+ All Categories
Home > Documents > 2014 DMG Assessment

2014 DMG Assessment

Date post: 31-Jan-2022
Category:
Upload: others
View: 8 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
40
2014 DMG Assessment Analysis and Results Wildlife Operations Unit Scottish Natural Heritage August 2015
Transcript
Page 1: 2014 DMG Assessment

2014 DMG AssessmentAnalysis and Results

Wildlife Operations UnitScottish Natural HeritageAugust 2015

Page 2: 2014 DMG Assessment

2

Summary

Page 3: 2014 DMG Assessment

3

This paper reports on the 2014 assessment of upland deer management groups (DMGs) in Scotland. It seeks to set out the background, methodology and results from the assessments conducted by Chairs and Secretaries of DMGs with the support of Scottish Natural Heritage Wildlife Management Officers (WMOs).

The Assessments

– 44 DMGs (or sub-groups of larger DMGs) undertook the assessment process.

– These groups were assessed against 45 criteria brigaded into 15 categories which were developed by the Association of Deer Management Groups (ADMG) to reflect the membership and function of DMGs. This is referred to as the ADMG Benchmark.

– A further 56 criteria, brigaded into 14 categories, assessed performance against a range of Public Interest Indicators, which were derived from public policy documents.

– SNH Wildlife Management Officers reported a genuine engagement in this process for the most part, with chairs and secretaries being objective about the performance of their group and open to constructive challenge where necessary.

– The assessment process, coupled with the underlying political drivers for it, has driven a step-change in the pace of formulating, or updating of, deer management plans (DMPs).

– All the groups engaged with in this process have shown a real willingness to be able to demonstrate an improvement in, or at least maintenance of, their assessment “score” when reassessment occurs in late 2016.

– Even where an assessment suggests a lack of recognition of a criterion or a lack of delivery of a criterion, the process has provided a focus on what needs to be addressed within the DMG or DMP to improve the function of the DMG and delivery of their collective objectives.

– The inclusion of the public interest indicators has resulted in a change in language being used by some within individual DMGs and ADMG, recognising the benefits of better integrated land management and planning, with DMGs being useful groupings to at least start to explore some of these issues.

– Some of the criteria have been challenging to DMGs as there is a belief that the DMG is not the correct scale or form to address the issues presented. This is particularly true of some of the criteria relating to training (which many saw as an employer’s obligation), woodland creation (which was seen as an individual property owner’s responsibility) through to actions for carbon storage and sequestration which had less than obvious linkages to deer management.

Page 4: 2014 DMG Assessment

4

Introduction

Page 5: 2014 DMG Assessment

5

Much of the current focus stems from the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee (RACCE review of deer management which was agreed upon in September 2013, with evidence sessions being held in November 2013. A final report was produced, and the Scottish Government responded. Copies of the minutes of Committee meetings and all subsequent documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/72729.aspx.

The Committee enquiry was wide-reaching and considered a number of aspects of deer management such as deer populations, environmental, social and economic impacts of deer, the Code of Practice on Deer Management, SNH’s powers of intervention, review of the Government deer strategy, and the operation and effectiveness of DMGs.

A key outcome of this review, and the sole focus of this paper, was that Deer Management Groups should be able to demonstrate that they have effective, environmentally responsible and publicly available deer management plans in place by the end of 2016. The Committee took the view that the current pace of progress has been too slow in terms of DMGs developing and implementing plans. The Scottish Government response agreed with the Committee that the end of 2016 would be an appropriate time to consider progress and look to take action if the current voluntary system has not produced a step change in the delivery of effective deer management.

Page 6: 2014 DMG Assessment

6

DMG Assessments

Page 7: 2014 DMG Assessment

7

Background

Given the explicit desire of the RACCE Committee to review progress in late 2016, SNH, in agreement with ADMG, developed and undertook a process of DMG assessments to provide baseline information on how DMGs were functioning in late 2014.

In 2013 ADMG, devised the DMG Benchmark document which was published in July 2014 . This is available from their website at: http://www.deer-management.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DMG-Benchmark-Final.pdf. The Benchmark is a checklist to give a DMG a reference point for assessing and improving its operational effectiveness.

SNH also developed a range of “public interest indicators” which draw on the objectives of Wild Deer: A National Approach (wDNA). This developed into a series of 56 criteria, brigaded into 14 broad categories. An explanation of the 14 broad categories, and the public policy documents that were used to derive them, and the subsequent 56 criteria, is available at www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1497639.pdf.

A map of the areas assessed in 2014 is included as Annex 1.

The process

Assessment spreadsheets were developed, with each split into two sections – the ADMG Benchmark and the Public Interest Indicators. An example is included as Annex 2. In addition to the description of the indicators, these spreadsheets included columns to indicate if that outcome was included in DMG’s deer management plan, a column to describe the actions the DMG was taking at that time to deliver these outcomes and a column to record what action the DMG though was required to recognise that outcome in their DMP and deliver the outcome within their group area.

Wildlife Management Officers met with the Chair and Secretary of each group to go through the assessment process. Many took notes on pre-printed copies of the assessment spreadsheets which were then later typed up.

In addition to providing some narrative for each criterion, a visual indicator was assigned to each of red, amber or green and it was noted if the criterion was addressed in the DMP by marking with a yes or no. The categories of criteria were similarly given a summary colour “score” to visually summarise the performance of a DMG against that category of criteria.

Once the spreadsheets had been completed by the WMO, a second WMO carried out a quality assurance check to ensure consistency of approach and scoring between WMOs. This second WMO performed this function for all DMGs which were assessed. Once this had been undertaken, WMOs shared the assessment with the Chair and Secretary of the DMG and reached an agreed final version.

Once an agreed final version of the assessment was available, Chairs and Secretaries were encouraged to share this with their groups and discuss how to develop their DMPs in a bid to improve their “score” (essentially shorthand for their performance against the ADMG benchmark and delivery of the public interest objectives) when they are re-assessed in 2016 in advance of reporting to RACCE on the progress made.

