BASC warns Bill adds pressure to deer sector

[Conor O'Gorman]

BASC has urged the Scottish Government to resist introducing further regulations, in response to the proposed new Natural Environment Bill in Scotland.

The Bill would seek to introduce disproportionate deer management nature restoration orders (DMNROs) that would amount to legally mandated culls on private land, as well as compulsory training for deerstalkers, all in the name of biodiversity recovery.

The commitment to the new Bill was included in a document outlining the Scottish government’s policy and legislative plans for the year ahead. It is the equivalent to the King’s speech in England and Wales but is launched by First Minister John Swinney in the Scottish parliament.

BASC has urged the government to avoid further regulation on the sector and focus instead upon incentivisation. It says this should come through community deer management schemes and greater funding for larders.

BASC has also argued that DMNROs, intended to support nature restoration, lack a clear rationale and definition, unlike Control Orders under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, which are a last resort measure backed by criminal law.

More information from Shooting Times here:

BASC warns Bill adds pressure to deer sector - ShootingUK

BASC has urged the Scottish government to resist introducing further regulations, in response to the proposed new Natural Environment Bill in Scotland. The Bill would seek to introduce disproportionate deer management nature restoration orders (DMNROs) that would amount to legally mandated...

www.shootinguk.co.uk

 

[Dunwaters]

If you believe in a holistic, national, approach to deer management, it makes sense.
The free for all “do as you wish individually” approach clearly doesn’t work.

 

[Tikka 270]

If you believe in a holistic, national, approach to deer management, it makes sense.
The free for all “do as you wish individually” approach clearly doesn’t work.

Works for some, everyone has different aims

 

[Rake Aboot]

You should have seen this coming !!

It’s been obvious that the Scottish government hates people hunting especially paying for hunting. This is the continued push to have all stalkers paid trained qualified controllers who simply cull , no trophy hunting , no paid stalks , and definitely no recreational stalking.

Actually it’s your job to see this coming so why haven’t you ?

 

[Dunwaters]

Works for some, everyone has different aims

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem when you have don’t national objectives.

 

[andyk]

If you believe in a holistic, national, approach to deer management, it makes sense.
The free for all “do as you wish individually” approach clearly doesn’t work.

In a perfect world, you may be right.

However, this is all part of the SNP’s plans for land reform. Plans intended to move as much land as possible into community ownership but which will likely just move it from the landed classes to corporate ‘green’ investors and re-wilding projects, field sports will have no place in either.

The real aim is to allow the government to mandate intensive culling to remove the income stream stalking gives to sporting estates. Coupled with the bureaucratisation of grouse moors, it’s intended to destroy their financial viability, forcing them onto the market where they can be sold to the ‘green lairds’.

Anyone in favour of recreational deer stalking needs to see this for what it is, and certainly not endorse it.

 

[Tikka 270]

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem when you have don’t national objectives.

Not everyone has the same aims, there isn't a one size fits all. Why should folk that rely on deer and the income from them reduce their numbers to the point where it is no longer profitable and employment suffers. In Scotland there are vast areas where the number of deer is greatly depleted ( the highlands, and a reduction is still pushed) and the lowlands where roe deer numbers appear to be exploding, I don't belive a forced reduction should be allowed unless it is really really needed.

 

[sauer]

Deer politicised and public enemy no1

And to be used as a tool to reduce public gun ownership …. Get us to shoot everything clean in then when next to bugger all to shoot you won’t need your guns so hand em in …..
or am I just a cynical basta7d ?

Paul

 

[slider]

You should have seen this coming !!

It’s been obvious that the Scottish government hates people hunting especially paying for hunting. This is the continued push to have all stalkers paid trained qualified controllers who simply cull , no trophy hunting , no paid stalks , and definitely no recreational stalking.

Actually it’s your job to see this coming so why haven’t you ?

Everyone (???) did see this coming as its been doing the rounds for month.
BASC have simply reignited the debate as the Bill has now been introduced and is at the committee stage, which is when MSPs have the opportunity to ammend or reject elements of the Bill.

