1

Deer Management in Scotland: Report to the Scottish GovernmentfromScottishNaturalHeritage2016Response and commentary by the Association of Deer ManagementGroups(ADMG)ExecutiveSummary

• ADMGbelievesthatthereappraisalofDMGsshowsthatastepchangeinculture and intent is taking place and we reject the conclusion thatcurrentactivitywillnotdeliverthesustainabledeermanagementthatweallseek.

• Wearedisappointedby theoverall thrustof theReport,whichwe findinconsistentinthatitsmainconclusionsarenotsubstantiatedbymanyofthefactsintheReportitself.

• Wehavesignificantconcernsabouttheaccuracyofsomeofthefiguresinthe Report. There are clear anomalies and inaccuracies in Section 3 inregardtodeernumbersanddensities.Thissectionshouldbeofferedforreviewby theDeer SciencePanel and if necessary revisedonce the JHIstudyiscompletedin2017.

• The long standing central thrust of DCS/SNH’s approach has been thatherbivore impactsare thekey factor inhabitatmanagement. HowevertheReportallowstheinferencetobedrawnthatdeernumbersaloneareakeydeterminantofprogress

• UntilSNH’scurrentpowershavebeenusedtothefullwedonotseeanyneedorjustificationfor“additionalmeasures”.

• ADMG has been proactive in identifying gaps in DMG coverage and anumberofnewGroupsareforming.

• ByignoringsecondaryimpactstheReportunderstatestheeconomicandemploymentcontributionofdeer.

• ThepresentationofS7datafailstogiveatruepictureoftargetsmetandprogressmade.

• Finally, we want to work with SNH and the Scottish Government toensure that the positive direction of travel continues and that DMGsdeliver the comprehensive Plans that they have produced. The ADMGforwardworkplanistobefoundattheendofthisPaper.

2

CommentaryThisreportwaspublishedonFriday18thNovember2016.WehaveconsidereditcarefullyandattendedthesubsequentSNHverbalevidencesessionwiththeEnvironment,ClimateChangeandLandReformCommitteeoftheScottishParliament(ECCLR).WeconcurwiththeobservationmadebyScottishEnvironmentLinkthatithasvalueinbringingabroadrangeofinformationrelatingtodeertogether.WealsoacknowledgetherecognitionbySNHoftheprogressmadebytheDeerManagementGroupsandtheroleofADMGinsupportingthatprogress.

However, we are dismayed by the apparent conclusion of the Report in theChairman’sForeword–“wecannotconfidentlyconcludethatastepchangehasoccurred”,andinthelastbulletpointintheMainFindings-“wearenotconfidentthat present approaches to deer management will be effective”. ParticularlysurprisingisthatthepicturepaintedbythediscussionchaptersoftheReport,isoneofimprovementandapositivedirectionoftravel:

• “significantprogress”bytheDMGsincreatingPlansthataddressthepublicinterest(point5pageiv)

• decreasingreddeernumbersand,equallyimportantly,sheepnumbers.• Habitat indicators that are moving in the right direction as indicated by

howmuchgreenandyellowthereisinthe2016columnsofthebarchartsinSection6.Ofcoursethereisworktodoincontinuingtoimprovehabitatstatus but it is happening and progress is andwill continue to bemade,particularlywhereDeerManagementPlansarebeingimplemented.

• Adramatic improvement in twoyears inmanyof thebenchmarkcriteriasetforDMPs(Section6)

Wehavereceivedanumberofcomments fromMemberDMGs,both inwritingandatourrecentRegionalMeeting,totheeffectthatthebodyoftheReportanditsConclusionsarecontradictory.Itishardtodisagree.Thechallengeoverthelasttwoyearshasbeentoreconstructdeermanagementin the uplands to reflect the public interest. The new generation deermanagement plans (DMP) adopted over the course of 2016, and ongoing for anumber of new and potential new DMGs, address the public interestcomprehensivelyandtheyhavebeenjudgedonthatbySNHintheencouraging2016 reassessment, as considered indetail in theReport. DMPsarealsomorestructuredinhowtheyaddresstheoperationalaspectsofaDMGassetoutintheADMGBenchmark.

3

Thereddeersector isnowincreasingly fit forpurpose,contrarytotheReport’snegative conclusions, and ismoving into the delivery phase of the new DMPs.TheseincludedetailedActionPlans,basedonthepopulationmodelsagreedwithSNH,whichare reviewedandupdatedateachDMGmeeting. The firstpriorityfor all DMGs in 2016/2017 is to introduce or continue comprehensive habitatmonitoringsothatdeermanagementdecisionscanbebasedonenvironmental,economic and social impacts rather than just deer numbers, densities anddistribution,asinthepast.SomeDMGsarealreadywellaheadwiththis.ADMG’s contribution will be to take a lead on the data management system,SWARD, which has been developed and partly tested but requires furthertrialling; alsoWild Deer Best Practice (“WDBP”). Lack of resources has forcedSNH to suspend or reduce support for these projects and ADMG is currentlyraising funds to take them over, working with SNH and other stakeholders.ADMG also wishes to consider with SNH and others the development of a“Standard” for deer management which reflects in simplified form the criteriacoveredintheSNHAssessmentprocess. Implicit inallofthis isthatADMGwillcontinuetoworkcloselywithSNHandothersandwillgivealeadintheongoingprocessofchange.During the preparation of the Report ADMGhad a series ofmeetingswith theSNHReportteam.WeemphasisedthecriticalimportanceofacknowledgingtheprogressmadeandtheneedfortheReporttoadoptarealisticbutpositivetone,whilenotingtheformidableamountofworkrequiredinfuture.Whiletheeffortsof all concerned are acknowledged, the negative conclusions drawn, as quotedabove,butalsointheConclusionofAssessment–“…doesnotprovideconfidencethattheimplementationofthesemanagementplanswilldeliverthedesiredlevelofenvironmentalenhancements,orwiderpublicbenefits…”arediscouraginganddemotivating for those who must deliver continually improving deermanagementintheyearsahead.ThecurrencyonwhichSNHreliesinsupportingcollaborativedeermanagementisgoodwill;alsotrust. Unfortunatelybothhavebeendamagedby the toneof thisReport, as indicatedby themanycommentsreceivedbyADMGfrommembersatourrecentRegionalMeetingInverness.We also regret having to challenge some of the evidence, analysis andinterpretationcontainedintheReport,asbelow:

