Deer Management
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-2317, in the name of Nora Radcliffe, on responsible deer management. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the collaborative work on responsible deer management being undertaken in Scotland and the vital role of deer management groups and their use of the Deer Commission for Scotland's best practice guidance; acknowledges the importance of culling deer using such guidance to avoid poor condition of deer in late winter and unnecessary death by starvation or as a consequence of inadequate habitat and shelter to support them; notes the support of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in ensuring that culling is carried out professionally and humanely; recognises the contribution that sustainable deer management can make to sustaining rural development, with increased rural employment and public benefits such as habitat regeneration, enhanced biodiversity and reducing risk of road accidents; considers that deer management groups should take the issue forward constructively, implementing deer management planning and setting targets that can be monitored to ensure progress, and concludes that deer management groups should be supported by representation from wider public interests, including local community, recreational and conservation interests, which would be particularly useful during preparation and review of deer management plans.
I thank those members who have supported the motion and those who will contribute to the debate.
We have four species of wild deer in Scotland. Fallow deer, which were introduced from the Mediterranean in the 14th century, occur in isolated populations in several areas of Scotland, but their number is thought to be less than 8,000. Roe deer are the most widely distributed species of deer. However, because they tend to stick to woodland, estimating their numbers is difficult; it is thought that there are probably around 200,000 of them. Accurate local counts of local red deer are regularly made in some parts of Scotland for management purposes, but there is no accurate figure for the overall number of red deer. Estimates vary between 350,000 and 400,000. The fourth species is the sika deer, which was introduced from Asia as an ornamental species in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Sika deer are now feral and they occupy about a third of the red deer range. Because the two species are genetically closely related and share territory, there has been some hybridisation. There are no reliable estimates of overall sika deer numbers, but around 4,000 were culled in 1999-2000.
Wild deer are both an asset and a nuisance. They are an asset in that they can provide a wide range of economic, social and environmental benefits. They provide employment that helps to maintain communities in remote and rural areas. At the right stocking densities, they maintain important habitat types within woodland or moorland ecosystems in Scotland. However, wild deer are also a nuisance, in that they can generate a wide range of economic, social and environmental costs. At inappropriate densities, they cause damage to the natural heritage, agriculture and forestry. Protecting those land-use interests is expensive and can cause additional problems. Deer may also cause road accidents. They can be a nuisance around settlements and, in some circumstances, their management may conflict with recreational and other interests.
The difficult balance that must be struck largely revolves around deer numbers, with competing interests to be taken into account. I hope that this debate will help to find that balance.
Does the member agree that road accidents are caused not so much by deer as by people driving at too high a speed?
That is perhaps a contributory factor to a large number of accidents, regardless of whether they are caused by deer. In fact, the proportion of road accidents that are caused by deer is quite small.
In recent years, deer numbers have continued to rise in many areas despite record culls. Possible options include fencing, culling, capture and the reintroduction of natural predators such as lynx and wolves. Deer fencing can be an effective way of controlling deer to allow different land uses to exist side by side and to reduce the number of road accidents. Traditional deer fencing can be visually obtrusive and so is undesirable in some situations, although some types of fencing that contain deer are barely visible. However, deer fencing can be a dangerous hazard to birds, with capercaillie and black grouse being particularly vulnerable.
Putting in a new fence can also disturb protected mammals, such as wild cats, otters and badgers. Another mammal—man—is sometimes upset if access is restricted or if changes in habitat and deer management on one landholding have significant effects on neighbouring landholdings or communities. Fencing might not be the answer, or it might be only part of the answer. The John Muir Trust has a clear operational policy presumption against using fences for deer control; it uses them only where there is a clear justification for short-term use.
At a briefing meeting that was organised by Scottish Environment LINK in December, I was interested to hear that natural regeneration has been achieved on the Creag Meagaidh estate, without fencing and without planting, by reducing deer numbers from 1,000 to 200. Although the area is surrounded by sporting estates with much higher deer population densities, deer did not migrate in to fill what might have been seen as a vacuum. Apparently, a hind will stay within 2km of where she is born; although stags move, hinds do not.