Much of the focus of SNH Wildlife Management Officers work is to support DMGs:

– We have planned something in the order of 1,000 days of staff resource to support DMGs

– Together with SG and FCS, we are making £100,000 per annum for two years available to DMGS to develop their deer management plans

Page 8: 2014 DMG Assessment

8

Results – ADMG Benchmark

Page 9: 2014 DMG Assessment

9

All charts show the number of groups in each category.

ADMG benchmark criteria

1 Area and Boundariesa Identify appropriate boundaries for the group to

operate in.

2 Membershipa All property owners within a deer range should be part

of a DMG, including private and public land owners; also, where possible, agricultural occupiers, foresters, crofters and others on adjoining land where deer may be present. In some cases this may extend to householders with private gardens.

b Define appropriate sub-populations where applicable.

3 Meetingsa DMGs should meet regularly. Two formal meetings per

year is the norm but more frequent interaction between members, between meetings, should be encouraged.

b For effective collaborative management to take place it is important that all DMG Members should attend every meeting or be represented by someone authorised to make appropriate decisions on their behalf.

c In addition to landholding Members, including public sector owners, public agencies such as SNH and Forestry Commission Scotland should be in attendance and other relevant authorities such as Police Scotland may be invited to attend DMG meetings.

d Meetings should operate to an agenda and be accurately minuted. Attendees should be encouraged to participate and agreed actions and decisions should be recorded.

e Group can demonstrate capacity to deal with issues between meetings, as they arise, and to provide an ongoing source of communication and advice as required.

2

14

28

a

12

32

1

24

19

2

9

33

2

14

28

10

34

2

8

34

1

9

34

Group is not delivering this element

Delivery is only partial/variable in quality

Delivery is good

Page 10: 2014 DMG Assessment

10

4 Constitution and financesa All DMGs should have a Constitution which defines the

area of the Group, sets out its purpose, its operating principles, membership and procedures, in addition to providing for appointing office bearers, voting, raising subscriptions and maintaining financial records.

b Good management and budgeting of finances.

5 Deer management plansa All DMGs should have an up to date, effective and

forward-looking deer management plan (DMP)

b The DMP should record all the land management objectives within the DMG area.

c Where applicable, the plan should include a rolling 5 year population model.

d Appropriate use of maps to illustrate detail.

e The DMP should identify the public interest aspects of deer management.

f The DMP should make appropriate reference to other species of deer within the DMG area, and provide a level of detail proportionate to this interest.

g The DMP should include a list of actions that deliver the collective objectives of DMG members as well as public interest objectives. These actions should be updated annually.

h It is important that all DMG members should play a full part in the planning process and the implementation of agreed actions.

7

23

14

4

10

30

13

18

13

14

14

16

20

10

14

20

14

10

16

25

3

14

15

15

16

19

9

11

12

21

Group is not delivering this element

Delivery is only partial/variable in quality

Delivery is good

Page 11: 2014 DMG Assessment

11

i The DMP may identify potential conflicts and how they can be prevented or addressed to ensure an equitable approach to the shared deer population.

j Relevant local interests should be consulted on new DMPs and advised of any changes as they come forward.

6 Code of practice on deer managementa The Code should be endorsed by all DMGs and

referenced in both the constitution and DMP of every group. The terms of the Code should be delivered through the group DMP.

7 ADMG Principals of collaborationa The principles of collaboration should be incorporated

into all DMG constitutions and DMPs.

8 Best practicea All deer management should be carried out in

accordance with Best Practice.

b All DMPs should reference and follow Wild Deer Best Practice which will continue to evolve.

9 Data gathering and evidence – deer countsa Accurate deer counting forms the basis of population

modelling. An ethos that reflects this should be in evidence.

b As publicly funded counts are now exceptional, DMGs should aim to carry out a regular well planned and coordinated foot count of the whole open range deer population. It is normal to count annually.

c Recruitment and mortality counts are also essential for population modelling.

d Other census methods may be required in some circumstances, e.g. dung counting woodland or other concealing habitats or on adjoining open group

16

15

13

16

15

13

17

19

8

15

20

9

3

14

27

16

11

17

2

25

17

21

23

3

26

15

7

16

21

Group is not delivering this element

Delivery is only partial/variable in quality

Delivery is good

Page 12: 2014 DMG Assessment

12

10 Data and evidence gathering – cullsa All DMGs should agree a target deer population or

density which meets the collective requirements of Members without detriment to the public interest.

b The cull should be apportioned among members to deliver the objectives of the DMP and individual management objectives while maintaining the agreed target population and favourable environmental condition.

c The group cull target should be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted annually.

11 Data and evidence gathering – habitat monitoringa DMGs should carry out habitat monitoring. Habitat

Impact Assessments (HIA) measure progress towards agreed habitat condition targets on both designated sites and the wider deer range.

b HIAs should be carried out on a systematic and regular basis. A three year cycle is the norm but many find annual monitoring useful.

c Data is required on other herbivores present and their impact on the habitat.

d DMPs should include a section on habitat monitoring methods and procedures and record annual results so as to measure change and record trends.

12 Competencea It is recommended that in addition to DSC1, deer

managers should also attain DSC2 or equivalent.

b Deer managers supplying venison for public consumption are required to certify carcases as fit for human consumption to demonstrate due diligence. “Trained hunter” status is required for carcass certification.

13 Training a All DMGs should have a training policy and incorporate

it in the DMP.

5

1623

1

2021

5

1128

5

1128

13

23

8

13

23

8

19

16

9

3

24

17

4

23

17

2612

6

Group is not delivering this element

Delivery is only partial/variable in quality

Delivery is good

Page 13: 2014 DMG Assessment

13

b All DMG members or those acting on their behalf should undergo the necessary training to demonstrate competence.

c The training policy should promote and record continuing professional development through Best Practice Guidance.