 

[Mungo]

If you believe in a holistic, national, approach to deer management, it makes sense.
The free for all “do as you wish individually” approach clearly doesn’t work.

The DMNROs are astonishing poorly conceived, even if you believe in unified management.

The very serious problem with them is that they explicitly do away with the requirement to have any evidence base for decision making. Under the current wording, an ill defined component of Nature Scot can decide, based on completely undefined criteria, to impose a cull that has no clearly defined objectives or monitoring criteria.

They are completely unworkable.

 

[Apthorpe]

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem when you have don’t national objectives.

And where you do have national objectives, you frequently have a national ecological disaster with no possibility for accountability nor remediation.
cf Aral Sea, vast deforestation of rainforests to provide Europeans with mandatory biofuels, government programmes to spray ecosystems with DDT mixed in diesel, government overreactions to their own pesticide policies resulting in millions of excess deaths, the CAP etc.etc

 

[Dunwaters]

And where you do have national objectives, you frequently have a national ecological disaster with no possibility for accountability nor remediation.
cf Aral Sea, vast deforestation of rainforests to provide Europeans with mandatory biofuels, government programmes to spray ecosystems with DDT mixed in diesel, government overreactions to their own pesticide policies resulting in millions of excess deaths, the CAP etc.etc

I never said it would be perfect.

 

[Dunwaters]

Not everyone has the same aims, there isn't a one size fits all. Why should folk that rely on deer and the income from them reduce their numbers to the point where it is no longer profitable and employment suffers.

Because unless you fence them in, your deer will come on to my land and interfere with my strategy for continual forest cover and natural regeneration.
The objectives have changed, the estates are transferring from ancestral owners who managed them for sporting purposes, often at a loss, to corporate ownership.
There is a new more profitable model, sheep, deer and grouse are being replaced by trees, carbon capture and government grants.

 

[Mungo]

There is a new more profitable model, sheep, deer and grouse are being replaced by trees, carbon capture and government grants.

Exactly this. It’s just the latest in a long line of transitions in ownership and management.

However, the government is attempting to manage and/or induce the transition very actively, and many of the legislative tools they’re proposing to use are not fit for purpose.

It is well worth reading the proposal for the DMNROs. We are actually using them as a case study on an MSc course on how not to word environmental management legislation.

 

[Apthorpe]

I never said it would be perfect.

Indeed, you didn't. But if you're going to have a centrally determined national policy, it needs to be damn near perfect because the damage from getting it wrong is universal. It's theoretically possible that the members of the Scottish Parliament and associated civil service might have perfect knowledge and understanding of all the applicable areas of expertise, but it is vanishingly unlikely. Certainly, when nobody even knows how many deer there are, it is a massive leap of faith to believe that they know anything else in sufficient detail.
Given the comprehensive failure of the state to even deliver on policies where all the factors are entirely within their control, it is sheer lunacy to think that the state can appropriately manage ecosystems. They can't even manage a shipyard/primary school/hospital/office building/drug policy/etc/etc/

Combining this reality with the fact that the policy is driven more by political considerations than the interests of the environment, it is incredibly foolhardy to have national policies like this. Much better to accept the imperfections of bureaucratic knowledge and keep the state out of it.

 

[Tikka 270]

Because unless you fence them in, your deer will come on to my land and interfere with my strategy for continual forest cover and natural regeneration.
The objectives have changed, the estates are transferring from ancestral owners who managed them for sporting purposes, often at a loss, to corporate ownership.
There is a new more profitable model, sheep, deer and grouse are being replaced by trees, carbon capture and government grants.

And that's fine, you can do what you like on your side of the fence which means someone else should be able to do what they want

 

[Apthorpe]

Because unless you fence them in, your deer will come on to my land and interfere with my strategy for continual forest cover and natural regeneration.
The objectives have changed, the estates are transferring from ancestral owners who managed them for sporting purposes, often at a loss, to corporate ownership.
There is a new more profitable model, sheep, deer and grouse are being replaced by trees, carbon capture and government grants.