Deer numbers are usually controlled by culling. When culling is necessary, it must be done in accordance with best practice. The public concern if it is not done in that way was clearly demonstrated by the reaction to aspects of the emergency cull that was undertaken in Glen Feshie a year ago. Both the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department and the Food Standards Agency felt obliged to investigate what happened; there is a report on the matter in the public domain, so I do not intend to comment further on it.
I will mention two other pieces of work, however. The Deer Commission for Scotland is consulting on the rationale for close seasons. It is asking what the animal welfare considerations should be, in what circumstances deer should be killed in a close season and whether all those who kill deer should be required to demonstrate that they are fit and competent to do so. The consultation officially closed on 4 February, but I gather from the commission's website that late responses will be accepted until 25 February. The other piece of work that I will mention hopes to clarify the relationship, which is not totally understood, between deer numbers and damage to the natural heritage.
I thank Nora Radcliffe for setting out all those factors, but will she tell us her view on the balance to be struck between the interests of the landowner who has sporting estates and the power of the Deer Commission for Scotland to undertake a proper and appropriate cull when necessary? Does she think that the balance is right? Perhaps we need to revisit the matter to make sure that the DCS is given the powers that it requires to do the job properly and appropriately.
The DCS operates quite effectively. I will go on with my speech, because it partially answers the point that the member raises and I am rapidly running out of time.
The Macaulay institute is undertaking comparative work on grazing and trampling impacts on the vegetation with changes in deer density and the presence or absence of other herbivores. When that work is completed, it should help to clarify whether deer numbers are a useful measure of habitat damage and to identify where deer might be in conflict with natural heritage interests and where they do not present a problem. The results of that work are due to be published this year.
Deer management is a complex matter, with a host of variables, many of which are site specific, so I regard local deer management groups as a sensible way forward, with some caveats. Some of them work very well, but some work less well. At the moment, those groups are voluntary and have no statutory authority. I do not think that that is necessarily something to worry about, because the DCS has various statutory powers that can be brought into play. However, deer management groups should be preparing deer management plans that can be monitored and evaluated in each area.
One weakness is that, although the groups work well as a vehicle for dialogue between neighbouring estates that might have widely differing agendas, recreational users and communities in and around estates are not included. It would be advantageous if they were and it might also be useful if recreational interests were represented on the DCS.
Deer are a vital part of our wildlife and our ecosystems. Given that visitors see deer as a symbol of Scotland, that stalking is worth millions to the rural economy in places where that matters a great deal and that venison is a supremely healthy food, it is important that we get deer management right. Inclusive deer management groups that operate according to best practice and with the benefit of on-going research and better understanding should deliver the goods that we expect.
I thank Nora Radcliffe for securing this timely debate on a rural land management issue that is important to many areas, including my Highlands and Islands region, and which has—as she pointed out—lately been controversial.
Although Nora Radcliffe has covered some of the history, I want to emphasise certain aspects. Nowadays, we live in a Scotland that has lost all but 3 per cent of its native tree cover and all its large predators, apart from us. That has an effect on the deer-carrying capacity of our landscape. The Red Deer Commission was established in the 1950s to deal with the deer problem as it was seen then. Ironically, the deer population has since increased threefold, which means that any problem at that time is three times greater now.
Let me say at this point that I admire the Victorians greatly. They should be thanked for many things—for example, they have given us civil engineering structures that are still standing, sewerage systems that we are still using and hospitals and schools that are still in operation. However, I do not thank them for the image that they projected of the Highlands, which has stayed in people's consciousness to this day. We have all seen Victorian paintings of monarchs of the glen, heather moors and so on and generations have grown up thinking that our natural landscape is moorland, not forest, and that deer live not in forests—as they should do—but on moors. The deer in those paintings have become iconic figures in the shortbread-tin view of Scotland, which is probably why people find killing them distasteful and why such actions are politically difficult. As a result, not enough culling has taken place.
I was interested in Nora Radcliffe's claim that, at Craig Meagaidh, natural regeneration took place when deer numbers were reduced from 1,000 to 200. I was not aware of those figures, but for many years our party has said that we need an 80 per cent cull of hinds to ensure that such regeneration takes place. Her figures fit in very nicely with that.