14 Venison marketinga Membership of the Scottish Quality Wild Venison

Assurance scheme is recommended by ADMG.

b There is evidence of collaborative venison production within the Group.

15 Communicationsa DMGs should include a communications policy in their

DMP. External communication should be directed at parties not directly involved but with an interest in deer management, including individuals, local bodies such as community councils, local authorities, local media and other specialist interests.

b An annual communications programme suitable to local circumstances is advised. This might include a DMG website or a page on www.deermanagement.co.uk, an annual newsletter, annual open meeting or attending local meetings by invitation.

c A deer management plan should be accessible and publicly available, and local consultation during its development is advised.

11

19

14

2411

9

7

23

14

9

18

17

2315

6

2413

7

2214

8

Group is not delivering this element

Delivery is only partial/variable in quality

Delivery is good

Page 14: 2014 DMG Assessment

14

Results summary – public interest actions

The following charts show a summary of DMG performance against the 14 major categories of public interest. Details of performance against each of the 56 criteria under these 14 categories are presented in Annex 3.

1 Actions to develop mechanisms to manage deer

2 Actions for the delivery of designated features into Favourable Condition.

3 Actions to manage deer to retain existing native woodland cover and improve woodland condition in the medium to long term.

4 Actions to demonstrate DMG contribution to the Scottish Government woodland expansion target of 25% woodland cover.

5 Actions to monitor and manage deer impacts in the wider countryside.

6 Actions to improve Scotland’s ability to store carbon by maintaining or improving ecosystem health.

7 Actions to reduce or mitigate the risk of establishment of invasive non-native species

8 Actions to protect designated historic and cultural features from being damaged by deer e.g. by trampling.

9 Actions to contribute to delivering higher standards of competence in deer management.

10 Actions to Identify and promote opportunities contributing to public health and wellbeing.

7

33

4

8

31

5

2220

2

16

26

2

21

19

4

28

15

1

9

33

2

18

21

5

8

33

3

19

21

4

Group is not delivering this element

Delivery is only partial/variable in quality

Delivery is good

Page 15: 2014 DMG Assessment

15

11 Actions to maximise economic benefits associated with deer

12 Actions to minimise the economic costs of deer, and ensure deer management is cost-effective

13 Actions to ensure effective communication on deer management issues.

14 Actions to ensure deer welfare is taken fully into account at individual animal and population level.

20

20

4

2515

4

11

30

3

9

21

14

Group is not delivering this element

Delivery is only partial/variable in quality

Delivery is good

Page 16: 2014 DMG Assessment

16

Analysis and discussion

Page 17: 2014 DMG Assessment

17

Forty-four DMGs, or sub-groups of larger deer management groups undertook the assessment process between their Chair, Secretary and SNH WMO. The areas assessed are shown on the map in Annex1. This assessment was conducted by objectively “scoring” each group against a range of ADMG benchmark criteria and public interest criteria derived from a wide range of public policy documents. An example of the spreadsheets used for this assessment is included as Annex 2.

SNH Comment

The assessment process, coupled with the public and political interest in deer management, has focussed efforts on developing new, or revising existing, deer management plans at an unprecedented rate.

All groups have constructively engaged in this process and shown real intent to be able to demonstrate improvements in their deer management plans and their delivery when they are reassessed in 2016.

It is interesting to note the change in language being used by many involved in deer management, with meaningful discussions taking place about integrated land management and land use planning starting to emerge.

Analysis of ADMG Benchmark Assessment

1 Area and boundaries – 95% of groups were recorded as having appropriate

boundaries, although some noted that some changes were required. It is likely that some re-drawing of boundaries will have occurred by the time DMG are reassessed. All groups recorded that they recognised sub-populations where they existed.

2 Membership – Membership was variable, and the range of responses

received highlighted the need for all those involved in deer management in the DMG area to be included as part of the DMG and not just larger owners or those with sporting interests.

3 Meetings – The majority of groups were meeting appropriately,

although attendance and empowerment of those acting as representatives was recorded as more variable. Most groups felt that the level of involvement with Agencies (e.g. FCS, SNH etc.) was broadly appropriate. Meetings were recorded as generally well managed and the majority reported having agendas and minutes. The majority of groups also felt that they could address issues in between meetings as they arose.

4 Constitution and finances – Only 32% of groups reported having a formal, written

constitution which covers all the matters that would be commonly expected in such a document. 68% of groups reported good management and budgeting of finances.

5 Deer management plans – Responses from DMGs in relation to DMPs were

more variable. 30% of groups were recorded as having no current DMP and a further 41% were noted as requiring significant revision. 29% of groups had relatively good plans, although it is apparent that many of these plans are of their time and do not reflect all the issues currently considered as being in the public interest. It should be noted that some groups have also been operating effectively in terms of delivering collaborative deer management despite not having a formalised or written down plan.

6 Code of practice – It was noted that the Code could be considered as a

more recent development and consequentially many plans did not adequately address all the issues raised in the code.

7 ADMG Principles of collaboration – Again, it was noted that these were published some

time after many groups had last significantly revised their DMP.

8 Best practice – In contrast to items 6 and 7, Best practice was more

widely understood and acknowledged, reflecting the longer term exposure that those involved in deer management have had to best practice and also, perhaps, the different engagement that had been achieved through practical best practice events.

9 Deer counts – It was widely acknowledged that deer counts

were important, although the frequency, accuracy and feasibility of conducting unaided counts were a concern for many groups. The importance of recruitment, mortality and alternative methods to direct observation were less well acknowledged.

10 Culls – Although all groups spend a proportion of every

meeting reporting on culls, setting target populations and apportioning culls only appeared to take place formally and satisfactorily in around half of DMGs, with 64% of groups reporting that they adjust culls on an annual basis.

11 Habitat monitoring – The majority of groups assessed as amber for the

indicators within this objective. 18% of groups reported that they routinely conduct HIA. 23% do not undertake any form of HIA and the remaining 13% reported some effort of variable quality. 43% of groups reported that their DMP did not include a section on habitat monitoring and methods. 20% recorded that it did, and the remaining 37% included some reference to HIA that was not considered complete.