4

2.TheCurrentApproachtoDeerManagementinScotlandWehavenocommenttomakeonthesummaryofthepresentarrangementsfordeermanagement. However,with reference to the statutorypowers vested inSNH under legislation, other than S7 which is dealt with elsewhere in thisresponse, few of these powers have been used by SNH. We commend thepreferenceofSNHforworkingwithothersbydiscussionandpersuasiontosecurenecessaryactionbutthepowersaretheretobeusedasa lastresortandtherearesituationswhereADMGwouldhavesupportedtheuseofS8,asSNHisaware.That being the case, we are surprised at the later reference (s7, p97) to thepossibleneedforunspecified“additionalmeasures"whilethepresentlyavailablemeasures,includingthenewpowersprovidedintheLandReform(Scotland)Act2016,haveyettobeused.AlthoughSNHexpressesdoubtastowhetherLowlandDeerGroups(LDGs)willbeeffective(p11),theyareincreasinginnumberandactivitylevelandworkingwellwith theLowlandDeerNetwork (LDNS)andtheAgencies. It is surely thereforereasonabletotakeamoreoptimisticviewtosupportandencouragethosewhoaremakingprogress. It isdisappointingthatnomentionhasbeenmadeoftheimportantLDNSinitiative,“DeeronyourDoorstep”,anewapproachtoengagingwiththepublictoinformthemaboutdeeranddeermanagement.Thiswillalsobeofuseintheuplandsituation.3.DeerPopulationsandTrendsThediscussionondeernumbersanddensitiesunnecessarilyaddsmoreconfusiontoatopicwhichhascausedmorecontroversyovertheyearsthananyother.Yetgoing rightback to thenew1996DeerCommission forScotland,wehavebeentold,andstronglyagree, that it is the impacts thataremost important.Andofcourse impactsmust take intoaccount,not justdeernumbersandoverall localdensity, but also their distribution and ranging behaviour, and equallyimportantlytheimpactsofsheep,cattle,feralgoats,haresandrabbits.ThiswasrecognisedbyPaulWheelhouseinhisresponsetotheRACCECommitteerecommendationsin2014:

“Countingisdoneincertainareas,usuallyontheopenhill,andisextremelyusefulininforminglocaldeermanagementdecisions.Iamawarehoweverof the difficulty in counting deer in forests, mixed woodland/agriculturalandurban environments. With regard to theassessment of theNationaldeer population, all the advice I have received points to the difficulty inarriving at a reliable estimate. Bearing that in mind, I welcome theCommittee’sconclusionthatweneedtocontinuetofocusontheimpactsofdeer rather than their absolute numbers. Whatmatters is not somuch

5

absolute numbers, but, more importantly, the monitoring of trends inpopulations. It is also helpful to understand locallywhat the sustainabledeerdensityis,inordertoachievelandmanagementobjectives.”

SNHhascontractedtheJamesHuttonInstitute(JHI)toreviewalltheircountdataandtoregionalisetheinformation.StrathcaulaidhLtdhasbeencommissionedtoestimatetheforest livingdeerpopulationandthis issummarised intheReport.TheJHIreportisnotdueforcompletionuntil2017andweareconcernedthatitspremature use in the Report may have led to the unexplained anomaliesexemplifiedbelow.

§ TheReportreferstotheInveraray/TyndrumDMG(ITDMG)(p21,para5)asoneofseveralwithdensitiesofbetween12.7and16deerpersq.km.Thisisatoddswiththefigureof7.6persq.km.shownbythecountrecordintheGroup’sDeerManagementPlan,inthecreationofwhichSNHhasbeenclosely involvedandwhichhasbeenendorsedby the releaseof the SNHDMPgrant.

§ Affric and Kintail DMG and Glenmoriston DMG have also expressedconcernthatanaveragedensity for thewholeof theSouthRossarea of>15deerpersq.km.hasbeenusedinthemaponp23despitetheseDMGsbeing separate Groups with plans based on 11 and 9 deer per sq. km.respectively. This blanket density is misleading and does not reflect thelocaliseddeerpopulationsortheactivemanagementontheground.

§ In thecaseof theMonadhliathsDMGthemaps (p22-p26) showthedeerdensity as “inestimable/not estimated” and the relevant line graph (p24)shows the population as increasing. MDMGhas been the subject of themost detailed deermanagement planning exercise of all Groups, carriedout, largely at SNH expense, by Strathcaulaidh Ltd over 2013-2014. Thiscontainsanexhaustiveexaminationofpopulation,trendsanddistributionand also indicates a significant downturn in deer numbers, quite at oddswiththeReport.

OurdeepconcernisthatifDMGcountsareseentobeselectivelyignoredbySNHthen deer managers who have worked hard on DMPs to date will not bemotivated to commit to the collection of the habitat data and to the ongoingcollaboration and effort which will be required to progress the execution ofDMPs.TheReporthasmadethejobofADMGingivingaleadconsiderablymoredifficultdespiteourwarningtoSNHofthatrisk.Inveraray/TyndrumDMGandMonadhliathsDMGandanumberofotherGroupshavesubmittedseparateevidenceforconsiderationbytheECCLRCommittee.

6

Deer counting anddensity assessments are not an exact science. ThediagrambelowrepresentstheseriesofnowannualaerialcountsfortheSNHmanagedIsleofRum,aclosedislandpopulationandthereforeacomparativelystraightforwardcounting exercise, which shows considerable year to year variances, including2009 and 1984 (shown red) where the increase in numbers is biologicallyimpossible. This reinforces again the need to treat deer numbers and densitydata as just one aspect of assessing impacts as a guide to sustainable deermanagement.

SNHandADMGhavealwaysencouragedcollaborationandcommunicationwithinDMGsbut inthis instancetheclearandunmistakable impressionisthatneitherwere forthcoming from SNH itself; figures that hadnever been explained to orcheckedwiththeDMGwereputinthepublicdomainwithoutanydiscussion.Inview of the clear differences between some of the deer density figures in theReport and those contained in Group DMPs we would be interested to knowwhether the intended peer review by the Deer Science Panel took place; alsowhether the SNHWildlife Management Officers were given an opportunity toreality check the Report insofar as it relates to areas for which they areresponsible.More generally, we are concerned that SNH has chosen to make comparisonsbetween 1960s deer populations and those of today. Count techniques in the1960swererudimentary–bymanualobservationonfoot,ascomparedwiththeaerial/infraredimagerycounttechniquesoftoday,andoveradifferentopenhillrange,sincechangedbyafforestationandotherlandusechange.Itwouldhavebeenmoretellingtolookatthemorerecentcounthistorywhere,astheReportnotes,overalldeernumbershavebeenstableordecliningforsomeyearsdespitean increase in potential carrying capacity owing to the steep decline in sheepnumbers. This isborneout in the linegraphdiagramonp20of theReportbut

7

please note the wide confidence intervals and refer again to the above Rumcountlinegraph.Ashasalreadybeennoted,theintensediscussionondeernumbersanddensitiesis of incidental value as it is the combined impact of grazing animals,wild anddomestic, inaddition tovegetation,altitude,exposure, climatologicalandotherfactors,whichdetermineshabitatcondition.Landmanagementdecisionsrequireto be based on consideration of all relevant factors at local level. We wouldtherefore have expected SNH to focus more on this important point and torecognise the effort that is being made by their own staff and the DMGs inextending training to deer managers to promote and standardise habitatconditionmonitoring as the primary indicator of impacts and change, and thebasisofgrazingmanagement.ForestEnterprisenowuses impacts todeterminetheircullsandincreasinglythatisthecaseintheDMGsaswellandthenewPlansandpopulationmodelswillhelpwiththat.Asnoted,thepriorityforthenextyearand beyondmust be for both ADMG and SNH to encourage those DMGs thataren’talreadydoingittobuilduptheirhabitatmonitoringcapacity.Wemustalsomakethepointthatthereappearstobeapresumptionunderlyingthe Report, and the SNH evidence session, that reduction culls should be thenorm. We contend that if aDMG is operating effectively and is delivering themanagement objectives of its members as well meeting the public interest interms of a sustainable environment, the correct objective will be an annualmaintenancecull,intendedtomaintainastabledeerpopulation,subjecttosmalladaptiveadjustmentstotakeaccountofrecruitmentchangesduetobirthratesandmortalityvarianceswhichareoftendeterminedbyweatherfactors.Insomecases indeed an expansion cull may be justified to deliver new managementobjectivesegtheremovalofsheeptoallowhigherdeernumberstobesustained.Despite our point that impacts are more important than deer numbers anddensities, the discussion of which in section 3 of the Report simply serves tomuddythewaters,wehavemadeourownrathersimplercalculationoftheopenhilldeerpopulation,usingSNHdata.SNHreportedtotheRACCECommitteein2013 in verbal evidence their estimate of the deer population across theDMGareas as approximately 275,000, based on aggregating the most recent SNHcountsofeachDMGareaavailableatthattime. Usingthesameapproachwithmore recent SNH count results, 33 since 2013, (See Appendix 1) ADMG hascalculatedthepresentpopulationas243,170,adeclineof11.5%,representinganaveragedensityof10.3per sq.km.over theopenhill rangeof23,600sq.kms.DespitebeingbasedonSNHrecordsthesecalculationsareatoddswiththefigureof12.5deerpersq.km.usedintheReport(p19).Wehavesharedthesefigureswith SNH but have had no explanation of the difference. These differencesbetweeninformationfromdifferentSNHsourcesneedtobeexplained.