People do not realise that deer should be large animals that live in forests, not scrawny animals that live on moors. I have already mentioned Scotland's deer-carrying capacity and there is no doubt that local—perhaps even overall—numbers of deer are excessive. During the winter recess, I was fortunate enough to visit Assynt for a ceilidh. However, as my co-driver on that occasion will confirm, I was less fortunate when I chose to drive back to Easter Ross, where I stay. It was like driving through the Serengeti. I would be the last person to excuse motorists from the part that they play in causing accidents and I agree with Jamie McGrigor's point that excess speed is very often the prime factor in any collision. That said, my speed was certainly not excessive. Moreover, those deer were on the road through no action of mine; they were on the road anyway. I have to say that that journey was quite scary.
Returning to the motion, I agree that deer management groups are important and that they should be more widely representative. They should prepare deer management plans that involve a much wider representation of all stakeholders. The plans should be publicly available and they should contain no surprises when they are acted on. Moreover, the plans should be eligible for public funding, subject to cross-compliance rules and monitored by the Deer Commission for Scotland.
A briefing that we received from the British Deer Society was insistent that deer should not be regarded as vermin. I would never refer to deer as vermin, but there is no doubt that they can pose a problem in some areas and that they require vigorous management. Nowadays, only humans can do that. For the good of the environment and the deer themselves, we must not shrink from doing whatever is necessary.
I declare an interest: I am a member of the Inverary and Tyndrum deer management group.
I am glad that we are debating deer management in the chamber and congratulate Nora Radcliffe on bringing that about. There is no doubt that the herds of red deer that inhabit Scotland's Highland regions are an important part of our national heritage and a tourist attraction. They must be managed in a way that makes the most of this valuable asset, rather than reducing the monarch of the glen to the status of vermin.
I take the reference in the motion to
"collaborative work on responsible deer management"
with a large pinch of salt, because, frankly, that is not happening. The recent indiscriminate massacres of deer in Glen Feshie, on Ben Lomond, on the Cobbler and at Braemar are acts not of responsible management, but of barbarity—truly offensive acts that have disgraced the name of stalking and offended most people who are involved in deer management. There are too many deer in some parts of Scotland, but that is not the case throughout Scotland. Recently, deer numbers have dropped considerably in many areas.
Management of deer should be controlled by the workforce on the ground, advised by the local deer management groups that are already in place. Deer should be culled carefully, by taking out the old and infirm animals. That should be done as it always has been done—by professional stalkers who either shoot the deer or instruct their stalking clients on which deer to shoot. Wherever possible, culling should take place in the existing stalking season. The main reason for culling should be the improvement of the red deer herd.
Not only were the recent deer massacres that I have mentioned indiscriminate, but the methods that were used—the evidence of which can be seen on Scottish Gamekeepers Association videos—are abhorrent to anyone who has the welfare of Scotland's red deer at heart. It is important that the public should be told the facts about the tragedy that is unfolding amid Scotland's wild and beautiful places.
The motion refers to
"the contribution that sustainable deer management can make"
to rural employment and public benefit. I recognise that contribution and have nothing against habitat regeneration. However, I believe that the open hill environment that has been sustained for centuries through sensible stocking ratios of deer and sheep is far preferable to the impenetrable, tick-infested tundra that soon grows up where grazing animals have been removed. I speak from personal experience, as someone who has walked many of the high Highland mountain ranges, and know that I echo the thoughts of most experienced hillwalkers.
I have nothing against habitat regeneration that promotes the growth of pine forests and deciduous trees in some of our glens, but from practical experience I know that that is impossible without deer fencing. I do not understand the present attitude of the Forestry Commission. Unfenced young trees act as a honeypot for deer from miles around and will be munched in the same way as an unfenced field of carrots will be munched by rabbits. Those who say that traditional deer fences kill bird life should remember that fences can be marked and that there is now the option of low-lying electric fencing, powered by solar panels, which is extremely effective. Failure to fence young trees is sheer madness that can lead to the savage slaughter that has upset many right-minded people of late.
I congratulate Nora Radcliffe on securing this debate, which is important for putting the voice of reason into the question of deer management.
The SNP's policy for sustaining Scotland's wild species contains short statements that acknowledge the wild species, both plants and animals, as having a "high intrinsic value" and which make clear
"that we have a responsibility to ensure their long-term well-being."
