction of sporting rates and additional powers for Scottish Natural Heritage to intervene where the voluntary system is not working.
The meeting was also advised of the headlines of the latest PACEC report. The study was commissioned by ADMG, the Lowland Deer Network Scotland and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to assess the current contribution of deer management to the Scottish economy. Among its conclusions were that £140.8m of expenditure in Scotland is reliant on deer management of which £43.1m is directly due to deer management activities. The study also found that there are 2,532 jobs in deer management of which 1,372 were paid, and equate to an estimated at 845 FTEs.
Time was also devoted to the forthcoming review of Scotland’s Deer Management Groups (DMGs) to take place in the autumn when DMGs will demonstrate that they have made progress on a number of fronts including delivery of sustainable deer management in the public interest.
Richard Cooke, Chairman, The Association of Deer Management Groups, said:
This was, as is customary, a very well attended meeting. The upland deer sector has clearly grasped what is expected of it in terms of making progress in having proper and workable deer management plans in place that take the public interest into account, and also making these plans available for public consultation in line with new guidelines on transparency and accountability. The majority of Groups will have their own websites with contact details and a wealth of information about how they operate up and running by the time of the assessment process.
I am extremely encouraged by the progress that the Groups have made. There has been intense pressure in political circles and beyond, and considerable misinformation continues to be spread about the sector. There are many positive aspects that we can talk about and these will become apparent as the Review gets underway.
The following Deer Management Groups now have either their own website or information available online on the ADMG site. Those marked with an * have their draft Deer Management Plan available on their website:
There is an air of desperation about the relentless lobbying of MSPs by the rewilding/reforestation lobby in final efforts to use the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill as a means to take all deer management into full public control regardless of cost to the tax payer and the sweeping deer culls they envisage. Misinformation based on long out-dated assumptions about red deer numbers and their impacts on the environment really cannot go unchallenged.
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) estimated on the basis of their series of counts that there were 275,000 red deer (not 400,000) in the Highland open deer range, when they reported to the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee in 2013. That equates to an average of 8.4 deer per sq km over 3,260,000 hectares. There are 815,000 breeding sheep in the same area, summer population 2,090,000 (Scottish Government data 2014).
As to environmental impacts, 85.3% of the features on designated sites in the red deer range are in “favourable condition, recovering due to management or unfavourable but with site condition monitoring herbivore targets being met” (SNH 2015).
SNH analysis of the Native Woodland Survey of Scotland (Forestry Commission 2014) indicates that 49.6 per cent of native woodland lies in the red deer range, 161,011 hectares. Of that total 36,668 hectares (22.8 per cent) are in unfavourable condition owing to impacts by wild and domestic herbivores. So there is plenty of room for further improvement but this is already better than the Government 2020 target of 60 per cent.
The argument against temporary deer fencing to jump start regeneration, of which there are countless successful examples, is spurious. Even if deer populations are reduced to the very low levels advocated, the last handful will always go to a regenerating forest where they find food and shelter in hard weather, and that is when the damage occurs to unprotected woodlands and plantations. And, by the way, deer were not to blame for the recent devastating flooding.
Can we please leave the mythology behind and look at the evidence? It is possible for deer and trees to coexist and for those who care deeply about both to work together to deliver a healthy environment, integrated land management and sustainable employment. So let’s make a start.
Yours etc
Richard Cooke
Chairman
Association of Deer Management Groups
If you have ever wondered what area a Deer Management Group (DMG) covers, what the main features or landholdings are within a DMG, or what the main points of contact and contact details are with a DMG, that information is now steadily coming on stream on the web.
As a precursor to the Review of Deer Management, called for by the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment (RACCE) Committee which will take place later this year and, as recommended in its Benchmark for DMGs produced by the Association of Deer Management Groups (ADMG), a lot more information about DMGs is now being published on the web, either on the ADMG site or on individual DMG websites.
Of Scotland’s 44 DMGs, 25 now have an online presence and the process of draft Deer Management Plans being posted on DMG websites for consultation and comment is now also underway. Richard Cooke, ADMG Chairman, says:
“One of the criticisms that Deer Management Groups have faced is that not enough is known about them and how they operate. We have responded to this challenge to increase the transparency of DMGs. Over the coming months as more draft Deer Management Plans are completed by Groups then these will be posted in the public domain for comment. DMGs will also be encouraged to post the agendas of their meetings and their meeting minutes online as well as holding open days and public meetings.
“The upland deer management sector is making great progress right now and we are keen that this dynamism and positive approach within the sector is recognised in the forthcoming review.”
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.
Stag carcase left to rot at Coire Dhorcail. Photo: Sir Patrick Grant
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.
Woodland regneration without fences is possible with the right approach. Photo: Victor Clements
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)
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.
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.