8

Asforsheep,SGRPID2015statisticsindicate601,000breedingewesplusprogenyoverthesameDMGsarea. Thisrepresentsadeclineof44%andareduction inthe number of holdings with sheep of 2000 over the last 25 years (see tablebelow). Thereductioninsheepmayexplainincreasesindeernumbersatsomelocalitieswithinthecarryingcapacityoftheland.

Breeding ewes and sheep in DMG area, June 1982 - June 2015 Breeding Ewes Total Sheep Holdings Head Holdings Head 1982 5,958 986,943 6,189 2,192,432 1990 6,100 1,072,314 6,299 2,484,921 2000 4,857 960,016 5,111 2,213,283 2005 4,344 811,859 4,659 1,892,496 2010 3,802 638,022 4,281 1,523,583 2015 3,672 601,209 4,205 1,461,258 Source: June Agricultural Census, RESAS

Inregardtotheestimatesofwoodlandlivingdeernumberswehavenoevidencetocontestthenumbersandtrendsgiven,basedontheStrathcaulaidhstudy,andconsiderthemtobecredible.Asisstated,itisunrealistictoexpecttoestablishreliable census data for woodland deer and the use of impacts to determinemanagement, eg tree leader loss by FES, points the way for open range deerdecisionmaking.Theoverlapbetweenopenhilldeer,whichcanbecounted,andwoodlanddeer,which cannot to the same standard, isoneof the complicatingfactorsintryingtoestimatetheScottishdeerpopulation.InsummaryonthisSection,wedonothaveconfidenceintheconclusions,orintheevidencethathasledtothoseconclusions,ondeernumbersanddensities.Weareconcernedthattheemphasisongettingaccuratenumbers,notarealisticobjectiveastheaboveIsleofRumexampleshows,detractsfromthemaintaskofmanagingtodeliverfavourableimpacts.WewereassuredbyformerEnvironmentMinisterAileenMcLeod,inannouncingthe Review, that it would be objective and evidence based. We are nowconcernedthat,perhapsduetoshortageoftime,someoftheevidencehasbeenstretched to suit a veryold argument - that there are toomanydeer. Wewillcontinue, hopefully with SNH, to work towards the daywhen that assertion isreplacedwithaninformedlocallyorientateddiscussiononcarryingcapacityandimpacts.

9

4.EnvironmentalImpactsofDeerDesignatedsitesAn evidence-based approach to deermanagement is critical and ADMG valuestheuseofrobustinformationandevidenceinhelpinginformfuturecollaborativedeermanagement.Using the SNH Site Condition Monitoring Dataset on features potentiallyimpactedbyherbivores(1,606features intotal),Appendix3providesadditionaldetailed analysis and interpretation of the relative impacts of herbivores onprotected features. It also provides more detail on the complexity ofunderstanding the impacts of, and relationship between, a range of herbivoresincludingdeer,sheep,hares,rabbitsandgoats.ThefollowingisasummaryofAppendix2attached:

• The Chapter heading ‘Environmental Impacts of Deer’ is misleading. TheReport rightly recognises that “the impacts of deer cannot always bedisentangled from the impacts of other herbivores” and makes nodistinctionbetweenherbivores in its key findings and analysis of impactson protected features. The SNH Report recognises that the impact ofherbivores on the environment must include and consider all species ofherbivore(includingdeer,sheep,cattle,feralgoats,rabbitsandhares).

• ADMG as an organisation, and DMGs through the implementation of 44upland DMPs, are making and will increasingly make a significantcontributiontotargetsidentifiedin‘Scotland’sBiodiversity–aRouteMapto2020’publishedin2015.

• Recognisinguncertainty, theprovisionof financial support to thedeliveryof DMPs through the Environmental Co-operation Action Fund, ForestryGrantSchemesandAgri-EnvironmentalClimateSchemeswillbecritical.

• Of 1,606 features potentially affected by herbivores, 19% are inunfavourableconditionwhereSiteConditionMonitoring (SCM)HerbivoreTargetshavenotbeenmet.

• Half of all features, and 55% of unfavourable features (where herbivoretargets not met), fall within established Deer Management Group areaswithanupdatedplan.

• 87%ofunfavourablefeatures(whereherbivoretargetsnotmet)fallwithinsomeformofDeerManagementGrouparea(Established,Lowland,NeworHistoric).

• Thereare63features(4%ofthetotalnumberoffeatures)whereherbivoresareconsideredtobetheonlynegativepressurecontributingtounfavourablecondition.Acombinationoffactors,includingnegative

10

herbivorepressure,contributestounfavourableconditionofafurther190features(12%ofthetotalnumberoffeatures)suggestingadditionalactivitiesotherthanherbivoremanagementwouldberequiredtobringthemintofavourablecondition.

NativewoodlandsanddesignatedwoodlandsitesADMGhascommissionedareviewbyVictorClements,nativewoodlandadviser,oftheNativeWoodlandSurveyofScotlandinregardtograzingimpactsinnativewoodlands.ThisistobefoundatAppendix3. In summary:

• Thereare324,536haofnativewoodlandofwhich44%iswithintheDMGsarea.

• 33%ofthisisimpactedbyherbivores–47584ha.• 58,803haofherbivoreimpactedwoodlandslieoutwiththeDMGareas.• 67%ofnativewoodlandsinScotlandareinsatisfactoryconditionsofaras

herbivoresareconcernedbutotherfactorssuchasinvasiveandnonnativespecies reduce this proportion to 46%, below the Scottish Government2020targetof60%.

• Thereare426SSSIwoodlandfeaturesinScotland.• 234areinfavourablecondition;60recoveringduetomanagement,3not

assessed.• 129areunfavourableofwhich54are impactedbyherbivoressometimes

combinedwithothernegativeimpacts–nonnatives,brackenetc.• Overall,9.6%of426designatedfeaturesareimpactedsolelybyherbivores

and are not being adequately addressed throughmanagement plans andagreements. Only someof theseare impactedbyherbivoresalone. It isnotpossibletodistinguishclearlybetweendeeranddomestic livestock inmanycases.