12 Competence – Competence was viewed by many as a poorly defined

target, and the majority of groups were assessed as amber. This can be explained in part by the comments received on the next assessment category, training, and

Page 18: 2014 DMG Assessment

18

also because those present at some DMG meetings were not necessarily those who might be expected to have some form of deer management qualification.

13 Training – Although the majority of those directly involved in deer

management can demonstrate competence at an individual level, the majority of DMGs do not record training or have a policy in place. This assessment category raised many comments that this was not a matter collectively for a DMG, but rather an issue for individuals to explore with employees to ensure they were discharging their legal obligations. The possibility of collaboration to achieve economies of scale was recognised by most.

14 Venison marketing – The assessment of the two criteria in this category

showed limited evidence of collective venison marketing, local production of finished product or adding value locally. What was recorded was use of the same wholesale game buyer to improve prices due to efficiencies in the collection process. SQWVA scheme membership appeared variable.

15 Communications – The three criteria in this category were arguably some

of the most poorly delivered by the DMGs assessed. Very few had explicit communication policies or plans, although more groups report that their plans, where they existed were publicly available. It was noted that making a plan available, rather than consulting and communicating proactively about a plan were seen as very different things by many DMGs.

Analysis of public interest assessment

In contrast to the Benchmark assessments, the vast majority of criteria in the public interest categories scored amber.

It is considered, and the number of amber assessments supports this assertion, that it is the formal capturing of these criteria in DMPs and the coordinated and concerted delivery of them that will show the greatest change at the time of reassessment.

1 Actions to develop mechanisms to manage deer. – Most groups (75%) scored amber for the criteria in this

category. At the time of assessment, the assessment against the benchmark had only been completed in draft. Very few groups (7%) had formally recorded actions to be implemented and assigned roles. Groups scored slightly better with respect to having a DMP, although it was recognised that many of the existing plans were showing their age and required general updating to include explicit reference to the public interest criteria.

2 Actions for the delivery of designated features into favourable condition.

– Of the public interest indicators, this was one of the better scoring. This is due to the focus put on the delivery of this particular aspect of the public interest by various statutory bodies for a number of years coupled with the response from DMGs to deliver against this well-defined and evidenced aspect of the public interest.

3 Actions to manage deer to retain existing native woodland cover and improve woodland condition in the medium to long term.

– This series of criteria produced a large number of amber and red reports. The Native Woodland Survey of Scotland had only recently been published and this represented the first systematic and nationwide assessment of condition, including herbivore impacts, of our native woodland resource. It is considered that the availability of this data should make incorporation of this into action plans a comparatively straightforward task for DMGs.

4 Actions to demonstrate DMG contribution to the Scottish Government woodland expansion target of 25% woodland cover.

– This series of criteria also produced a significant number of amber and red responses. It is considered that this is in part due to action being taken at an individual property scale without necessarily much collective discussion or consideration at a DMG scale. This is at least partly driven by the support mechanisms which operate at an individual land holding level. SNH has, since the assessment, transferred a large amount of data to all DMGs, which includes map based data to enable them to analyse and record the amount of woodland creation in the DMG area.

Page 19: 2014 DMG Assessment

19

5 Actions to monitor and manage deer impacts in the wider countryside.

– Again, these criteria received a large number of amber and red scores. The view was expressed that many managers do not formally record this information, or discuss it at a DMG scale. Rather, it is an informal process bred from years of familiarity with a piece of land and the habitats thereon. It was also noted that the statutory agency approach of focussing on designated sites for a number of years had been detrimental to retaining focus on non-designated land. It is generally considered that the principles established on designated sites are relevant in the wider countryside, although recognition of a different degree of effort, especially in respect of monitoring, may be necessary.

– It is worth reflecting on the various issues that affect the understanding of appropriate habitat monitoring and the subsequent response to that monitoring. For some, there is an apparent conflict between different pieces of public policy – the need for minimum livestock densities vs. the pursuit of good environmental condition for example. The difficulties associated with monitoring and managing grazing on intimate mosaics of habitats which often have very distinct grazing needs should not be underestimated. It is hoped that recent changes to agri-environment schemes will assist in resolving some of these issues.

6 Actions to improve Scotland’s ability to store carbon by maintaining or improving ecosystem health.

– This was universally seen as one of the most challenging indicators for DMGs, although some criteria received better assessment scores than may have been predicted due to other initiatives focussed on peatland restoration and the uptake of these by some members of some DMGs.

7 Actions to reduce or mitigate the risk of establishment of non-native species.

– The criteria within this indicator were, in the majority, amber. This reflects the long standing discussion that many DMGs have about the appearance of feral pigs or sika deer. It is considered that more formal recognition, discussion and reporting of these criteria could demonstrate a large change at the time of reassessment.

8 Actions to protect designated historic and cultural features from being damaged by deer.

– Once again, these criteria were overwhelmingly red and amber, although it appeared that the understanding of the potential impacts of fencing were better understood in some areas. The supporting narrative in the assessments suggests that most DMGs have a good understanding of how to address this indicator.

9 Actions to delivering higher standards of competence in deer management.

– As in the benchmark assessment, the assessment of these criteria was slightly confused by the employer-employee relationship and the legal implications

of training. Many expressed the view that the legal obligations fell to individuals and could not properly be addressed at a DMG scale. It was recognised that a relatively simple skills audit and training needs analysis could, for most DMGs, demonstrate a great improvement. This was another indicator where much work has been, and continues to be, done and a DMG wide discussion and explicit reference in the DMP may be sufficient for many groups.

10 Actions to identify and promote opportunities contributing to public health and wellbeing.

– The significant number of criteria in this category attained predominantly amber scores. For many, this was seen as peripheral to their primary interests and as such did not receive formal recognition either at DMG meetings or in DMPs. This is considered as another area which could show large improvements relatively easily.