We also recognise
"that the biologically sustainable harvest of these natural resources is a fundamental right and responsibility of the peoples of Scotland."
The SNP
"supports the sporting use of native species within defined humane and biological limits",
but
"accepts that the current population of red deer",
in particular,
"exceeds the current carrying capacity of their environment and this is harmful to both the deer and their habitat."
Emotive language has already been used in this debate, and that does not help the argument about finding a way forward. The Deer Commission for Scotland's consultation is a way of trying to achieve that. Unfortunately, a prominent landowner in the north, Michael Wigan, who writes on such subjects, has described the monarch of the glen as being treated like a town rat. That is not helping us along one bit in finding ways to deal with the conflicting interests—or, indeed, the co-operating interests—of land users in the countryside. That kind of language is a hindrance, as are the talk of massacres and the slights against the Deer Commission for Scotland that we have heard in the chamber today.
We are learning as we go along. As a member of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, I had the pleasure of visiting Glen Feshie in the summer to see how the process of deer management was taking place there.
Does Rob Gibson think that it is right that the Deer Commission for Scotland should not have appointed anyone from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to its board?
The Scottish Gamekeepers Association has many prominent backers who are on that board in their own right. As far as I am concerned, we must turn our attention to how the shooting estates, as currently managed, benefit or disbenefit the rural development of Scotland.
Remarks were made earlier about the effects of accidents, and members have said that they think that few accidents are caused by deer. Deer estates, it is suggested, could have caused up to anything in the region of 15,000 accidents in Scotland, including nine fatalities, in the five years prior to 2003. I do not believe for one minute that those accidents were caused by speeding drivers, because I have been involved in such an accident, in 1981, on the dual carriageway at Ballinluig. Recently, on the dual carriageway of the A9 at Drumochter, there could easily have been accidents at a place where people are allowed to do 70mph. That problem is unresolved, and it must be resolved.
We must examine the way in which the value of estates for shooting is based on the number of trophy stags that can be shot in a year. That is over-egging the pudding about the value of the land on which that practice takes place and it is something that we want to have reviewed in a more fundamental way than the Deer Commission is currently considering. To be entirely positive in responding to the wording of the motion, I must say that I think that the regulating of deer management groups by bringing on board public interests, including the local community, would be a major signal that the deer management group regime, which is informal, would be brought into the formal process of working out how best to do that. I hope that the minister's remarks will help us to reach such a conclusion.
I am the only member from the South of Scotland to have spoken in the debate so far. There is a stretch of the A71 between Moffat and Dumfries, by St Ann's bridge, which is regularly frequented by deer grazing at the side of the road. Unfortunately, sometimes they cross the road, and on more than one occasion I have found a hind and fawn in the middle of the road when I came round the corner; fortunately, I have never had an accident. In all my time in my constituency, I have only ever seen one dead deer on the road, although I have seen a great many dead foxes, rabbits and badgers, so I do not believe that deer are among the types of wildlife that are most often involved in road accidents.
As Nora Radcliffe said, only two species of deer are native and the other two are imported species, but deer in general are now strongly associated with Scotland's natural heritage. It may be the case, as Eleanor Scott said, that that is down to the Victorians, but many visitors to Scotland hope to see some of our native creatures, whether they be red squirrels, golden eagles or red deer. They are probably a lot more likely to see red deer, which contribute to our tourism potential, as indeed do field sports. I know that some people disagree strongly with field sports, but field sports contribute a lot to some local economies, including the economy of Dumfries and Galloway. That needs to be borne in mind, as does the fact that venison is an important, but unfortunately undervalued, food source, which could be far better promoted than it is in the marketing of Scotland's food produce.
I am not denying that deer can be destructive and have to be managed. They can be destructive to other species and to economic activities. As many have said, the control of deer has to be humane. It has to take account of the fact that deer are wild herd animals that at times live in inhospitable conditions and need to seek shelter.
The Scottish Gamekeepers Association has made a number of suggestions on the management of deer, including designated deer forests, deer fencing and deer corridors. In its briefing, RSPB Scotland expressed concern about the erecting of high fences because of the danger to species such as woodland grouse and capercaillie. However, I am assured by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association that the types of fencing that are available now are not so dangerous for some of those species. I hope that dialogue will take place between the different stakeholders on what can be done.