• 88SACwoodlandfeaturesinScotlandofwhich41unfavourable.• 26affectedbyherbivoresandotherthreats,8byherbivoresalone.

5.Socio-EconomicCostsandBenefitsofDeerThe remit to SNHwas to give priority to environmental aspects but they havemadereferencetotheeconomicandsocial importanceofdeermanagement inthisSectionandconcludethat:“presentmanagementapproachesappeartoleadto high social and economic costs which outweigh the current benefits”.Inexplicably theyhaveused the2016ADMGcommissionedPACEC studyof thedeersectorbuthavechosentodisregardthesecondaryimpactsonthegroundsthat the PACEC calculations are “not specific and therefore cannot be tested”.Theeffect is thattheyuseadirectannual incomevalueof£17.6mand722FTEjobs in their assessment as comparedwith the PACECoverall economic impactfigures of £140.8m and 2532 jobs. That is hardly an objective assessment and

11

undermines the assertion that economic costs exceed benefits. The ExecutiveSummaryofthefinancialsectionofthePACECeconomicstudyofthedeersectorisattached,Appendix4.Wewouldalsoobserve that someof thecostsarehighly speculative,egLymesdisease, £0.5m. Deer are one of a number of tick hosts and can therefore beinstrumental in the spread of tick, although deer do not carry Lymes Disease.Howeverthesameappliestountreatedsheepandharesandprobablyalsowildbirds(howelsecanweaccountfortheincreasingappearanceofticksinegdeerproof urban gardens?) Furthermore the spread of bracken, ideal tick habitat,across large areas of the Highlands is also a significant factor. Ascribing anestimatedsocialcostofLyme’sDiseasetodeeristhereforequestionableandatleastthisisnotedintheTable(p46),asisthecomplexityofthecalculation(p49). 6.PlanningandImplementationofDeerManagement We are pleased to note recognition of the progress made based on thecomparative Assessments of November 2014 and June 2016 and to note thatprogressisstatisticallysignificant.BroadlywefeltthatthestructuredAssessmentprocess produced realistic results although a number of DMGs expressedconcernsatthetimeandpursuedthesedirectwithSNH. ProgresscontinuestobemadebyindividualDMGsandanumberofthenewerorrestructuredGroupswhich did not have adopted DMPs in June 2016 have since achieved thatimportant point and as a result would score considerably better if re-assessedtoday. A review of the Assessment process by Victor Clements on behalf ofADMGistobefoundonhttp://www.deer-management.co.uk/a-reflection-on-the-2014-2016-deer-management-

group-assessment-process/SNH refers to the areas where there are deer present but has as yet nocollaborativemanagementthroughaDMGorotherwise.Althoughthisistrueofa relatively small proportion of the open hill red deer range, ADMG hasencouraged SNH to initiate meetings in some of these areas and offered tosupportthem.ExamplesarelowerDonsideandCowal.IntheformercaseSNHhas yet to set thewheels inmotion and in the latterADMGhas itself initiatedinformal local discussions with a view to developing a collaborative approach.ADMGstandsreadytoworkwithSNHonthisbut itshouldbepointedoutthatwhere there is only a low level of deer impacts, which is the case in somelocalities, the formationof aDMGmaynotbeanearlynecessity. This is likelyalsotobethecaseinpartsofthelowlands.

SomeofthediscussioninthissectionismisleadingintheopinionofADMG.Asan example there is reference to the scoring of the “best” and “worst” DMPs(p75).The“worst”,withnopublicinterest“greens”and78%“reds”intheJune2016Assessment, refers tooneof theHebrideanDMGswhichhasexistedonly

12

nominallyuntil2016.WiththesupportoftheSNHOfficerconcernedandADMG,andasa latecomertotheSNHgrantscheme,thatDMGhasnowcommissionedthepreparationofaDMPandadoptedaConstitution.BearinginmindthattheReportmakesthepointthatthereareareaswithnocollaborativemechanismsinplaceand that this is aweaknessof the current situation, it is fair topointoutthat the activation of this Group is positive, and should be encouraged andsupportedratherthanbeingusedasanexampleoffailure.

The following graphs, produced byADMGhighlights the change that has takenplacebetweenthe2014and2016SNHAssessmentsintermsofindividualDMGs.Thedatahasbeen calculatedbyapportioning scores to the colours (green –2;amber–1; red–0) awardedbySNH, totalling themup, and turning them intopercentagebands:

Referring to the Assessments (p78) the Report makes the correct observationthat“there is considerable variationnotonlyamongDMGs,butalsoacross thedifferentcategories”.CertainlythereiswidedifferenceinperformancebetweenGroups.Thebestscoredveryhighlyinthere-assessmentandotherlatestartersor DMGs with limited time and resources available have required and willcontinuetorequiremoresupportandencouragementfrombothSNHandADMG.Thatsituationwillcontinuetoimprove.We would also point out that the “lack of detailed mechanisms for using andinterpretingandmonitoringresultsataDMGscale” (p72)referstoSWARD,thedataprocessingsystemforDMGs,which,whilestill indevelopment,hasbeenacasualtyofSNHfundingcuts.Asnoted,ADMGwillnowtakethisforwardandhasbeenpromisedsupportbySNHstaff.Communicationhasbeenoneoftheareasofmostimprovement(35DMGsnowhave their DMPs online). On the other hand “there has been less progress inlinkingplanningwithimplementation”.However,asisacknowledgedinSections1and7–“Therehasbeenlimitedtimeforthesechangestobeimplementedand

13

to lead tomeasurable changes to the natural environment”. The time for theplanning stage, now concluding, has been short and it is unrealistic to expectmuchsignofchangedueto“implementation”atthisstage.Thatisthechallengefor 2017 and beyond and ADMG has prioritised this with its members and isplanning a seminar next Spring to emphasise the importance of the task ofimplementingDMPsandprioritisingtherolloutofhabitatimpactassessments.ADMGalsobelievesthat futureprogresswillbegreaterandmoreconsensual ifthere is a higher level of communication and cooperation across all theorganisationswith an interest in deermanagement. It has thereforemade aninitialproposaltoScottishEnvironmentLinktojointlysetupaDeerStakeholdersForumwithanindependentChairandtheintentionistotakethisfurtherinthecomingmonths.Section7AgreementsTheReportiscriticalofS7agreementsandpartoftheevidencesessionwithSNHfocussedonwhethertheyhadbeenaneffectivemechanismintermsofhabitatimprovementsastheReportsuggestsotherwise.ADMGdoesnotsharethisview.Indeed,inhis2014responsetotheRACCECommittee,PaulWheelhouse,takingamorefavourableviewofS7atthattime,observed:

It is worth highlighting that recent experience of using Section 7 controlagreements demonstrates thatwe can secure environmental gains,whilebalancingotherlanduseinterestsintheprocess.Goodexamplesofrecentandveryrealprogressindeliveringconservationobjectives,deerreductionsand landowner’s objectives have been achieved at various sites includingInchnadmph,Glenfeshie,Kinveachy,CaenlochanandBreadalbane.