The objectives have changed because the state has decided to appropriate control.

Trees and carbon capture are not a more profitable model, they generate no revenue or product whatsoever and depend entirely on the supply of outside, usually state, subsidy and bogus accounting.

 

[Dunwaters]

The objectives have changed because the state has decided to appropriate control.

Not so, so far. The objectives have changed because there is a direct conflict between the interests of those managing their land to maximise sporting returns and those who wish to adopt the new management model which prioritises biological diversity and carbon capture. You want as many deer as the land will support and treeless heather moorland, I want to promote woodland cover with natural regeneration. My woodland, with its reduced herbivore population is going to draw your deer.
I don’t want them, they cost me money. You want them, but you won’t build and maintain fences.
Deer numbers will be vastly reduced and the grouse moors will sprout trees.
Its a new variant of the clearances.

Trees and carbon capture are not a more profitable model, they generate no revenue or product whatsoever and depend entirely on the supply of outside, usually state, subsidy and bogus accounting.

Trees and carbon capture are vastly more profitable to the landowners than traditional sporting use, thats why hard nosed commercial companies and trusts are buying up the land and shooting out the deer.
They wouldn’t be doing it otherwise.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

You should have seen this coming !!

It’s been obvious that the Scottish government hates people hunting especially paying for hunting. This is the continued push to have all stalkers paid trained qualified controllers who simply cull , no trophy hunting , no paid stalks , and definitely no recreational stalking.

Actually it’s your job to see this coming so why haven’t you ?

BASC and other organisations in Scotland have been raising concerns about Deer Management Nature Restoration Orders since January's consultation on the proposals. You may also recall in 2021 the following recommendations:

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uplo...ty-Integrated-Deer-Management-in-Scotland.pdf

 

[Apthorpe]

Not so, so far. The objectives have changed because there is a direct conflict between the interests of those managing their land to maximise sporting returns and those who wish to adopt the new management model which prioritises biological diversity and carbon capture. You want as many deer as the land will support and treeless heather moorland, I want to promote woodland cover with natural regeneration. My woodland, with its reduced herbivore population is going to draw your deer.

To which the solution is for you to fence off your theme park. In fact, most sporting estates don't want as many head of game as the ground will support and they carry out the majority of conservation work. This may be somewhat semantic, but it's not natural regeneration if you are killing off or fencing out the fauna.

I don’t want them, they cost me money. You want them, but you won’t build and maintain fences.

This argument appears to boil down to the fact that you're unwilling to spend money to achieve your objective on your land, so others must be forced to spend money on their land, and in this case, to frustrate their objective and livelihood. Not only that, but others are to be compelled to spend further money, via tax and subsidy, to continuously subsidise your objectives. On a rational basis, that hardly seems reasonable.

Deer numbers will be vastly reduced and the grouse moors will sprout trees.
Its a new variant of the clearances.

It certainly is. Grouse moors area globally rare and threatened habitat of greater conservation value and greater carbon storage value than woodland cover. I appreciate that they look pretty awful.

Trees and carbon capture are vastly more profitable to the landowners than traditional sporting use, thats why hard nosed commercial companies and trusts are buying up the land and shooting out the deer.
They wouldn’t be doing it otherwise.

Because, the state distorts the market to make it so and by providing large financial incentives at the expense of the population. It is not genuine profit, and it is quite likely not to be real carbon-capture either, it is simply mis-allocation of resources. If you buy up the land, shoot out the deer, destroy the existing ecosystem, you get large financial benefits in the form of subsidy and tax exemptions, but you don't actually perform any useful economic function and most likely not an environmental benefit either. Bearing in mind these policies also cover farmland, to the extent that planting trees instead has environmental benefit, it is offset by the consequent displacement of agriculture to a less efficient zone causing more net damage.