SGA campaign for female deer season succeeds.

[Freeforester]

Sure. These are the sources cited:

The role of selection and evolution in changing parturition date in a red deer population

The role of selection and evolution in changing parturition date in a red deer population

Adaptive genetic evolution and phenotypic plasticity both contribute to a two-week advancement of birth dates earlier in spring in a deer population subject to temperature warming over four decades.

journals.plos.org

Advancing breeding phenology in response to environmental change in a wild red deer population

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02382.x

In English, warmer temperatures result in a longer season of food availability for pregnant females, which means the foetus grows more rapidly, resulting in earlier births. Common sense aside, the misinterpretation, er, tends to highlight the confusion and resulting diametrically opposite positions reached in interpretation of the papers. The calves are alleged to appear earlier, not later.

Insofar as calves born earlier than average would have a greater chance of both surviving their first winter and that female cohort thereafter achieving breeding weight earlier due to the longer growing seasons, it follows that those foetuses would be more developed than otherwise by approximately two weeks, which is part of the discussion. The date of insemination would determine the commencement of the pregnancy, which varies according to a combination of the shortening of daylight hours in autumn resulting in the hormonal changes which bring the hinds into season in conjunction with ambient temperatures, which partially governs whether the rut is ‘early’ or not. Some research suggests many hinds fall pregnant outwith the stag season, which in turn suggests all that roaring and harem building is more behavioural than biologically significant, but don’t tell the ‘Monarch of the glen’ when he’s otherwise engaged!

The variable in the equation is not the (erroneously assumed) correlation between warmer temperatures and human caused carbon dioxide, but the total solar irradiance levels - the Sun’s output, which is cyclical - which govern the temperature trends over time. The latter has been ‘upward’ in the past forty years as we are continually reminded, but (much like the economic outlook) is about to change, and not for the better, albeit only for the coming thirty years or so…

Re the latter - ask a proper scientist, not a politician.

 

[VSS]

In English, warmer temperatures result in a longer season of food availability for pregnant females, which means the foetus grows more rapidly, resulting in earlier births.

Genetics controls gestation length, not food availability.

 

[Mungo]

The calves are alleged to appear earlier, not later.

There’s no allegation: it is an empirical observation.

Regardless of WHY this is happening, and disagreements about the extent and cause of environmental change, this is a very simple observation that really speaks for itself.

Baby deer arrive, date noted. That date, in this population, is getting earlier.

And yet BASC are citing these papers as evidence that the birth dates are getting later. Suggesting that they didn’t actually read the papers, or even look at the figures.

 

[Freeforester]

By the same logic, the stag season should most definitely be closed during the rut.
As for pregnant females, eating quality may be increasingly affected during the third trimester, but not before.

If venison quality had been the principal argument put forward in favour of retaining seasonality, backed up with some evidence of the decline at certain times of year, that would have been a very valid argument (in my opinion), and one that I would support. Nobody (I hope) likes the idea of shooting something that's unsaleable, or which might give consumers a poor eating experience.

When deer are shot in Scotland is of no particular interest to me (or many others on this site, I should think), other than in so far as it's not very helpful when venison from (for example) rutting stags is placed on the market and damages the reputation of venison across the board.
My gripe in this particular instance is the fact that an opportunity to give greater autonomy to deer managers was missed, and that the SGA campaign was based on a falsehood (ie, that hinds are heavily pregnant and close to giving birth in March) in order to get emotional backing.
This, I fear, is likely to come back to haunt us during future debates over legislation changes, and not just in Scotland.

Not all stags participate in the rut, but I don’t disagree that rut stag venison is inferior; it was plain that the types within the relevant department in charge of marketing National Venison Week in September had little by way of experience to contribute to culinary excellence.

Most Hill Men take great pride in making the best of their lardered carcasses, indeed it is known that certain game dealers will actively follow and try to retain continuity of supply from the most able even if or when they change employer. Very few I know would even consider eating a run stag themselves, most preferring to choose a mature yeld hind - a ’skinner’…

For those with actual ‘skin in the game’ the ‘ends justified the means’ to maintain the current seasons and arrangements in place. Politicians and meddlers had their sh1t handed back to them ( their own falsehood beaten by a better laid card) and the perceived public opinion meant that they would be bold indeed to push through the further extension, particularly when arrangements are in place in any event whereby almost any practitioner capable of writing their own signature can currently commence out of season culling operations from the beginning of September right through to the end of March. The nuances of Nationalist Politics and their hatred of the traditional highland land use model are not always readily appreciated by those from outwith the arena.

