Bob sorry mate but i was at the game fair but unlike you i couldn't go every day just the Saturday now what ever your problem is just tell the truth and no one will be able to have a dig. Griff got your card marked bob made you look a right dick and a true yes man.
Well i got a reply and it was quite detailed but not unexpected as he needs to tow the party line.
REPLY TO MY EMAIL AND A LONG TALK BUT AT LEAST HE MADE AN EFFORT.
Hi David
Thank you for your email. I have copied your questions in below and will endeavor to answer them so that you are clear on the thinking behind some of the proposed changes to legislation.
Is there any benefit to the Roe deer ( DEER WELFARE ) by having an open season on Bucks. ?
There are no welfare issues with shooting male deer in the close season, in particular for roe deer, and with the existing legislation many roe bucks are shot out of season. Where deer are causing or likely to cause serious damage to enclosed woodland or agricultural land, the owner, occupier or their employees can cull deer in the close season without authorisation under section 26 of the Act and this is very much accepted and adopted by farmers and foresters. It should be clear that just because there may be no close season for males this does not mean people will shoot them year round (which is the status quo as they are already entitled to under current law) At a local level people can still decide when they wish to manage their buck population and this will reflect and respect their relevant land use objectives whether that is growing trees, crops, or looking to obtain an economic benefit from trophy animals.
Will the minimum payment of £80 to be on the register be a one off payment or will this be an annual payment.?
At the moment there is no cost associated with going onto the proposed register, however views are sought as to whether this is appropriate and if not what the cost should be. The figure of £80 was an indicative figure relating to existing training.
Who will be asked to control deer that have been assessed as a risk to the public buy either number or direct risk. ?
If you are referring to a situation that may arise where by deer are seen to be causing a threat to public safety for example, this will be resolved though the creation of an advisory panel lead by DCS (SNH) and will be most applicable to the central belt. This panel would be time limited and would look to engage all the relevant parties / owners / managers ie a council, a country park, a roads authority to come to a decision. This would clarify what the duty of land managers / owners is to manage deer sustainably and a solution would be sought. The panel will agree what the most appropriate practical solution may be and this may or may not include culling.
How will people who shoot a lot of properties keep a DCS cull record as this on the current form is unworkable?
There is a recommendation that within the new proposals for a general level of competence across the deer sector that cull returns shift to an individual basis rather than by property as they currently are. (Again this is one of the current weaknesses within the current Deer Act). This will be linked to the centrally held register which is likely to be held by DCS (SNH) and will link cull returns to individuals rather than land areas. The current system is limited in its coverage and does not provide information that is useful for deer management, at either a local or national level. We estimate that the current system records 90% of red, 70% sika, 95% fallow and the biggest gap lies with roe deer at 50%. You will remember currently you are required to keep individual records of animals shot if supplying that venison for human consumption. We do not envisage the shift of cull returns from property to individuals to add any further bureaucratic burden.
If a person wants to opped out of the DCS register but has all the relevant paper work will they be braking the law and what will the charge be.
If the proposals are passed by government and a new system of competence is established (this may be some years away yet before it is fully operational) it would become an offence to shoot deer unless you were on the centrally held register or accompanied by a stalker who is on the register. If found to be shooting deer out with these parameters then it would become a Police matter and they would take the case forward.
Will the DCS pay individuals if they are asked to hand rifles back because they don’t meet the new laws?
No – There is no linkage between the requirement to be on the register and the suitability to hold a firearm. Being on the register will not be requirement to hold a FAC, if however individuals operate illegally by shooting deer without being on the register or stalking unaccompanied, then they would therefore be committing an offence and hence risk losing their FAC.
What assessment will be given to person that hold lev 2 dmq or above.?
The assessment route / qualifications required for entering onto the register have not been discussed and are open for consultation. It is likely that currently ‘accepted’ qualifications such as those delivered through DMQ Ltd, LANTRA AWARDS, SQA, ST Huberts Club etc that meet the agreed standards would be acceptable. Whether ‘grandfather rights’ (ie many year’s practical experience) should be accepted could be a matter for public consultation. However, the evidence presented above highlighting current welfare concerns suggests that skills levels among some experienced practitioners are lower than desired.