A number of the early S7s have achieved their targets and have not beenextendedandmostofthoseremaininghaveresultedinimprovementsincludingsomeinwhichdeerculltargetshavebeenachievedalthoughtherequiredlevelofhabitat response has yet to occur. In some cases new population targets areunder consideration. As noted in theReport “S7 is recognised as an adaptiveapproach”(p90).HoweverproperconsultationwiththeDMGsconcernedhasyettotakeplaceinsomecasesandthispointmaybemadeincorrespondencefromcertainDMGssubmittedseparatelytotheCommitteeasevidence.WenotethatitisincorrectlystatedthattheBreadalbaneAgreementwasextendedinto2016.Itwasconcludedin2015.As an example of what we consider to be a misleading representation of theimprovingsituationatoneoftheS7areas,belowisanextractfromthesummaryfromthe2014independentsurveyoftheBreadlabaneS7agreementwhichisat

14

odds with the observations on this S7 Agreement in the Report, in recordingcontinuingimprovement:

Theresultsofthe2011surveyindicatedthatgrazingimpactshaddecreasedacross most of the five sites. This was particularly evident on BenHeasgarnich and Meall na Samhna, but a general pattern of decreasingimpactswasrecordedacrossalltheSSSIs. Moderate,HighandIncreasingimpacts were recorded from some locations on Ben Lawers and CarnGorm/MeallGarbh.The main findings of the 2014 survey were of fairly minor changes andmanyoftheresultswerebroadlythesameasthosefromthe2011survey.In general the pattern of changes was still a decreasing one, with mostassessment squares either showing the same impact level as 2011 or aslightlylowerone.

Finally wewish to correct two factual errors which arose in the SNH evidencesessioninadditiontotwointheReport:

o In answer to a question from Claudia Beamish SNH implied that DeerManagementPlanswerenotcurrentlypubliclyavailable.Thisisincorrect.35 DMPs are available online through the ADMGweb portal www.deer-management.co.uk by clicking on the relevant part of themapofDMGs.This has been the case since early in 2016 and thenumber available hasincreasedsteadily.

o It was stated that SNH acts as Secretary to the Scottish VenisonPartnership.Thisisnotcorrect.TheSVPSecretaryisDickPlayfair.SNHisasittingmemberofSVP.

o IntheReport(p10)itisstatedthatADMGhas“supported”thecreationofLDNS.LDNSwasconceivedbyADMGandcarriedforwardjointlywithSNH.

o Itisstated(p57)thatSNHpublishedareportonthefirstDMGAssessmentsin2014.ThefirstAssessmentswerecarriedoutduring2014buttheReportwas not published until 2015, during the passage of the Land Reform(Scotland)Bill,whereitledtomuchmisunderstandingastoitspurpose.

15

7.EvaluationandConclusionsThe Report is a considerable disappointment to almost everyone in the deermanagement sector. It identifies theprogressmadeandgivescredit for itbut,ratherthanencouragingfurtherprogressitconcludesthatwearelikelytofailindeliveringourshareofScottishGovernment2020targets. Unfortunately,manyof its conclusions are not based on identifiable science or coherent evidence.Significanterrorsorinconsistencies–asampleofwhichwehaveidentifiedinthispaper,lendlittlecredibilitytowhatshouldbeausefulandinformativereport.Ofparticular concern to ADMG is that the Report has not been helpful in furtherencouragingthoseonwhomeffectivedeermanagementismostdependent.WemeantoengagewithSNHtoclarifysomeoftheobservationsandconclusionsintheReportinthehopethatwemayonceagainbeinapositiontomoveforwardcollaboratively.ThisisnotasectorincrisiswhichcannotdeliveritsshareofScottishGovernmenttargetsastheReportunfortunatelyappearstoconclude.Deermanagementisonan improvingtrajectoryandwiththenewDeerManagementPlans inplaceandworkingwithSNHandothers thedeersectorhasthecapacity tocontribute, itsshareofenvironmental improvement. A “step change”has indeed takenplaceand is continuing. As the Report acknowledges it is unrealistic to expect thattransformation yet tohavebrought allDMGsup toa common standard,or forchange to be visible in upland habitats, or for areas which are in need of acollaborativeapproachtodeermanagementbutdonotyethavethem,tohavefilledin.Thosearealltasksfortheimmediatefutureandwiththecompletionofthedeermanagementplanningphase,mostDMGsarenowreadyandwillingtomoveontothedeliverystageandlaterstartersarecatchingupfast.ADMGtakesprideinthecommitmentofitsmemberstochangethewayinwhichthey do things, to think about deer management in a more integrated andadaptive way, to accept a more clearly articulated responsibility to act in thepublicinterestandtocommunicateeffectively.Deermanagementdifferswidelyfromarea toareaand,as SNHpointsout,doesnot lend itself toaprescriptiveone-size-fitsallapproach.

16

TheADMGworkplanfor2017includes:• Revisit,updateandaddtoWildDeerBestPractice.• CompletedevelopmentofandtrialatDMGscale,SWARD,theonlinedeer

datamanagementpackage.• SupportDMGsinintroducingcomprehensivehabitatimpactassessments.• AGM(March)andBirnamtrainingseminarforDMGofficebearers(May).• Consider development of a deer management “standard” based on the

Assessmentcriteria.• Workwith Scottish Environment Link on all the above and in developing

new approaches to facilitate and support deer management under thevoluntaryprinciple.

• ConsiderwithSNHnewareasforcollaborativemanagement.RichardCookeChairmanAssociationofDeerManagementGroups4December,2016

17

Appendix1

EstimateofScotland'sopenrangereddeerpopulation2016

Estimateddeerpopulation Year Notes

Affric&Kintail2741 2015Helicoptercount

Ardnamurchan1803 2016Helicoptercount

Arran1873 2016Footcount Regardedasbeingverygoodcount.

Balquidder1589 March2016footcount Probablyanunder-countby2-300animals

Blackmount7325 2015Footcount Adjustedfrom8284whichincludedsomeformoutwithDMGboundary

Breadalbane9009 Spring2015Helicoptercount Regardedasbeingagoodcount.

CairngormSpeyside4103 2010DCScount Probareductioninnumberssince2010

EastKnoydart5306 Nov2014Helicoptercount Regardedasbeingagoodcount.

EastLochEricht4849 Feb2015count Goodcount

EastLochShiel3821 March2016Count-Helicopter Regardedasbeingagood,accuratecount

EastRoss1778 2008 Likelytobestable.Closedpopulation.

EastSutherland12213 Spring2016projectionfrom2015footcount Likelytobeanunderestimate,possiblyby2000deerorso

EGDMGSubarea15226 2016Helicoptercount Goodcount

EGDMGBirse155 2016Helicoptercount Goodcount

EGDMGSubArea27586 2016Helicoptercount Goodcount

EGDMGSubArea55502 2016Helicoptercount Partialcountonly;complicatedbyadditionofGlenavonhavingmovedfromCSDMG

Gairloch278 2016Torridononly NorecentreliablecountdataforDMG

Glenartney3178 2015Footcount Goodcount

Glenelg4197 January2016footcount Goodcount.Tiedinwithbroadexpectations.

Glenmoriston3667 FigurequotedinDMPNoyearorcomment.

HarrisandLewis1297 March2016Footcount Goodcount,co-ordinatedwithSNH,localstalkingclubandneighbours,walking

previouslyagreedlines.