To impose such a stipulation across the board always will be a step too far, and for those of us for whom the subject matter is of more than mere passing interest are very aware of the availability of out of season licences and indeed the very ‘constructive attitude’ by the issuing authority here toward anyone making such an application.

It does not follow that the authorities here nor those with an agenda will use any frankly absurd ‘don’t cull pregnant deer, like ever’ ploy in the future, and nor in your own part of these isles, as we all do so already in order to achieve the cull, but Im quite prepared to read your own reasoning in this regard.

 

[Freeforester]

There’s no allegation: it is an empirical observation.

Regardless of WHY this is happening, and disagreements about the extent and cause of environmental change, this is a very simple observation that really speaks for itself.

Baby deer arrive, date noted. That date, in this population, is getting earlier.

And yet BASC are citing these papers as evidence that the birth dates are getting later. Suggesting that they didn’t actually read the papers, or even look at the figures.

This population being on the island of Rum. Regional variations apply.

The management of the deer on Rum has been ongoing since well before ms Pemberton took her attentions away from the niceties of sika deer hybridisation back in the Eighties and Nineties and focused on ‘the next’, longer-term thing; as you are no doubt aware the management of the red deer population on Rum has changed over that time.

I have no disagreement that they are arriving earlier there, and that BASC have indeed at best ‘misread’ the research, I merely indicate that this land does not stop at Kinloch Lodge.

 

[Mungo]

This population being on the island of Rum. Regional variations apply.

No one is disputing that. However, the fact remains that the papers cited show the opposite of what was claimed. And they were the papers used to make the statement 'births are getting later'.

The management of the deer on Rum has been ongoing since well before ms Pemberton took her attentions away from the niceties of sika deer hybridisation back in the Eighties and Nineties and focused on ‘the next’, longer-term thing; as you are no doubt aware the management of the red deer population on Rum has changed over that time.

Actually, it hasn't - at least not in the study population. Culling stopped on the North Block of Rum in 1972, and management has remained the same since. The rest of Rum has been culled in a consistent way as well, with the only major change being the extension of the male seasons last year.

 

[Freeforester]

Genetics controls gestation length, not food availability.

Quite so; but an underweight female does not progress to fertility, irrespective of her genetics.

Edit: in #145 I referred to Professor Pemberton as ‘ms’ - it might be down to cultural differences but I did not do so as a slight as to her professional credentials, but in general deference to the fairer sex, and happy to clarify this.

 

[Mickeydredd]

If folk want to shoot hinds until the end of march just apply for out of season authorisation

I'm a tad confused, which tbf isn't really an isolated incident!

If the Scottish Government have decreed that shooting female Red deer up to the end of March is a mental health issue for the stalker/culler then how can they possibly now offer an OOS licence to do so? Surely following their ruling we will see a challenge to the OOS licence, and tbh I cannot see how such a challenge would fail as the Scottish Government has now set a clear precedent/ruling.

 

[Mungo]

I'm a tad confused, which tbf isn't really an isolated incident!

If the Scottish Government have decreed that shooting female Red deer up to the end of March is a mental welfare issue then how can they possibly now offer an OOS licence to do so? Surely following their ruling we will see a challenge to the OOS licence, and tbh I cannot see how such a challenge would fail as the Scottish Government has now set a clear precedent/ruling.

Boom.

And therein lies the enormous vulnerability the SGA has created.

 

[Deerkeeper2]

Boom.

And therein lies the enormous vulnerability the SGA has created.

And set the scene for potential closed seasons for foxes etc not to mention making a link between killing wildlife and adverse mental health issues which will probably get picked up in relation to firearms ownership at some point. I can read the headline now…..’by their own admission, keepers are traumatised by their work…’

I support a lot of what the SGA do (not all of it) but I am very surprised that they pursued this angle.