The British Deer Society welcomes a revision of attitudes that means that the erecting of new fences will be considered on its merits. Previously, there was an assumption against all fencing. The society's point of view is very sensible. Fencing must be appropriate to particular conditions and environments.
Reference has been made to a film produced by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. I have seen the film; it purports to show deer being herded with helicopters towards waiting guns. If that has happened, I could never in any way condone that type of behaviour. We would not herd cattle with helicopters; we would not herd sheep with helicopters; we would not herd horses with helicopters; and I do not believe that deer should be herded in that way either. I repeat what I said earlier: deer culling has to be done as humanely and as acceptably as possibly.
I want to finish on a more optimistic note. As far as I can see from the various contributions from the various sectors in this debate, there is a general view that deer management groups should be more representative and should include members of the community. The Scottish Gamekeepers Association has suggested councils and other groups. If there were a widening of the membership of deer management groups so that they included more people with an interest in the various industries that are affected by deer, people might be able to get together and find mutually acceptable solutions and a consensus that would allow progress to be made.
I congratulate Nora Radcliffe on bringing this topic to the Parliament for debate.
Earlier today, I was most interested to read the briefing paper from Scottish Environment LINK on improved deer management in Scotland. The paper clearly states:
"Wild deer belong to no-one".
That has not been my experience. When I collide with a stag or a hind on the road, nobody claims responsibility or ownership, but if I happen to shoot the animal on the road, ownership is quickly claimed by whoever owns the nearest estate. I have experienced both situations several times and can testify to the fact that each incident can be very costly indeed.
It is now being suggested that far too many deer are on our hills. Not so. I do not believe it. Deer numbers are at a record low as far as I am concerned. I can see that in our own estate at Glenshiel. Deer are being effectively and professionally managed by gamekeepers and deer management groups the length and breadth of Scotland. The problem, of course, is that vast areas of the winter habitat of the red deer population have been fenced and designated as areas of regeneration. The loss of grazing has forced the deer to move to areas where they were not previously seen. That creates the mistaken public perception of an excess population of red deer in Scotland. I do not believe it, and many others are of the same opinion.
If we are to retain a sustainable deer population and the associated employment in rural Scotland, we must ensure that deer management and control are left to those with the professional expertise. Deer management groups and the SGA are working together effectively to ensure that we have a properly managed and controlled resource. They are the professionals whom we must support.
Anyone who saw the invasion and mass culling that the Deer Commission for Scotland undertook in Glen Feshie last year must agree that its approach was far from professional; indeed, the action that it took was cruel in the extreme.
The minister made a statement about the culling in Glen Feshie. Does the member acknowledge that we should distinguish between what the Deer Commission did there and what the estate did?
It must be accepted that the estate had the professional people to do the cull on site, but the Deer Commission did not allow them to do it.
The actions of the Deer Commission were cruel in the extreme. I wonder where organisations such as the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were hiding that day; they were certainly conspicuous by their absence from that scene of abject cruelty.
I hope that deer numbers will be maintained at their current level in the years ahead so that, in the future, we can still enjoy a traditional Highland custom: if we cannot have a day on the hill, we should at least be able to have one for the pot.
It is always a pleasure to follow one of life's poachers, John Farquhar Munro, especially when I am speaking out on behalf of Scotland's gamekeepers. I echo the sentiments that John Farquhar Munro expressed on the vital role that they play in deer management.
As a former mountain rescue team member and hillwalker, I believe that there is a place for the co-existence of walking, mountaineering and sporting activities; that is what we should seek to achieve. However, the events at Glen Feshie last January have caused widespread anger among those people who work with deer. The Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management wrote to the DCS chairman to express
"concern at the serious shortcomings in animal welfare that apparently accompanied the cull. Hinds were left severely wounded, having been shot in the abdomen or hindquarters, for at least 20 minutes before they were put out of their suffering."
When we debated the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, we accepted that cruelty took place if the fox was not seen off within 10 or 15 seconds. It is beyond my ken how anyone can say that leaving on the hill for 20 minutes a hind that has been shot and is suffering is anything other than cruel or barbaric.