11 Actions to maximise economic benefits associated with deer.

– This is difficult information to extract, particularly when deer management is coupled with other management enterprises. The independent study carried out on behalf of ADMG and due to be published in late 2015 will provide valuable information on the economic costs and benefits associated with deer management. The criteria in this category were therefore largely amber and red.

12 Actions to minimise the economic costs of deer, and ensure deer management is cost-effective.

– These criteria were also largely red and amber, but again the ADMG report should be informative. There appears to be a greater willingness to discuss, understand and quantify these costs.

13 Actions to ensure effective communication on deer management issues.

– These criteria were again largely red and amber. As noted previously many groups had not considered the community interest in deer, or how to consult and communicate with local interests throughout the planning process. It is considered that this is another area where improvements can be made relatively easily.

14 Actions to ensure deer welfare is taken fully into account at individual animal and population level.

– Many groups reported taking deer welfare into account and the individual criteria include an accordingly higher number of green scores. That said, it is clear that welfare is, in the main, considered at an individual landholding level and that information on welfare, e.g. recording mortalities and recruitment is not done comprehensively by many Groups.

Page 20: 2014 DMG Assessment

20

Conclusions

This report provides a factual presentation of the baseline assessment of Deer Management Groups conducted in 2014.

The challenge facing DMGs should not be underestimated, especially by the DMGs themselves. It is clear that only so much can be achieved between the assessment reported here and reassessment in 2016.

Page 21: 2014 DMG Assessment

21

Page 22: 2014 DMG Assessment

22

Annexes

Page 23: 2014 DMG Assessment

23

North WestSutherland

WestSutherland

East

NorthRossWest

Ross

EastRoss

GairlochConservation

Group

SouthWest Ross

Monadhliaths

EastLochShiel

Morvern

Inveraray& Tyndrum

Balquhidder Glenartney

Islay

Arran

Harris& Lewis

Moidart

Ardnamurchan

WestLochaber

South RossC Kintail& AffricSouth Ross FGlenmoriston

Tayside

Cairngorm/Speyside

East Grampian5 UpperDeeside

SouthRoss

D West

South Ross BStrathfarrar

Blackmount

Glenelg

East LochEricht

EastSutherland

East Grampian3 Glendye

EastGrampian2 Deeside

Mull

Strathtay

South Ross AStrathconon

WestKnoydart

West SutherlandLochinver South

West SutherlandLochinver North

WestSutherland

North

Breadalbane

Mid WestAssociation

SouthPerthshire

Northern

Knoydart

Produced by the Geographic Information Group, SNH. Job id: 72227© Crown copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey 100017908

Deer Management GroupsDMGs assessed in 2014 by WoU staff

Annex 1

Page 24: 2014 DMG Assessment

24

Annex 2

ADMG Benchmark Assessment

ADMG Benchmark Assessment – Example Deer Management Group

Notes Correcting Actions required

Operation of Group

Area and boundaries

Identify the appropriate boundaries for the group to operate in.

Boundaries are well established and acknowledged. Little movement to South

Keep under review

Define appropriate sub populations where applicable Not currently felt appropriate Keep under review

Membership

All property owners within a deer range should be members of a DMG, including private and public land owners; also, where possible, agricultural occupiers, foresters, crofters and others on adjoining land where deer may be present. In some cases this may extend to householders with private gardens.

All estates are represented. Public and private landowners within DMG. Most crofting interests fenced in.

Include Crofting Issues on the Agenda at future meetings

Meetings

DMGs should meet regularly. Two formal meetings per year is the norm but more frequent interaction between members, between meetings, should be encouraged.

One formal meeting per year but could have local meeting twice a year.

Frequency of meetings to be discussed and agreed. May require group or sub-group to meet to develop DMP

For effective collaborative management to take place it is important that all DMG Members should attend every meeting or be represented by someone authorised to make appropriate decisions on their behalf.

Very good participation in Group. Most properties attend, but those who miss tend to send apologies. Decisions can be made at meetings

Encourage full participation and attendance, especially during plan development

In addition to landholding Members, including public sector owners, public agencies such as SNH and Forestry Commission Scotland should be in attendance and other relevant authorities such as Police Scotland may be invited to attend DMG meetings.

SNH and ADMG attend all meetings, as do FE as landowners. Police Scotland are not invited as there has never been deemed a requirement for this either through poaching or DVCs

Maintain good attendance of public agencies and consider inviting police periodically

Meetings should operate to an agenda and be accurately minuted. Attendees should be encouraged to participate and agreed actions and decisions should be recorded.

Meetings work well. Maintain good practice

Group can demonstrate a capacity to deal with issues between meetings as they arise, and to provide an ongoing source of communication and advice as required.

Good email contact with group members Maintain good communications. Build in to plan

Constitution & Finances

All DMGs should have a Constitution which defines the area of the Group, sets out its purpose, its operating principles, membership and procedures, in addition to providing for appointing office bearers, voting, raising subscriptions and maintaining financial records

Not sure if one exists Will check. If none available will put in place. If one exisits will review and amend

Good management and budgeting of finances Good financial information kept and reported. Maintain good practice. Seek funding for developing plan. Explore funding from SRDP to further development and running of DMG

Deer Management Plans

All DMGs should have an up to date, effective and forward looking Deer Management Plan (DMP).

No current plan Group will develop one

The DMP should record all the land management objectives within the DMG area.

No current plan To be included

Where applicable, the plan should include a rolling 5 year population model

No current plan To be included, possible help from SNH

Appropriate use of maps to illustrate relevant detail. No current plan Range of aspects of the plan may benefit from mapping - woodland cover, condition, DVCs, HIA and will be incorporated when available

The DMP should identify the public interest aspects of deer management

No current plan To be included

Page 25: 2014 DMG Assessment

25

DMP should make appropriate reference to other species of deer within the DMG area, and provide a level of detail proportionate to this interest.