Inverary&Tyndrum2573 2016footcount Likelytobeasignificantunderestimate.30%ofareaistrees

Islay4415 2016Helicoptercount IslayEstates2016footcountsuggetscountshouldbe389animalshigher.

Lochalsh7040 Spring2016Helicoptercount SpringcountislikelytoincludeanimalspulledinfromneighbouringDMGareas.

Midwest11045 2011Helicoptercount Nogoodgroupwidecountsincethen

Moidart1800 2016Est Likelytobestablepopulation

Monadhliath18984 2013helicoptercount Likelytobeunder-estimategivenareaofforestry

Morvern3890 2012footcount Noinformationonlikelyaccuracy.

Mull7707 2011Estimate Not100%coverage

NorthRoss14348 2015SNHHelicoptercount Goodcount

Northern11778 2013Helicopercount Goodcount,althoughahighproportionofforestrywithinthegroup.Numbers

likelytobestable,althoughmanagementchangessince2013.

18

NWSutherland5879 Spring2016footcount Under-estimateassomepropertiesdidnotcount,possiblyby1000deerorso

SouthPerthshire4856 December2009Helicoptercount

Currentdeerpopulationlikelytobesignificantlylessthan4000duetolocalreductionsforgrousemoormanaement

SRoss-S'connon8669 Spring2016Helicoptercount Includes506encloseddeer.

SouthWestRoss1631 Footcount,15/4/16 Partialcountonly.AwaitingconfirmationofAugust2016countresults.

Strathfarrar8223 2016Modelledpopulation Asignificantincreaseonthemodelledpopulationandlikelytobeincursionform

neighbouringareas.

Strathtay1238 2015footcount Goodcount

W.SutherlandEAST4517 Feb2016Helicoptercount Goodcount,butDMPsuggestsadowngradedfigureto4066.

W.SutherlandNORTH2653 Feb2016Helicoptercount Goodcount,butDMPsuggeststotalshouldbeslightlyhigherat2695

W.SutherlandSOUTH1819 Feb2016Helicoptercount

Goodcount,butmaybesomedoublecounting/overlapsduetotimetakentocompletewholeWestSutherlandarea,especiallyonboundarybetweenEastand

Westgroups.

W.S'landW-APSG1806 Feb2016Helicoptercount

Goodcount,butmaybesomedoublecounting/overlapsduetotimetakentocompletewholeWestSutherlandarea,especiallyonboundarybetweenEastand

Westgroups.

WestGrampian13916 2015Footcount Likelytobegoodcount

WestKnoydart1142 2016footcount Regardedasbeingaccurate,butmaybesomedeerfromEastKnoydartincluded

WestLochaber4745 2015 Incompleteduetowelfareconcernsononepropertybecauseofdeepsnow

WestRoss11000 2009 Partialcountssincethen.

TOTAL:243170

19

Appendix2.PaperbyLinziSeivwright,ConsultantThe2020ChallengeforScotland’sBiodiversityThecontextforthechapterontheEnvironmentalImpactsofDeeristheScottishBiodiversityStrategy‘The 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity’.Published in 2015, ‘Scotland’s Biodiversity – a RouteMap to 2020’ identifies the 7 most critical pressures in dealing with biodiversity loss, and sets outpriorityprojectsandtargetstohelpdeliverthe2020challenge.In the review, SNH makes the statement “we are not confident that present approaches to deermanagementwillbeeffectiveinsustainingandimprovingthenaturalheritageinareasonabletimescale– particularly in time to contribute significantly to the specific challenges outlined in the ScottishBiodiversityRouteMapto2020”(Piv).ADMGwishestochallengethisstatementwithregardstospecificactionsandtargetsrelatingtodeermanagementInthereview,SNHstatesthat:“ThefirstprogressreportfortheRouteMapshowsthatgoodprogresshasbeenmadeacrossmanyofthetargets.However,twotargetsonnativewoodlandplantingandrestorationareidentifiedasinneedoffurtherwork”.(P31)“The reassessment of 44 upland Deer Management Groups shows that between 2014 and 2016significantprogresshasbeenmadeindevelopingeffectivedeermanagementplans”(Piv).Asapartner in the implementationofScotland’sWildDeer:ANationalApproachandhavingworkedclosely to support theDeer Sector in developing effective deermanagement plans over thepast 18months,ADMGisalreadycontributingtotargetswithinthe, ‘Scotland’sBiodiversity–aRouteMapto2020’publishedin2015.Furthermore,Table1setsouttherelevantBiodiversity2020Strategyprojectsanddemonstratestheworkthathasbeencarriedoutsince2014andwhichwillcontinuetocontributeto through the implementation of Deer Management Plans, the proposed programme of work forADMGandtheworkoftheLowlandDeerNetwork.

20

Table1:Biodiversity2020StrategyandTargetsforDeerManagementBiodiversity2020Priority

ProjectsTargets CurrentContributionofDeer

ManagementBigStep1:Ecosystem

Restoration:Restorationofpeatlands

Ambitiouspeatlandrestorationprogrammeunderway,

contributingtotheEU15%degradedecosystemrestorationtarget

PeatlandrestorationisincludedwhererelevantinDMPs.Opportunitiesfor

furtherrestorationworkwillbereliantontheavailability/accessibilityof

Funding.BigStep1:Ecosystem

Restoration:Restorationofnativewoodland

Increasetheamountofnativewoodlandingoodcondition

(upwardsfrom46%asidentifiedbytheNative

WoodlandSurveyofScotland)

Restoreapproximately10,000haofnativewoodlandintosatisfactoryconditioninpartnershipwithprivate

woodlandownersthroughDeerManagementPlans

Creationof3,000to5,000haofnewnativewoodlandcreation

peryear

TheimplementationofScotland’sWildDeer:ANationalApproach(ADMGare

apartnerorganisation)

Deliveryof44“effective”deermanagementplanswithpublicinteresttargetstocontributetotheoverallaimofnativewoodlandrestoration.Againopportunitieswillbereliantonthe

availabilityoffundingboththroughtheEnvironmentalCooperationActionFundandForestryGrantsSchemes.

LowlandDeerNetworkisinvolvedinestablishingfurthermechanismsfor

lowlanddeermanagement.

BigStep4–ConservingwildlifeinScotland

Atleast80%ofdesignated‘features’infavourableconditionby2016.

Inadditionto1,208(75%)featurespotentiallyaffectedbyherbivoresinfavourablecondition,afurther99(6%)unfavourablefeaturesmetSiteConditionMonitoringtargetsforherbivores.

Of1,606featurespotentiallyaffectedbyherbivores,821features(51%)arecoveredbyexistingDeerManagement

GroupswithupdatedDMPs,265features(16.5%)arecoveredby

LowlandDMGareas,194(12%)arecoveredbyhistoricorDMGsin

development,with326(20%)notpresentlycoveredbyaDMG.

BigStep5–Sustainablemanagementoflandand

freshwater

Encouragingbestpracticeanddemonstratinghowsustainablegameandwildlifemanagementcandelivermultiplebenefits,includingwildlifeconservation,andwidesocietyandrural

communitybenefits.

ADMGwillbeinvestigatingopportunitiestoleadonpromotingandupdatingWildDeerBestPracticeandtodevelopingadatamanagementtool

(SWARD)toassistdeermanagers.