Will they need to pay for the assessment and will it take them to a higher stage of knowledge ?
Again existing skills may be transferable and only a small cost may be incurred in getting onto the centrally held register. More experienced stalkers like yourself with Level 2 are likely to have the required levels of knowledge and experience. Training and assessment for more inexperienced stalkers should cost no more than £350 per person and will be taken up by the deer sector which already has a well developed training programme. Again the consultation seeks views on the best ways for individuals to show that they have the agreed skills and knowledge.
Do the DCS have any person from the amateur sector to draw information from and if so who is he or she and what are his/her credentials.
DCS have 26 staff including 10 technical team members of which there are 6 deer officers with geographical responsibilities and you know that I am the deer officer for the South area including the central belt. All of the technical team have deer backgrounds both recreationally and professionally – I was a recreational stalker for 10 years before spending 7 years as a part time deer manager for a large 50,000 Ha mixed estate in the Scottish Borders before joining DCS and my background is very much from the roe perspective. Ultimately all DCS staff, despite the flack we receive, have deer interests at heart and want to achieve a balance between differing land use objectives and still safeguard deer welfare.
Specific to your area I use a network of recreational stalkers on the ground to gain information and intelligence as to the intricacies of deer management, deer numbers, emerging issues and concerns throughout the central belt area from West of Glasgow all the way through East Lothian and Fife.
I feel that the DCS are mixing the red deer situation with the roe deer in the central belt and there are no likenesses at . It is a different animal with totally different and needs different approaches.
As you point out there are inherent differences between red and roe management and the heart of some of these proposals takes this into account. While DCS, formerly the Red Deer Commission came from very much an upland deer orientated past, DCS now dedicates increased resources and time to better understand roe deer management in the lowland setting. The Forest Research Peri urban deer project of which you contributed to through the focus group meetings highlights some of the work done thus far. You also eluded to the work down by DCS on the NE of Glasgow in relation to the trialing of different methods of data capture using night vision and thermal imaging equipment to allow us to get a better handle on roe numbers and distributions. To re-emphasize my discussions with you this was not DCS shooting deer on the Gartloch road using Night vision weapon sights.
One of the key aspects of the legislative proposals involves placing a duty on land owners to manage deer sustainably. Relevant to the central belt this will ensure that eg. Council owned country parks are aware of their responsibilities to care for and manage their deer in a responsible fashion. You and I both know that there are increasing issues with RTAs and serious threats to deer welfare through snaring, airguns, dog attacks, crossbows etc. The impact of deer on people and people on deer is a growing concern at a high level within the government and deer sector, but rest assured it is crystal clear that roe deer within the central belt are seen as valuable asset that people like to see. This has to be balanced with the potential for issues to arise through RTAs, threats to deer welfare and damage to crops / commercial property etc. First and foremost the communication and education of all the parties which may have an influence on deer in these areas is crucial to the process and this is not about DCS using a heavy handed approach to instigate widespread culls.
Much of the work we are attempting to carry out is to better understand the new challenge, particularly presented by roe in this setting, in recognising that there is lack of existing collaborative measures in place.
You will find DSC’s thinking behind some of the proposals here:
http://www.dcs.gov.uk/information/Publications/WNEB Consultation Detailed DCS Brief Web.pdf
Back to your original enquiry into setting up a deer management group, this is not something you need to have formally approved by us – Deer management groups as they stand are voluntary.
I would however be very interested in seeing what your clearly defined objectives are and what role and purpose you see the group making. With regards to joining ADMG as full members you, should be aware that in order to have a deer management group you will need to have a formal constitution with a chairman and secretary and ADMG will require an annual levy as part of their membership which is approximately ~ 50p for each roe shot by members of the group.
Please feel free to email me your objectives for the group and I would be very happy to comment on them
Regards
Jamie
Jamie Hammond
Deer Officer South Scotland