No current plan Include in plan

It should include a list of actions that deliver the collective objectives of DMG Members as well as public interest objectives. These actions should be updated annually

No current plan Include in plan. Meeting agenda to be more aligned with DMP. Actions from DMP identified and recorded within meeting minute

It is important that all DMG Members should play a full part in the planning process and in the implementation of agreed actions

No current plan Achieve concensus on plan objectives and targets. Ensure actions are clear and are responsible person know what they have to do when.

The DMP may identify potential conflicts and how they can be prevented or addressed to ensure an equitable approach to the shared deer population.

No current plan To be included

Relevant local interests should be consulted on new DMPs and advised of any changes as they come forward.

No current plan To be actioned through development of plan

Code of Practice on Deer Management

The Code should be endorsed by all DMGs and referenced in both the Constitution and Deer Management Plan of every Group. The terms of the Code should be delivered through the Group Deer Management Plan.

No To be included

ADMG Principles of Collaboration

The Principles of Collaboration should be incorporated into all DMG Constitutions and Deer Management Plans.

No Will circulate at meeting and agree.

Best Practice

All deer management should be carried out in accordance with Best Practice.

Yes in principle Will include in DMP and DMG will ensure all members have hard copy. Monitor subscription to BP

All Deer Management Plans should reference and follow WDBP which will continue to evolve.

No Will include in DMP

Data and Evidence gathering- Deer counts

Accurate deer counting forms the basis of population modelling. An ethos that reflects this should be in evidence

Some members count on regular basis but not all Need to ensure counting is undertaken, data is collated, analysed and presented. Opportunities for training to improve effectiveness. Seek private/public funding for this important DMG function.

As publicly funded aerial counts are now exceptional, DMGs should aim to carry out a regular well planned coordinated foot count of the whole open range deer population. The norm is to count annually.

Partial count. Some members count on regular basis but not all

Need to discuss restarting co-ordinated foot counts. Consider possible SRDP funding for collaborative management.

Recruitment and mortality counts are also essential for population modelling.

Partial. Encourage wider uptake of recruitment and mortality counts and build in to annual returns to group

Other census methods may be required in some circumstances, eg dung counting in woodland or other concealing habitats or on adjoining open ground.

Some members conduct dung counting for their needs

Not considered a priority for all members but information should be used in conjunction with other data to support group cull setting

Page 26: 2014 DMG Assessment

26

Data and evidence gathering- Culls

All DMGs should agree a target deer population or density which meets the collective requirements of Members without detriment to the public interest.

Partial. Done at estate level. Group to disucss overall density of group and agree a target density for the group.

The cull should be apportioned among Members to deliver the objectives of the DMP and individual management objectives while maintaining the agreed target population and favourable environmental condition.

Culls discussed between members to ensure objectives not impacted. Current culls are deemed acceptable to all.

Group to develop use of population model(s) to inform decision making together with monitoring of environmental targets.

The Group cull target should be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted annually.

Agreed at meetings Group to incorporate modelling to assist. Culls should be reviewed and adjusted as required in response to circumstances

Data and evidence gathering- Habitat Monitoring

DMGs should carry out habitat monitoring. Habitat Impact Assessments (HIA) measure progress towards agreed habitat condition targets on both designated sites and the wider deer range.

Partial but good. Good proportion of members conduct HIA

Discussion by DMG as to extent of HIA currently being conducted - is this a good enough representation across DMG? and discussion to standardise and report within DMP.

HIAs should be carried out on a systematic and regular basis. A three year cycle is the norm but many find annual monitoring useful.

Yes for individual members Discuss ongoing assessment requirements and build into plan

Data is required on other herbivores present and their impact on the habitat.

Partial information Section to be included within DMP.

DMPs should include a section on habitat monitoring methods and procedures and record annual results so as to measure change and record trends.

Not in DMP as such. Progress is simply reported back via Group meeting when necessary.

Section to be included within DMP.

Competence

It is recommended that in addition to DSC 1 deer managers should also attain DSC 2 or equivalent.

Most, but not all, of group stalkers will be qualified to DMQ1 or higher.

Ascertain training levels among group members -action for training can be set out in plan.

Deer managers supplying venison for public consumption are required to certify carcasses as fit for human consumption to demonstrate due diligence. “Trained Hunter” status is required for carcass certification.

Believed to be good levels of skills within Group, although not verified as such.

Ascertain training levels among group members

Training

All DMGs should have a training policy and incorporate it in the DMP

No training policy at present. Devise training policy

All DMG Members or those acting on their behalf should undergo the necessary training to demonstrate Competence.

Good level of skills within Groups, but not quantified as such.

Ascertain training levels among group members

The training policy should promote and record continuing professional development through Best Practice Guidance.

No training policy at present. Devise training policy

Venison Marketing

Membership of the Scottish Quality Wild Venison scheme is recommended by ADMG.

Good uptake of membership within Group, but a number of properties do not participate.

Ongoing promotion of SQWV to members

There is evidence of collaborative vension production within the Group

Some estates participate in larder-sharing with neighbours

Page 27: 2014 DMG Assessment

27

Communications

DMGs should include a Communications Policy in their DMP. External communication should be directed at parties not directly involved but with an interest in deer management including individuals, local bodies such as community councils, local authorities, local media and other specialist interests.

No communications policy as such/ Communications Policy Required

An annual communication programme suitable to local circumstances is advised. This might include a DMG website or a page on www.deer-management.co.uk, an annual Newsletter, annual open meeting, or attending local meetings by invitation.

No annual programme. Will update ADMG web site and send DMP to community council.

A Deer Management Plan should be accessible and publicly available, and local consultation during its development is advised.

No plan Version of DMP required for ADMG website.