21

HerbivoreImpactsThereviewmakesnodistinctionbetweenherbivoresinitskeyfindingsandrecognisesthattheimpactofherbivoreson theenvironmentmust includeand consider all speciesofherbivore (includingdeer,sheep,rabbitsandhares).TheChapterheading‘EnvironmentalImpactsofDeer’isthereforemisleading.In themain findings of the review, it is stated that “Grazingby deer andother herbivores is amajorcause of unfavourable condition of natural features in protected areas” (P iv) and Site ConditionMonitoring results “do not differentiate between impacts from different herbivores, e.g. sheep, deer,haresetc”.(P32).Yet,theReviewgoesontomakethefollowingstatements:

• “Theimpactsofdeercannotalwaysbedisentangledfromtheimpactsofotherherbivores,buttheevidencesupportstheviewthatdeerareamajorfactorinlimitingtherecoveryofwoodlandcondition”(P39).

• “Inrecentdebates,theimpactdeerarehavingonthenaturalheritagehasbeenprominentandtheextenttowhichtheyarehinderingprogressinachievingtargetsandoutcomesinthe‘2020ChallengeforScotland’sBiodiversity’.(P14/15)

SiteConditionMonitoringandProtectedFeaturesSummary:

• From a total of 1,606 features potentially affected by herbivores, 19% are in unfavourableconditionwhereSiteConditionMonitoringHerbivoreTargetshavenotbeenmet.

• Half of all features, and 55% of unfavourable features (with herbivore targets not met), fallwithinestablishedDeerManagementGroupareaswithanupdatedplan.

• 87%ofunfavourable features (withherbivore targetsnotmet) fallwithin some formofDeerManagementGrouparea(Established,Lowland,NeworHistoric).

• Thereare63features(4%ofthetotalnumberoffeatures)whereherbivoresareconsideredtobetheonlynegativepressurecontributingtounfavourablecondition.Acombinationoffactors,including negative herbivore pressure contributes to unfavourable condition of a further 190features(12%ofthetotalnumberoffeatures).

An evidence-based approach to deer management is critical and ADMG values the use of robustinformation and evidence in helping inform future collaborative deer management. The followinganalysesusingasubsetofSiteConditionMonitoringdataofprotectedfeaturespotentiallyaffectedbyherbivores, demonstrates the complexity behind determining and therefore resolving unfavourablecondition of protected features. Using the SNH SCM Data set, the following information providesadditional detailed analyses and interpretation of the relative impacts of herbivores on protectedfeatures.

22

Table2SummaryofUnfavourableFeatures,HerbivorePressuresandDeerManagementProvisions

1. “Of5,271naturalfeaturesassessedacrossScotland’sprotectedareas,81%areinfavourableorunfavourablerecoveringcondition.Forthosefeaturespotentiallyaffectedbyherbivores(asubsetof1,606features),thefiguredropsto75%”(P31).

Inadditiontothe1,208(75%)featuresinfavourablecondition,afurther99(6%)unfavourablefeaturesmetSiteConditionMonitoringtargetsforherbivores(Table2,Row1).

2. “Theproportionoffeaturesinfavourableandunfavourablerecoveringconditionis10–12%lowerinareascoveredbydeergroupscomparedwiththerestofScotland”(P31).

Thereare3categoriesofDeerGroupusedintheseanalyseswhichrangefromestablishedDMGswithanupdatedDMP,LowlandGroupsandeitherneworhistoricalDMGswithoutaplan.Of1,606features,80%fallwithintheareaofoneofthesecategories(Table2,Row7)Forthe299unfavourablefeatures(whereSCMherbivoretargetsarenotmet):

• 55%sitwithinestablishedDMGareaswithanupdatedplan(Table2,Row2)• 18%sitwithinLowlandGroupareas(Table2,Row3)• 14% sit within an historic or new DMGwhere no plan currently exists or is in development

(Table2,Row4).

AnalysisofFeaturesPotentiallyAffectedby

Herbivores

TotalNumberofFeatures Favourable

Unfavourable(HerbivoreTargetsMet)

Unfavourable(Herbivore

TargetsNOTmet)

1 Featurespotentiallyaffectedbyherbivores

1606(100%) 1208(75%) 99(6%) 299(19%)

2FeatureswithinEstablishedDMGwithupdatedDMP

Area821(51%) 612(51%) 46(47%) 163(55%)

3FeatureswithinLowland

DMGArea265(17%) 189(16%) 22(22%) 54(18%)

4FeatureswithinhistoricornewDMGwithnoplan

194(12%) 136(11%) 15(15%) 43(14%)

5 NoDMG 326(20%) 271(22%) 16(16%) 39(13%)

6 Total 1,606(100%) 1,208(100%) 99(100%) 299(100%)

7 TotalwithinDMG 1280(80%) 937(78%) 83(84%) 260(87%)

8 TotalOutwithDMG 326(20%) 271(22%) 16(16%) 39(13%)

23

Table3:AnalysesofUnfavourableFeatureswhereSCMTargetsforHerbivoresNotMet

3. “….Thisshowsthat,withtheexceptionofbirdfeatures,themajorityofunfavourablefeaturesrequirereductionsingrazingpressures(P34).

For299unfavourablefeatures(whereSCMherbivoretargetsarenotmet):

• 15%(46features)arenotimpactednegativelybyherbivores(Table3,Row1).• 21%(63features)areconsideredtohavenegativeherbivoreimpactsonly(Table3,Row1).• 48% (190 features) are considered to have a combination of negative factors including

herbivores (Table 3, Row 1) suggesting that 48% of features would require additionalmanagementotherthanherbivoremanagementtobringthemintofavourablecondition.

Table3:PressuresonProtectedFeatures

4. Of the 1606 features examined, 56% of features have a negative overgrazing pressureidentified,comparedwithonly9%havingnegativeundergrazingpressures(P33).

AnalysisofUnfavourableFeatureswhereHerbivore

TargetsNOTMet

Unfavourable(Herbivore

TargetsNOTmet)

HerbivoresonlyNegativePressure

HerbivoresandOtherNegative

Pressure

Othernegativepressureonlyornonegativepressure

1Featurespotentiallyaffectedbyherbivores

299(100%) 63(21%) 190(64%) 46(15%)

2FeatureswithinEstablishedDMGwithupdatedDMP

Area163(55%) 55(87%) 102(54%) 6(13%)

3FeatureswithinLowland

DMGArea54(18%) 7(11%) 32(17%) 15(33%)

4FeatureswithinhistoricornewDMGwithnoplan 43(14%) 1(2%) 37(19%) 5(11%)

5 NoDMG 39(13%) 0 19(10%) 20(43%)

6 Total 299(100%) 63(100%) 190(100%) 46(100%)

7AsPercentageofTotal

NumberofFeatures(1,606) 299(19%) 63(4%) 190(12%) 46(3%)

PressuresAssessedFeaturespotentiallyaffectedbyherbivores(%)

Herbivoresonlynegativepressure 277(17%)Herbivoresandothernegativepressure

615(38%)

Othernegativepressureonly 482(30%)Nonegativepressure 232(14%)TotalNumberofAssessedFeatures 1,606

24

From Table 3 it can be seen that 17% of features have been identified with a negative herbivorepressureonly,withacombinationofnegativefactors, includingherbivoreshavinganegativepressureonafurther38%.

