Information channels

The evidence suggests that hands-on personal experience while learning from others who are more experienced is perceived to be the most important source of information relevant to both day-to-day as well as strategic (longer-term) management decisions. It is therefore pertinent to ask how – by what channels – this experience is gained.

Figure 4.1 depicts the participants’ responses in the questionnaire (n=22) regarding the channels of information that inform their management decisions. Participants were given a list of potential channels of information and asked to indicate all that applied, therefore the numbers in the table are greater than the number of respondents, with the majority of respondents indicating at least two sources. One indicated only one source, two did not indicate any (incomplete

questionnaire), while the maximum number of sources anyone indicated was 10.

The majority (16/22) indicated that peers were important channels of information, with 13 naming specifically ‘the Owner’ or ‘the Factor’, both of whom are likely to have greater experience, and not just greater authority. This indicates that interpersonal interactions with other practitioners are key. Nevertheless, the same number (16/22) named either Deer Commission for Scotland (DCS) or Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (which, as of 2010, have been merged) as important channels of information. Document-based information channels (many of which are produced by DCS/SNH or professional organizations), such as research reports (13/22), magazines (7/22) and websites (3/22), were also cited frequently. In addition, the elaborations accompanying ‘other’ (7/22) explicitly named professional organizations (Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA), British Deer Society (BDS), Deer Management Groups (DMG)), which are likely to be behind many of the document-

based information sources. ‘Professional communications’ were also cited, with examples being journals, deer newsletters, and conferences/seminars, which while not, strictly speaking, document- based, have more in common with document-based channels than with the interpersonal

interactive channels of information.

Perhaps most important to note is that college/university education was not cited as an important channel of information. Although 12/22 were college educated (see Chapter 2), this was clearly not regarded as relevant to maintaining current information and staying up-to-date with best practice. Respondents were not asked to comment on the value of their college/university education in terms of foundational knowledge or, indeed, whether a college education was more likely to make document-based channels of information (in particular, documents such as formal research reports) more accessible. Overall, the conclusion is that while people are perhaps regarded the most

important channels of information, it is noteworthy that there is not an outright rejection of any source. In particular, government and research sources (including trade papers, website and professional organizations) are all regarded as important.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Peers Research DCS Owner Magazines SNH Factor Websites College/Uni Other

Figure 4.1 showing where respondents said were important channels of information. Sources that are ‘other people’ are coloured in shades of green; Government sources (Deer Commissioner for Scotland (DCS) and Scottish Natural Heritage(SNH)) are shown in shades of orange; research and reports (including magazines and websites) are shown in shades of blue.

In terms of research and the impact of this on red-deer management decisions, the interview participants (n=19) were clearly aware both of its existence and the importance of

accessing science-based research information, either directly from research reports or indirectly through professional magazines or websites. Nevertheless, a sizeable (albeit minority) of six volunteered their opinion of research, being that some of it is ‘rubbish’ or lacks knowledge of significant aspects of red deer management. Six participants indicated that ‘numbers’ (referring to scientific data) do not necessarily provide an accurate picture of reality. They also suggested that scientific models are ‘inadequate’ or even lacking altogether. One participant explained, in detail saying,

‘I don’t really go with the SNH measurements, well for a start they don’t measure it, their habitat assessment is flawed and incomplete it doesn’t take into account of all the factors … it’s not a good science.’

This participant went on to say,

‘I think most of the conflicts that arise lack science … the bodies that pronounce on these things make statements that they can’t back up with any external science … and the external science that’s done, they don’t concede has any value – like the work done at Letterewe … And the government people …well, the government hasn’t commissioned that research at that level of detail … at any time … there is nothing written by government agencies to parallel that … and the government people don’t like it because they didn’t write it … they simply don’t have the money, or the will, to pay for top-class habitat ecologists and habitat scientist to do that work … that work is a very important bit of work … it should be utilized, but they don’t have a template, they don’t have a proper scientific model … for example, SNH designated [a site] 22 years ago without a base-line audit and to suddenly declare out of the blue it’s not meeting standards … they never did base-line studies … they just come along from time to time and make some airy comments – that’s NOT science…’

They also note that there are areas that should have been subjects of research, but which had been neglected, such as human disturbance effects on red deer populations (outside of regular recreational areas), deer behaviour, and tree regeneration with and without fencing.

Three participants were aware of ongoing research into aspects of sustainability, which had been commissioned by the Deer Commission for Scotland DCS in 2009. Five participants brought up the extensively-studied red deer herd on Rum (specifically, the data concerning reproduction rates), while four participants were aware of other ongoing research on red deer, including DCS research. Although not specifically citing the research on Rum, nine participants were, correctly, aware that

‘research had shown’ that hinds had not always been culled sufficiently. Without necessarily

attributing the findings to any specific research report, the majority of respondents (16/19) explicitly stated that they were aware of scientific support for habitat-based red deer management and the fact that the ground condition determines the number of red deer an area can support. Five

all five (independently and without prompt) said they considered it the ‘best’ and ‘most

comprehensive’ scientific study undertaken on red deer management in Scotland and believed that should be important for informing management decisions at a strategic and practical level.

Interestingly, however, the same five also expressed a lack of confidence that it actually did have an impact and that it would be ‘ignored’ or ‘disregarded’ by the governmental agencies. A participant said,

‘…how did they determine that number? No one knows ... it’s not – it’s just appeasing the DCS isn’t it? ... and when there is some evidence that they don’t want – they just ignore it ... makes you wonder ... it really all should be

balanced ...’

In discussing research, participants expressed strong opinions regarding how research is understood and applied. Eight participants specifically noted that organizations appear to either disregard or ignore valuable research; lack an interest in red deer management research; or have a narrowminded perception on how to manage a sustainable red deer population. And eleven participants stated that they felt as if governmental agencies used data only if it supported their political agenda. One participant said,

‘… they aren’t scientists – they call themselves scientists, but they aren’t… they are people with a scientific degree who are doing contractual work …’

This participant also said he has asked organizations,

‘…WHERE’S the science – you’re long on views – WHERE’S the science?????? …. And the ANSWER is, there is NO science!! They DON’T do science … they have these views …’

A different participant stated,

‘…and there’s politics in that as well … Some of the science is rubbish, while other is disregarded …’

Several conclusions may be drawn from these responses. Firstly, the respondents expressed a confidence in research as a process. However, they also expressed less confidence that it would be impactful, either because practitioners could not influence the research agenda (are researchers asking the right questions?) or because agencies would not apply the research findings (do policy and decision makers listen?)