1. ADMG asks Scottish Environment LINK to substantiate some of its proposals in its deer 'manifesto'
2. ADMG response to the Defra Consultation on controls on the import and export of hunting trophies
1. ADMG response to Scottish Environment LINK deer ‘manifesto’
Members of Scottish Environment LINK are welcome and active members of many upland DMGs, and their umbrella organisation is represented on ADMG’s executive committee.
On 13 January 2020 Scottish Environment LINK published its deer manifesto Managing deer for climate, communities and conservation, a document with clear political intent. While we agree with some aspects of it there are others with which we take issue, not least its call for statutory cull setting, its supporting science, and the veiled conclusion that the bottom line for SE LINK is a mass cull of more than 50 per cent of Scotland’s red deer population.
ADMG posted its immediate response to SE LINK titled Deer in Scotland – another point of view on its website, with letters from the ADMG Chairman also published recently in The Times and Scotsman questioning some of SE LINK’s proposals.
Following a more detailed examination below is the ADMG response direct to SE LINK asking for supporting information for some of its statements.
Richard Cooke, ADMG Chairman, writes:
We have seen SE LINK’s recent publication Managing deer for climate, communities and conservation and we have put some comments on our website. We have also had a look at the interesting paper written for LINK by Tom Edwards. May I please ask a couple of follow-up questions and offer a few comments?
A cut in greenhouse gases
Could you please let me know the basis of your/Tom Edwards’ calculation that red deer alone produce 5,500 tonnes of methane and how this equates to 15 million car miles? Having put this to various contacts in the research bodies I have drawn a blank on there being any research on the methane emissions of wild deer living in the habitats with which we are concerned. It will be interesting to see your workings.
Impact on peatlands
In his report for LINK Tom Edwards says:
“Changes to the way greenhouse emissions are accounted will dramatically increase the emissions from peatlands recorded in Scotland’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Published analysis to implement this approach suggests changing the way emissions from peatlands are recorded would increase Scotland’s recorded emissions by around one fifth. If, as this recent analysis suggests, ~ 9,500kt CO2e1 are emitted by Scotland’s peatlands, over 3,000kt CO2e could be emitted from peatlands within the area covered by Upland Deer Management Groups each year. This would equate to over 6% of Scotland’s GHG emissions in 2017.”
In the way that this is expressed it could be taken to imply that red deer contribute 6% of Scotland’s GHG emissions although, having looked at the Evans et al report which he uses as a source, there is no mention of wild deer at all and the main net emitters on peatland are identified as agriculture and forestry.
Do you agree that this is potentially misleading? It is important also to clarify that a change in methodology may mean a relative increase in peatlands emissions ratings but does not of course mean that actual emissions have increased.
I was pleased to see that Tom Edwards in his paper has taken account of the impacts from other herbivores, which are often overlooked. Even though breeding sheep numbers, like deer numbers, have declined, they still outnumber deer 2:1 in the DMGs area and, like deer, both graze and trample and need to be controlled by fencing when it comes to young woodlands.
Woodland expansion
ADMG and LINK have a longstanding difference of opinion on the use of temporary fencing either for planting or to allow woodland expansion to take place by excluding herbivores. That difference is well represented in the LINK paper and in our response to it. Deer management debate suffers from generalisations, one of which is the broad-brush assumption that trees will grow below say 600m above msl where deer densities are 5 or less per sq km. We know that this is not so much a matter of deer density but of temporal distribution (among other factors – land quality, seed availability, ground vegetation, exposure, altitude etc) and that, even at very low densities, if deer, or for that matter sheep, concentrate for shelter in unprotected regenerating woodland in hard conditions with snow on the ground, damage will occur.
Certainly, there are good examples of where woodland has expanded following heavy deer reductions, but this is not universal and factors other than grazing are important. I am told for example of a long running trial in Glen Finglas where there has been very little regeneration in most of the exclosures after 19 years. The reality is that 5 deer per sq km is unlikely in many areas to deliver unprotected woodland regeneration to the scale discussed and within a reasonable time frame, except in otherwise favourable circumstances.
Deer populations
Tom Edwards uses different areas than does SNH in its 2019 report for the DMG red deer range (2.65m as compared with 3.14m ha) and different deer population figures (264,000 to 300,000) and possibly this is due to his having totalled only those DMGs with which he was able to have contact or access information through their websites. Be that as it may, his conclusion that a population of 133,000 deer would yield a harvest of 12,000 stags for commercial hunting purposes is questionable.
He may be correct in that 5 deer per sq km could, theoretically, produce a cull of 12,000 stags assuming a 50% net recruitment rate. However, 50% recruitment is not realistic for open range red deer; the highest recruitment rate used in the SNH population model is 40% and the actual current average is rather less than that. Also, this level of cull would require the shooting of a high percentage of pre-mature stags (age range 3 - 6 years old) which is a management cull not a commercial hunting cull, which is what generates the income to pay for deer management and supports the necessary level of employment to deliver it.
If he is arguing that hunting can be maintained and tree regeneration occur without fencing, ie the best of both worlds, although this may be possible for some better sites, I am afraid this is not generally realistic in an open hill situation. This would in reality require far in excess of his assumed 50% population reduction, indeed near eradication of deer over much of the Highlands, if the objective is wholesale unprotected woodland expansion regardless of other considerations. Is that really what LINK wishes to see? And what would be your plan for any other herbivores present including, particularly, domestic livestock?
To conclude, the above matters merit constructive discussion between LINK and ADMG. I remain convinced that there is plenty of common ground to be explored and potential for working together, as I have often said. We therefore look forward to the first meeting of the Joint Working Group which we agreed to set up at our joint meeting in December. I am sure it will be helpful to include farming and forestry representation in our deliberations, as we agreed, to ensure a joined-up approach to sustainable management of the environment and to tackling climate change.
ADMG's own paper/forward look Scotland's Upland Deer Management - the voluntary approach: rising to the challenge is available here .
2. Consultation on controls on the import and export of hunting trophies
The ADMG response to this Defra consultation can be seen here .
3. Save the date - ADMG AGM
The ADMG AGM is taking place at the Macdonald Drumossie Hotel, Old Perth Road, Inverness IV2 5BE on Wednesday 18 March 2020. More details will be posted nearer the time.
...
E-SCOPE is produced for the Association of Deer Management Groups by Playfair Walker.