 

[Freeforester]

Looking beyond the present episode, it is clear that deer will continue to require management by man. As to whether any governing body wishes or intends to restrict the culling of deer in future, I have my own thoughts on that.

I see none involved having any great problem with continuing to cull deer with growing foetus/es within the present seasons, including those obliged to willingly shoot OOS for the fuller term, but that is not to say that the majority of stakeholders are happy to continue to do this should the season be extended by another month, the matter being dictated not by pure logic or rationality, but aspects altogether more humane. A question of balance, best left to other than politicians..

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

This erroneous claim even appeared in the Scotsman last week, and Prof Josephine Pemberton (who runs the red deer project on Rum) has sent them a letter correcting them. I have been given permission to present it here.

Your claim that calving date has got later by 12 days matches the actual data - just in the wrong direction.

This stems from a misunderstanding of the word 'advances'. An ecologist studying phenology (the timing of natural events, like calving) says 'advances' when they mean 'gets earlier in the year'.

Thanks for sight of the letter, yes you are right, I got that wrong, it should be earlier, not later.

 

[Mungo]

Thanks for sight of the letter, yes you are right, I got that wrong, it should be earlier, not later.

You’ll note that the letter reproduces a figure from one of the papers you cite, clearly showing that birth dates are getting earlier.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

You’ll note that the letter reproduces a figure from one of the papers you cite, clearly showing that birth dates are getting earlier.

Yes, and that was BASC's argument in its consultation response last year i.e: Several scientific studies along with much anecdotal support from practitioners, have found red deer parturition dates have advanced by up to 12 days over the last few decades. Therefore, an earlier female cull could potentially result in hinds being shot that still have dependent young, especially if this phenomenon continues on this trajectory with forecast climate change. We therefore believe that the female open season for all deer in Scotland should be changed to 1st November until 31st March to bring it in line with all the other UK nations, who have established these dates based on animal welfare considerations. This would still increase the length of the season by 29%. Where this is not sufficient time to achieve reduced impacts then deer managers will still have as a last resort, the option to follow best practice out of season shooting through authorisation by NatureScot.

 

[Mungo]

Yes, and that was BASC's argument in its consultation response last year i.e: Several scientific studies along with much anecdotal support from practitioners, have found red deer parturition dates have advanced by up to 12 days over the last few decades. Therefore, an earlier female cull could potentially result in hinds being shot that still have dependent young, especially if this phenomenon continues on this trajectory with forecast climate change. We therefore believe that the female open season for all deer in Scotland should be changed to 1st November until 31st March to bring it in line with all the other UK nations, who have established these dates based on animal welfare considerations. This would still increase the length of the season by 29%. Where this is not sufficient time to achieve reduced impacts then deer managers will still have as a last resort, the option to follow best practice out of season shooting through authorisation by NatureScot.

There is confusion in that.

Earlier birth = calves develop sooner = LESS risk of dependent calves in autumn.

In the statement above, you’re arguing for a later end to shooting in spring. But that actually increases risk: if they’re giving birth earlier, then pregnancy is further advanced in spring. By contrast, you’re arguing for a later start in autumn, which makes no sense if they’re giving birth earlier.

Admit it: someone got the direction of the change wrong, and no one bothered to check the actual data.

 

[Moray Outfitting]

I'm a tad confused, which tbf isn't really an isolated incident!

If the Scottish Government have decreed that shooting female Red deer up to the end of March is a mental health issue for the stalker/culler then how can they possibly now offer an OOS licence to do so? Surely following their ruling we will see a challenge to the OOS licence, and tbh I cannot see how such a challenge would fail as the Scottish Government has now set a clear precedent/ruling.

The out of season for hinds that can be got, will probably asked for by contractors. Unfortunately they are just slaughtermen and not what I would clasify as a stalker! J

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

There is confusion in that.

Earlier birth = calves develop sooner = LESS risk of dependent calves in autumn.

In the statement above, you’re arguing for a later end to shooting in spring. But that actually increases risk: if they’re giving birth earlier, then pregnancy is further advanced in spring. By contrast, you’re arguing for a later start in autumn, which makes no sense if they’re giving birth earlier.