25

Appendix 3

ReviewofNWSSSurveyforADMGbyVictorClements

(AfullaccountofthisisgivenintheDecember2016editionofScottishForestry”)

Of the 324,536 ha of native woodland covered in the NWSS report, 143,323 ha or 44% lies within the DeerManagementGroups(DMG)area.

33%ofthisareaisimpactedbyherbivores,whichisco-incidentallythesamelevelasfortheareaofScotlandlyingoutwith theDMGarea.Thegreaterareaofnativewoodland impactedbyherbivores therefore liesoutwith theDMGareas(58,803havs47,584ha).

67% of native woodlands across the country are therefore in satisfactory condition with regards to browsingpressures. However, when other causes of unsatisfactory condition are included (non native tree species andinvasivespecies)whicharemorecommonoutwiththeDMGarea,thenjust50%ofwoodswithintheDMGareaare in overall satisfactory condition, but only 40%ofwoods outwith this area, the difference being because ofthesenonherbivoreotherfactors.

10%ofwoodswithin theDMGarea therefore require to be restored, by reducing grazing andbrowsing, or byremovalofnonnativestreeandplantspecies,toreachthe60%targetfor2020,or11,168ha.

OutwiththeDMGarea,20%ofwoodsrequiretoberestored,or32,544ha.

Toachieve the2020 targetof60%ofnativewoodsbeing in satisfactorycondition,75%of theeffortbyarea isthereforeoutwiththeDMGarea,andrequiresworktotargetnonnativeandinvasivespeciesaswellasdeeranddomesticlivestockaccessingwoodlandsinthelowlands.

DesignatedWoodlandSites

Thisaccounthasbeenproducedbyanalysisofavailableinformationandconsultantknowledgeofmanyofthesitesinvolved.

SitesofSpecialScientificInterest(SSSI)

Thereare426designatedSSSIwoodlandfeaturesinScotland.(PleasenoteSNHanalysisuses406features)

Of these,234are inFavourableCondition,anda further60areRecoveringdue tobeing inactivemanagementwhich shouldbringaboutan improvement in condition. It can take several years for thisprocess tooccur, andprogresscansometimesbeslow.

Threesiteshaveneverbeenassessedforcondition.

Theremaining129featuresaredeemedtobe inUnfavourableCondition,andtherecanbearangeofdifferentreasonsforthis.Thedatashowsthatonly54ofthesesitesareimpactedbyherbivoresandlistedasbeingundersignificant pressure, although it is not always possible to determine whether domestic livestock or deer areresponsible.

Ofthese54features:

• 25 features have significant pressures in addition to herbivore impacts. These will very often andincreasingly involve invasive species or brackenencroachment, nonnative tree species, unsympatheticagricultural activity, tree diseases, development orwatermanagement issues.While grazing pressurescan be transitory and readily be fixed if it is necessary to do so, these other pressures can be moreentrenched, and more difficult and expensive to rectify. When trying to bring sites into FavourableCondition,itisimportanttolookatallthepressuresinvolved.

• 13XfeatureshavemanagementplansorSRDPapplicationsinplaceorimminent.

26

• Thereare16siteswhereherbivorepressure is themainproblem,butwhether it is livestockordeer isimpossibletosayinmanycasesfromthedataavailable.

Ifyouincludethe25+16=41featuresthisrepresents9.6%ofthe426designatedSSSIfeaturesinScotlandbeingin unfavourable condition due to herbivores, although the animal responsible is not always apparent from thedata,andinthemajorityofthesesignificantadditionalpressuresalsoexist.

SpecialAreasofConservation(SACs)

Thereare88 SACdesignatedwoodland features inScotland,ofwhich41,47%,are inUnfavourableCondition.(Pleasenote,SNHanalysisusesonly73features)

Ofthese41features,theavailablebackgroundinformationsuggeststhatfor15ofthese,herbivorepressureisnotaconcern.

Oftheremaining26features,30%ofthetotal:

• 9siteshavesignificantpressuresinadditiontograzing,including,asabove,invasivespecies,bracken,nonnative tree species, burning, tree diseases, water management and abstraction issues, inappropriateagricultural activity and the dumping of rubbish. Many of these problems can be longstanding anddifficult to address. Several of these sites are also classified as oak woodlands, which are notoriouslydifficulttoregenerateinScotland.SomeoftheseoakwoodSACsarelargesitescoveringmanyproperties.TheLomondWoodsSAC,forexample,covers1454ha,with20-30differentowners.Muchofitwillbeingoodcondition,butbecausepartsof itarenot, thesiteasawholewill fail.This isaproblemwith theassessment process, and it is difficult to persuade people to do work when it does not result in anupgradeoftheoverallsite.Itisaproblemwhichweneedtoaddresssothatwecanzeroinonthepriorityareaswithintheselargesites.

• 9ofthesitesarewillowscrub,usuallyofmontanespeciesathighaltitude.Ifthesesitesareinaccessibleto sheep and deer, then they tend to be in Favourable Condition. Some sites comprise only a smallnumberofbushes,andanylevelofgrazingcanbeaproblem.Fencingisusuallyimpractical.

• Finally, there are 8 sites where herbivores are the main issue, although it is not clear from the datawhethersheepordeerorbothareresponsible.Goatsarepresentatseveralsitesaswell.

27

Appendix4TheContributionofDeerManagementtotheScottishEconomySummaryofreportpreparedbyPACEConbehalfofTheAssociationofDeerManagementGroups-March2016PACECPublicandCorporateEconomicconsultantswww.pacec.co.ukSummaryofeconomicimpacts:

• WehaveusedresultsfromPACEC'sresearchontheeconomicimpactofshootingintheUKandthevolumeandvalueofcountrysportstourismtoScotlandtoestimatethetotaleconomicimpactofdeermanagementinScotland,includingsupplychaineffectsandexpenditurebystalkingparticipantsonotherattractionswhilevisitingScotland.

Fromrespondentstosurvey• ThetotalexpenditureondeermanagementinScotlandin2013/14,

accordingtothesurveyrespondents,was£43.1m:£7.7mcapitalexpenditure,£15.2monstaff,and£20.2motheroperationalexpenditure(roundedtonearest£100k).Thiswaspartiallyoffsetby£12.5minincomefromdeermanagement.

• Therewereatotalof2,532jobsindeermanagementinScotland,ofwhich1,372wereknowntobepaidand966unpaid.Asmanyofthesejobsarepart-timeand/orseasonal,thefull-timeequivalentofthisemploymentis845FTEs(722paid,124unpaid).

Fromwiderresearch• FromwiderresearchPACEC’sotherresearchonshootingsportsand

ScottishcountrysportstourismsuggeststhatthetotalimpactofdeermanagementontheScottisheconomy,includingassociatedhospitality,andthesupplychainwithinScotland,is£140.8moftotalexpenditure,supporting2,520FTEpaidjobsinScotland.Thesefiguresareconsistentwiththeresultsofthisdeersectorresearch.

Thebottomline:• £140.8mofexpenditureinScotlandisreliantuponDeerManagement·Of

which,£43.1misdirectlyduetoDeerManagementactivitiesasreportedbythenewsurvey·£97.7mresultsfromassociatedexpenditure,largelybyparticipantsawayfromthestalkingsite(£55.6m)

ThissummaryisavailabletodownloadfromtheADMGwebsite:http://www.deermanagement.co.uk