Code of Practice

In May of 2011, a Draft Code of Practice on Deer Management, led by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), was sent out for consultation. As stated in the consultation letter, the code, which was introduced by the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill (WANE), 2011, sets out recommended practice for sustainable deer management. The consultation states that the purpose of the Code of Practice is to support managers and the desired outcome is sustainable management of wild deer. The code is divided into two categories: delivering good practice and SNH regulatory action, which is then discussed in seven chapters. Remarkably, in the introduction of the code consultation, there is no mention of animal welfare. The authors simply state that, ‘managing deer sustainably involves maximising the benefits of deer and deer management and minimising any damage they may cause.’ Consequentially, deer management is portrayed as being dictated through a top-down approach. In chapter two of the code out for consultation, the guiding principles include using sound science and the best available evidence as well as promoting deer welfare. However, if the deer management is dictated from SNH to practitioners, who often have the best available evidence because of their intimate relationship with the animals, then how are SNH going to gain access to and then integrate this insight into their decision-making? Also, any mention of deer welfare continually appears at the end of each section, almost as if it were an afterthought. If other priorities, such as short timescales are fundamental principles of management then deer welfare will be compromised to some extent and there is no indication as to how deer welfare will be ensured under these circumstances. Chapter three of the document, sustainable deer management, provides an interesting look into government thinking. There are actions which contradict each other, such as reducing deer for environmental objectives, while maintaining them for the aesthetics they provide to the public. There is no guidance on how to manage these conflicting actions, nor any indication which should take precedence, if any. Chapter four discusses deer management planning and focuses on collaborative management, which is the established goal of Deer Management Groups (DMGs). However, there is no suggestion in how to overcome conflicts between land management objectives among diverse groups of practitioners or when there are opposing management actions on-going, nor does it suggest management action should be suspended if there are deer welfare concerns until agreements can be reached.

What arises out of the chapter six is that while Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has such massive regulatory powers, there is no mention of how practitioners are going to be ensured that SNH will cooperate with them or if they will be held accountable for their actions. Chapter six, states that public bodies must have regard to the code when they carry out any functions relating to the code. However, the legislation does not allow for these bodies to be held accountable by judicial means, so how is this to be ensured? Finally, chapter seven lays out semi-realistic scenarios, while indicating that the individuals who put the code together have thought extensively on what are

appropriate steps to take, should they occur. As any conflicting management scenario is unique, more detailed steps are improbable to assume. One note of interest on the Code of Practice consultation is that there is a concentration of ‘public interest’ in the document and how deer management must take public interest into account. However, there is no indication as to what public interest is (Campbell and Marshall, 2000; Fan, 2005), nor is there any indication that the Scottish public have actually been asked what they want to see from deer management. It is remarkable that so much attention is placed onto something which is not identified or defined. Overall, the Code of Practice consultation document appears to try to put specific objectives of wild deer management on paper. However, it is not really clear how this document will affect deer management across Scotland. In many ways, it looks simply like a more user-friendly repetition of the Scottish Parliament’s environmental bill. The Code of Practice went into effect on 01 January

2012 and may also be called ‘The Deer Code’ (SNH:https://www.nature.scot/professional-

advice/land-sea-management/managing-wildlife/managing-deer/code-practice-deer, 2016). Within the adopted code, there is much more inclusion of animal welfare, including a definition found on page 10 (ibid, 2016). However, there is nothing in the code to ensure basic animal welfare standards are practiced.

One final note regarding both the current legislation and the code of practice document is that neither one seems to acknowledge that the situations of each deer species is unique, such as red deer primarily occupying the open hill, while roe deer are found most often in forests. Each of these situations creates its own set of circumstances and challenges, as unique as the species themselves and probably should be managed in a way which accounts for the specific situation, rather than a blanket approach for all species.