Iconic Wild Mammal or Plain Pest?
Notes on Conflict over the Management of Red Deer Populations.
1) Initially, it must be stressed that the facts are stark: roughly speaking, the population of red deer in Scotland has more than doubled since 1950, despite traditional management, ie selective stalking.
2) Secondly, the areas where red deer now roam are very different from the traditional deer forests such as Dundonnell where Frank Fraser Darling made his seminal study; (and, again, the overall numbers are far higher than the population he recommended the land could carry).
3) As an illustration of 2); when I was a boy in Assynt in the 1960s and early 70s, red deer were largely confined to Quinag (which was effectively a Forest), and any population in the ‘hinterland’ was controlled by local poaching. Crofters grew oats, hay, vegetables and gardens without deer fencing.
4) Now, red deer are everywhere in the hinterland, in the woods and, often in the villages like Lochinver; nothing can be grown without deer fences. Surveys show signs of continuing damage in the woods-(which, like those on Rona are an important part of the scenic and ecological diversity of the area).
5) When red deer move into areas where they were previously absent, like Assynt or Sleat, they do not live as if in the traditional Forests. They are not hefted, and stags often run with the hinds. Populations may move constantly over large areas, which makes management difficult; it is virtually impossible in dense Highland woodland close to houses.
6) Areas of wet moorland adjacent to such woods often show signs of trampling; deer ‘corridors’ around deer-fences are ubiquitous. The harm done to the growing woods, and to the previously healthy bogs is undeniable, and in the context of Climate Change, has to be regarded as totally unacceptable. And we read that Climate Change will definitely cause the reproduction rate to increase……..
7) Despite the problems of managing these new populations, the areas which have DMGs at least have the infrastructure to deal with the culling, etc. Areas like Sleat which, so far, do not have that capacity are seeing significant and, I gather, uncontrolled population increases; few folk in the Highlands, as far as I can tell, can be bothered to poach these days.
8) While there is, based on the above, clearly a need to increase deer management overall, it is hardly surprising that the ‘debate’ on the topic has become increasingly fraught. A lax approach by Forestry Commission and the relevant Estates to reducing deer numbers (when land was being taken out of the deer range in order to grow trees) has escalated the problem, and leaving carcasses to rot on the hill has been an affront both to traditional countryfolk and ‘bunny-huggers’ alike. Some humility is required on both ‘sides’ of the debate; they should admit to being part of the problem in the past.
9) Over-dramatic statements do not help, and here the ‘pro-deer’ lobby are not helping their own cause. I have read the following: ‘This basically signals a free-for-all on an iconic Scottish species’ and ‘heavy cuts in deer numbers would have a devastating effect on an important rural industry in the remoter parts of Scotland”. This is over-statement which most folk can see through.
10) Even when there were half as many deer as there are now, there were probably as many keepers on traditional estates as there are now-or more. The effort to reduce deer numbers will NOT devastate this rural industry because:
11) Effecting such a significant reduction will be very difficult if traditional selection for culling is continued; improving the quality of the deer stock and the habitat which feeds them, means that reproduction rates will continue to rise. The traditional role of the keeper will be safeguarded pretty well for ever, and provided that real effort is made to ensure both that good quality meat actually reaches the market, (much is so badly handled it goes for dog food), and that a real effort is made to promote venison as an organic, healthy meat (which it undoubtedly is), then the traditional estates could help lead the way out of this impasse.
12) It has been well known for years that the most effective way to control deer numbers is to control hinds; the problem has been that, in the worst of the weather, and with the shortest days, it is hard to effect this, and harder to increase the cull. Here traditional estates are going to have to invest some hard cash in making the hind cull easier for their own (often now inadequate) staff, or import some culling squads.
13) Both 11) and 12) mean that the traditional sporting estates will only avoid the most drastic of measures being taken over their heads, if they are prepared to make REAL investment both in marketing, handling and infrastructure.
14) Again, the significant problem of road collisions will only be solved if the traditional estates put a significant effort into solving the problem; the old attitude that “ the deer are actually the property of the estate if you decide to shoot one, but it is your problem entirely if one collides with your car” does not convince anyone any more, nor should it.
15) I do not believe that most traditional country people want to see shooting at night, nor the abandonment altogether of close seasons (although there is probably room to extend them a bit, especially for stags?), but the only way to avoid such drastic measures is for the traditional sporting estates to put some genuine cash where their mouth all-too-often is. Owning a sporting estate carries with it real responsibility and it is high time some owners upped their game.
16). Finally, REDUCING DEER POPULATIONS TOWARDS WHAT THEY WERE WHEN FRANK FRASER DARLING WAS STUDYING THEM, DOES NOT RENDER THEM EXTINCT. Nor does suggesting that the population requires significant reduction mean that we ‘hate’ deer. In the past, we were very happy to see them when we did; it is totally understandable if we get fed up seeing them in our front garden now, and every day.