In an answer to a written question from Fergus Ewing, Ross Finnie said that the report into the Glen Feshie incident
"noted that there had been delays of up to 15 minutes in respect of two of the deer culled and concluded that such delays, whilst unfortunate, were not uncommon during traditional culling operations."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 10 August 2004; S2W-9553.]
Does the member accept that?
I accept the former proposition, but not the latter. Frankly, gamekeepers would be angry at the suggestion that that is part of their normal practice. Moreover, the SGA's response was that the report to which Eleanor Scott refers was an unacceptable whitewash and cover-up. That is a matter of record.
Deer must be managed, but those who are involved in working the land must play a key role in that process. The tone of people who appear to be opposed to gamekeepers surprises me. On one hand, they say that we must be reasonable, but on the other they insist that gamekeepers should not be involved in the working groups or have a seat at the committee tables. In my view, that position is inherently contradictory. Gamekeepers and the SGA are not involved in performing as many of the land management roles as they should be involved in performing.
We should leave the Victorian century behind and accept that sporting estates play a useful and valuable role, not least in my constituency of Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber. Not all landowners are Jeremys and Sebastians—cravatted former Etonians with more inherited money than brains. It is not helpful to characterise landowners. Many of the landowners in my constituency play as significant a role in the community as anyone else; they certainly employ a great many people. I do not think that I will get their votes, given what I have said, but nonetheless the truth must out.
Some gamekeepers think that capercaillie will become extinct. The capercaillie, as an endangered species, is being attacked—at will and willy-nilly—by protected species including the pine marten.
I hope that the minister will spell out the way in which he will ensure that Scotland's gamekeepers will become fully involved in the process. The gamekeepers' organisation, the SGA, which is one of the fastest-growing membership organisations in Scotland, should become involved as a full partner around the table in discussions to find a solution. We need to find a solution that people such as Cameron McNeish, a fellow columnist from the Strathspey and Badenoch Herald, and I could all agree on. We need a solution that represents all the interests in Scotland that go to the mountains and love the deer.
I thank Nora Radcliffe for bringing the topic for debate in environment week.
It is clear that we have to manage our deer population. We need to balance their intrinsic natural heritage value with wider public and private interests. I welcome the work of the Association of Deer Management's groups and other groups. Their work in promoting collaborative management is a welcome step towards reducing sometimes unsustainable deer numbers and towards addressing some of the conflicts between deer stalking and other public interests that are connected with access, biodiversity and even water-catchment management.
Deer management groups must include the legitimate concerns of all stakeholders, including communities. The groups need to ensure that when cull levels are set, quotas for individual land units in the plan are achieved. The Deer Commission for Scotland has a vital part to play and we should question whether its powers are sufficient, or at least whether it is using its existing powers correctly.
Many deer in our forest estates are managed professionally and productively and produce consistently high-quality venison. However, all too often, red deer occupy vast tracts of habitat that have been severely degraded by centuries of overgrazing, a fact that is reflected in the small size and poor condition of the deer on many estates. The deer have either to be fed or culled to save them from a slow death from starvation or exposure in subsequent winters.
The opponents of the cull at Glen Feshie last spring, who opposed the cull by invoking animal welfare issues, should remember that overpopulation is also an animal welfare issue. Clearly, the reputation and price of venison in the marketplace has suffered as a result.
We need to reduce deer numbers. By so doing, we will allow habitats and deer to come back into balance. We also need to foster rural development and support for the rural economy through many channels, including those that promote high-quality venison, green tourism and sporting revenues. Reduction in the numbers of deer would deliver other public benefits along the way. As we recreate our Caledonian forests, the benefits would include enhanced biodiversity and even adaptation to climate change and a reduced risk of flooding.
We need to get behind a vision of a regenerated Scotland that has healthy and viable deer populations. We do not need a shortbread-tin view of a denuded Victorian landscape.
I welcome this debate on an important issue. I was pleased to hear Nora Radcliffe say that responsible deer management should be planned and carried out collaboratively. I was also pleased to hear that view being echoed in a number of other speeches—it is certainly one that the Executive supports.
We want effective local deer management throughout Scotland. That should be supported by best-practice guidance that safeguards essential animal health and welfare and public safety. Effective management is important; it produces benefits that are clear to see for landowners, land managers and local economies. Of course, if it is done properly, it also produces benefits for the ecology of areas.