Delivery of objective is good, in line with benchmark

Delivery of objective is only partial/variable in quality

Group is not delivering this element

Page 28: 2014 DMG Assessment

28

Deer Management Plans - Delivering Public Interest

Actions 1 to 14 In DMP (y/n)

What DMG doing now? This is about current outputs (From date of audit)(Narrative)

What will DMG do in the future?This is the detail for the DMP: set targets where appropriate (Narrative)

1. ACTIONS to develop mechanisms to manage deer

Carry out an assessment of effectiveness against the Benchmark

N Completed - [Date] Will review annually

Develop a series of actions to be implemented and assign roles

N Completed - [Date] Will review annually

Produce and publish a forward-looking, effective deer management plan which includes public interest elements relevant to local circumstances. Plan should include an agreed action-plan to clarify roles and monitor progress against objectives. Minutes of DMG meetings should be publicly available.

N DMG currently has no plan but will develop one

DMG to develop plan by 2015

Summary: Agree a colour for current delivery of the Action (red, amber, green) and detail what is going to happen to deliver future actions

Benchmark self-assessment and public interest actions carried out[date]. DMG Currently has no plan.

DMG to carry out action points from Benchmark and will develop an effective, forward looking plan (complete with action plan) by 2015.

2. ACTIONS for the delivery of designated features into Favourable Condition.

Identify designated features, the reported condition and herbivore pressures affecting designated sites in the DMG area.

N Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

Set out designated features across DMG in DMP and identify features in unfavourable condition to do with deer

Identify and agree actions to manage herbivore impacts affecting the favourable condition of designated features.

N Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

If deer impacts contributing–agree DMG management actions where relevant to address

Monitor progress and review actions to manage herbivore impacts affecting favourable condition.

N Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

DMP will reference and action plan/minutes of meetings will capture

Summary: Agree a colour for current delivery of the Action (red, amber, green) and detail what is going to happen to deliver future actions

Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

Set out designated features across DMG in DMP and identify features in unfavourable condition to do with deer. If deer impacts contributing–agree DMG management actions where relevant to address

3. ACTIONS to manage deer to retain existing native woodland cover and improve woodland condition in the medium to long term.

Establish overall extent of woodland and determine what proportion is existing native woodland.

N Most of group members are addressing existing woodland through individual plans

Deer management plan to capture current woodland management and identify possible areas for improvement - pull out exisitng data.

Determine current condition of native woodland.

N Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

SNH to provide DMG with woodland condition information. DMP to capture .

Identify actions to retain and improve native woodland condition and deliver DMG woodland management objectives.

N Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

If deer impacts contributing–agree DMG management actions where relevant to address

Monitor progress and review actions to manage herbivore impacts.

N Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

DMP will reference and action plan/minutes of meetings will capture

Summary: Agree a colour for current delivery of the Action (red, amber, green) and detail what is going to happen to deliver future actions

Although most of the group members are currently addressing woodland issues, not formally captured

DMG to work with SNH to identify exisitng native woodland and DMP will set out actions ro address any negative deer impacts. DMG meetings will report and review actions by members.

Page 29: 2014 DMG Assessment

29

4. ACTIONS to demonstrate DMG contribution to the Scottish Government woodland expansion target of 25% woodland cover.

Identify and quantify extent of recent woodland establishment (through SRDP (last 20 years) and through other schemes).

N Currently large areas in [area] over DMG but not formally captured

DMP to capture any exisitng woodland schemes (SRDP and WGS)

Identify and quantify opportunities and priorities for woodland expansion over the next 5-10 years.

N Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

DMP to capture any proposed woodland schemes

Consider at a population level the implication of increased woodland on deer densities and distribution across the DMG.

N No immediate concerns about numbers and movements with regards current woodland planning

DMP to make reference to on going discussion.

Implement actions to deliver the DMG woodland expansion proposals and review progress.

N Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

DMP will reference and action plan/minutes of meetings will capture

Summary: Agree a colour for current delivery of the Action (red, amber, green) and detail what is going to happen to deliver future actions

A number of new woodland schemes already exist - just not fomally captured.

DMG to identify exisiting schemes. DMP will set out exisitng and proposed schemes and will set out any actions required by the DMG to deliver woodland expansion proposals. May wish to consider future impact of woodland expansion and timetable for removal/erection of fences and possible expansion/reduction of deer range.

5. ACTIONS to monitor and manage deer impacts in the wider countryside.

Identify habitat resource by broad type.

N Many properties already carrying out monitoring but no DMP

Plan will capture extent of current and assess whether enough and set out a possible standardised monitoring programme. Investigate possibility of more estates participating and identify training required.

Identify required impact targets for habitat types.

N Habitat targets not identified. Nor currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

identify a sustainable level of grazing and trampling for each of these habitat types.

N Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

Will be identified in plan.

Identify where different levels of grazing may be required and prioritise accordingly.

N Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

Will be identified in plan.

Conduct herbivore impact assessments , and assess these against acceptable impact ranges. Identify and implement actions to attain impacts within the range.

N Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP. Some members do assessments

Will be identified in plan.

Regularly review information to measure progress and adapt management when necessary.

N Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

DMP will reference and action plan/minutes of meetings will capture

Summary: Agree a colour for current delivery of the Action (red, amber, green) and detail what is going to happen to deliver future actions

Although some monitoring done by inidvidual members, not currently done at DMG scale.

Plan will capture extent of current and assess whether enough and set out a possible standardised monitoring programme. Investigate possibility of more estates participating and identify training required.

Page 30: 2014 DMG Assessment

30

6. ACTIONS to improve Scotland’s ability to store carbon by maintaining or improving ecosystem health.

Quantify the extent of the carbon-sensitive habitats within the DMG range.

N Existing woodland extent will be contributing

Plan to set out current extent of woodland and include any other habitats ie blanket bog in monitoring programme

Conduct herbivore impact assessments , and assess these against acceptable impact ranges for these sensitive habitats. Identify and implement actions to attain impacts within the range.

N Many properties already carrying out monitoring but no DMP

Habitat monitoring programme to incorporate.

Identify opportunities for the creation/restoration of peatlands

N Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

Discuss and identify at DMG meeting

Contribute as appropriate to River Basin Management Planning

N Not currently required. Contribute as required.