Admit it: someone got the direction of the change wrong, and no one bothered to check the actual data.

BASC responses to consultations are checked by me before they are submitted, so if its confusing or wrong its on me and your comments have me even more confused! Here is the full response.

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/0215-draft-BASC-response-Scottish-deer-consultation-002-002.pdf

If you could suggest a rewrite of the relevant bit in the interests of improving clarity and/or correct what's wrong, then that would be much appreciated and I will share that with colleagues for review and future use.

 

[Mungo]

BASC responses to consultations are checked by me before they are submitted, so if its confusing or wrong its on me and your comments have me even more confused! Here is the full response.

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/0215-draft-BASC-response-Scottish-deer-consultation-002-002.pdf

If you could suggest a rewrite of the relevant bit in the interests of improving clarity and/or correct what's wrong, then that would be much appreciated and I will share that with colleagues for review and future use.

This statement is factually incorrect:

"There is growing evidence of later calving in red deer as a result of climate change. Several scientificstudies21&22 along with much anecdotal support from practitioners, have found red deer parturition dates have advanced by up to 12 days over the last few decades."

The papers you cite in refs 21 and 22 are the papers we have already seen in this thread, and they show the exact opposite: they show that calving date is getting earlier.

This then means that this statement is not supported by the evidence:

"Therefore, an earlier female cull could potentially result in hinds being shot that still have dependent young, especially if this phenomenon continues on this trajectory with forecast climate change."

If they give birth 12 days earlier, then the calves will become independent 12 days earlier. Therefore the risk of leaving dependent young is reduced in autumn. Therefore it is reasonable to propose starting the hind cull earlier. Logically, we could start it 12 days earlier to match the shift in calving.

At the other end, in spring, if calving is getting earlier, this means that hinds got pregnant earlier. This means that foetuses will be further developed in March. So if you are worried about stalker mental health, then asking them to shoot in late Feb and March makes things worse. Therefore this statement becomes problematic:

"We therefore believe that the female open season for all deer in Scotland should be changed to 1st November until 31st March to bring it in line with all the other UK nations".

In fact, the shift to earlier birth dates means that there might eventually be a risk of leaving orphaned calves in spring.

Let me know if that is clear enough.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

This statement is factually incorrect:

"There is growing evidence of later calving in red deer as a result of climate change. Several scientificstudies21&22 along with much anecdotal support from practitioners, have found red deer parturition dates have advanced by up to 12 days over the last few decades."

The papers you cite in refs 21 and 22 are the papers we have already seen in this thread, and they show the exact opposite: they show that calving date is getting earlier.

This then means that this statement is not supported by the evidence:

"Therefore, an earlier female cull could potentially result in hinds being shot that still have dependent young, especially if this phenomenon continues on this trajectory with forecast climate change."

If they give birth 12 days earlier, then the calves will become independent 12 days earlier. Therefore the risk of leaving dependent young is reduced in autumn. Therefore it is reasonable to propose starting the hind cull earlier. Logically, we could start it 12 days earlier to match the shift in calving.

At the other end, in spring, if calving is getting earlier, this means that hinds got pregnant earlier. This means that foetuses will be further developed in March. So if you are worried about stalker mental health, then asking them to shoot in late Feb and March makes things worse. Therefore this statement becomes problematic:

"We therefore believe that the female open season for all deer in Scotland should be changed to 1st November until 31st March to bring it in line with all the other UK nations".

In fact, the shift to earlier birth dates means that there might eventually be a risk of leaving orphaned calves in spring.

Let me know if that is clear enough.

Thanks. Would this sentence be correct therefore?

There is growing evidence of earlier calving in red deer as a result of climate change. Several scientificstudies21&22 along with much anecdotal support from practitioners, have found red deer parturition dates have advanced by up to 12 days over the last few decades."

 

[Mungo]

Thanks. Would this sentence be correct therefore?

There is growing evidence of earlier calving in red deer as a result of climate change. Several scientificstudies21&22 along with much anecdotal support from practitioners, have found red deer parturition dates have advanced by up to 12 days over the last few decades."

Yes.

But you’d then need to be careful with what arguments you then advanced based on that.

It weakens any argument for delaying the onset of hind culling in autumn.