Deer management can be undertaken in a number of different ways, but it is important that in planning deer management, the approach that is taken is open and careful. Clearly, primary responsibility for good land management must rest with the owners and managers of the land. As members have said, deer are wild animals that roam widely over a range. If they are to be properly managed, it is essential that the work be done by neighbours who work together, openly and in collaboration, in order to achieve effective controls.
I welcome and support the concept of deer management groups or similar arrangements that cover a particular range. A number of the existing deer management groups have demonstrated how effective their work can be. Clearly, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Forestry Commission Scotland—which are funding the preparation of deer management planning—play a role, as does the Deer Commission for Scotland, through the professional advice and support that it provides. We welcome the examples of successful deer management groups and successful planning by them.
Of course, deer management groups do not cover the whole of Scotland, sometimes for good reasons. In some areas, the problems that are caused by deer are less severe, so there is less need for such an approach. In addition, in some areas different collaborative mechanisms have been put in place, such as looser affiliations of owners, occupiers and other interests. Where they work, we support them. There are also statutory panels under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, which examine deer-related road accidents in Glencoe and Ullapool. Those arrangements are appropriate in those cases, and we welcome the involvement of a wide range of stakeholder bodies, but they have a specific and limited responsibility.
What matters is not how many deer there are in Scotland—today's debate has illustrated the wide range of views on that—but the impact of deer on particular sites. The work that has been done by the Deer Commission for Scotland in partnership with us, the Forestry Commission and Scottish Natural Heritage has been helpful in identifying priority sites and developing management plans for them. In many cases, that has involved working directly with the affected estates.
Does the minister agree that the policy that the Forestry Commission used to pursue of bringing in clients for stalking within its areas and getting income from red deer was a good one, as opposed to the present policy, which appears to be that the only good deer is a dead deer?
That is a completely false characterisation of the policy and approach of the Forestry Commission. It has responsibility for management of the wider biodiversity of the habitats for which it is responsible, which it exercises well.
It is disappointing that one or two members have sought to continue old arguments, rather than look to the future. I encourage all those who favour sporting and other uses of deer as a resource to concentrate on looking to the future and supporting the principle of effective deer management on a partnership basis—an approach that is supported by, for example, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association in its involvement in the steering group on best practice in deer management.
Does the minister agree that marking fences as Elaine Murray suggested reduces the risk of loss of capercaillie and other birds through their flying into fences? If we accept for the moment that there is such a risk—of which I am by no means convinced—marking fences will reduce that risk massively, therefore that practice should form a central part of deer management.
We want to encourage practical propositions that will address the issues, such as that which Fergus Ewing mentioned. There has been a change in the approach to fencing, as was noted during the debate, which is right. The appropriateness of fencing should be addressed case by case and area by area. The key is in maintaining focus on the priority areas in which we should take action.
On fencing, will we mention the danger of deer on roads?
Deer cost us a significant sum through damage caused by accidents. The panels to which I referred that were set up under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 were established to address that problem in the areas where it is most significant. The actions in Glen Feshie—which Nora Radcliffe did not mention and which I do not welcome other members raising—have been fully examined in the past. There is a published report that made it clear that the actions were justified, that there were no serious failings in public safety, food safety or animal welfare, but that there were lessons to be learned. We expect the Deer Commission for Scotland to implement those lessons and carry forward the report's conclusions.
We recognise that many others who are involved in management of deer, including the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, have significant contributions to make to implementation. We encourage and support the SGA's continuing involvement in many of the steering groups that have been set up, such as the one on best practice. We also encourage continuing development of deer management groups, and we recognise that they can bring together, on a voluntary basis, all those who have stakes in the future management of deer.
The Deer Commission for Scotland, under its new chair and new board, is already developing plans for investigating the wider impacts of deer outside designated sites. Through the Forestry Commission and SNH, we will continue to provide incentives for specific management operations in support of our wider policies and to protect designated sites. The Deer Commission will continue to monitor for serious degradation and damage. It, the Forestry Commission and SNH will not hesitate to use their combined regulatory powers to address damage where that is proved to be necessary, but the best way to avoid intervention is active and effective management of deer through positive collaboration between neighbours in the interests of the land and locality. We strongly encourage that approach.
Meeting closed at 17:51.