Summary: Agree a colour for current delivery of the Action (red, amber, green) and detail what is going to happen to deliver future actions

Exisitng woodland extent and some habitat monitoring being carried out.

DMP to identify how woodland and any other habitats might contribute and monitoring programme to incorporate. Action plan/minutes of meetings will capture.

7. ACTIONS to reduce or mitigate the risk of establishment of invasive non-native species

Manage invasive non-native species (e.g. muntjac) to prevent their establishment and spread e.g. report sightings of muntjac to SNH

N Not currently discussed and DMG doesn’t have a DMP

Include policy in DMP

Agree on local management of other non-natives which may be utilised as a resource e.g sika, fallow, goats, to reduce their spread and negative impacts.

N Sika numbers and distribution discussed. Goats in localised area

DMP will reference and action plan/minutes of meetings will capture

Summary: Agree a colour for current delivery of the Action (red, amber, green) and detail what is going to happen to deliver future actions

Partially actioned through discussion at meetings

DMP will reference and action plan/minutes of meetings will capture

8. ACTIONS to protect designated historic and cultural features from being damaged by deer e.g. by trampling.

Identify any historic or cultural features that may be impacted by deer and undertake deer management to retain these features

N Deer not considered to be a threat to existing

DMP to identify any features

Consider the implications of fencing on the landscape with due regard to the Joint Agency Guidance on Fencing.

N Addressed in current woodland schemes

DMP to address

Summary: Agree a colour for current delivery of the Action (red, amber, green) and detail what is going to happen to deliver future actions

N Not considered to be an issue. DMG will discuss and DMP will address

9. ACTIONS to contribute to delivering higher standards of competence in deer management.

Undertake a skills and training assessment to establish current skill levels applicable to deer management within the DMG

N Believed to be good levels of skills within Group, although not verified as such.

Ascertain training levels among group members

Identify training and development needs / requirements of DMG members including opportunities for Continuous Professional Development (i.e. in relation to Best Practice)

N Believed to be good levels of skills within Group, although not verified as such.

Training policy to be set out in DMP and action plan/meeting minutes can address

Ensure all those who actively manage deer are “competent” according to current standard

N Most, but not all, of group stalkers will be qualified to DMQ1 or higher.

Ascertain training levels among group members

Promote and facilitate the uptake of formal and CPD training opportunities for those participating in deer management.

N Not currently done Training policy to be set out in DMP and action plan/meeting minutes can address

Summary: Agree a colour for current delivery of the Action (red, amber, green) and detail what is going to happen to deliver future actions

Believed to be good levels of skills within Group, although not verified as such as no DMP

Ascertain training levels among group members. Training policy to be set out in DMP and action plan/meeting minutes can address and report on required actions.

Page 31: 2014 DMG Assessment

31

10. ACTIONS to Identify and promote opportunities contributing to public health and wellbeing.

Identify and quantify public safety issues associated with deer within the DMG area. e.g. DVCs, airports etc

N DVC issues have been identified in the past and addressed

DMP will address and possible agenda item for meetings

Identify actions with landowners, Local Authority, DMG to reduce or mitigate public safety risk and monitor effectiveness of actions.

N DVC issues have been identified in the past and addressed

DMP will reference and action plan/minutes of meetings will capture

Identify means of ensuring food safety is maintained in carcass handling and venison processing and compliance with BPG in relation to meat hygiene

N Most of DMG currently in SQWV DMP will reference.

Ensure deer managers are familiar with notifiable diseases, that a system for recording is in place and all deer managers are familiar with course of action to take.

N DMG adheres to Best Practice Guidance

Training policy referencing Best Practice Guidance included in plan. Possible agenda item at meetings.

Ensure that appropriate bio security measures are enacted when visitors from areas where CWD is present are involved with deer management activities

N Not currently discussed DMG raise awareness. Circulate BDS leaflet on CWD

Identify opportunites to raise awareness of the risks associated with Lyme’s Disease.

N Tick awareness already discussed with estates and staff on some estates

DMG raise awareness. Circulate HPS leaflet on Lyme’s

Identify main access and recreational activity within the DMG area and assess how this fits with deer management activity.

N Open access generally promoted across DMG. No current issues

Report within DMG extent of area under open access policy. Possible agenda item.

Identify actions to mitigate any effects of public access and recreation activities during peak periods of deer culling e.g. use of Hill phones and web sites

N No current issues Action plan/minutes of meetings will capture if appropriate.

Facilitate public access and promote positive communication between visiting public and wildlife managers.

N A number of members currently promote access and provide information

DMP will reference and action plan/minutes of meetings will capture

Summary: Agree a colour for current delivery of the Action (red, amber, green) and detail what is going to happen to deliver future actions

Some issues dealt with by DMG DMP will reference and action plan/minutes of meetings will capture

11. ACTIONS to maximise economic benefits associated with deer

Identify and quantify the main sources of revenue related to deer (sport, tourism etc).

N Not currently done by DMG DMG will discuss and agree what information the Group would like to capture and on what time scale.

 Identify and quanify deer related employment. Identify opportunities to increase and improve prospects throughout the DMG;

N Not currently done by DMG DMG will discuss and agree what information the Group would like to capture and on what time scale.

Identify opportunities to add value to products from deer management (SQWV, venison branding)

N Some estate actively market local venison.

DMG will discuss and agree what information the Group would like to capture and on what time scale.

  Explore options for larder sharing, infrastructure improvement and carcass collection to ensure maximum benefit from venison production whilst reducing carbon costs.

N Some larder sharing by members. Good uptake of SQWV by some members.

DMG will discuss and consider potential options.

Summary: Agree a colour for current delivery of the Action (red, amber, green) and detail what is going to happen to deliver future actions

Some estate actively market local venison but generally economic benefits not captured.

DMG will discuss and consider what information would be useful to collect and discuss potential options. DMP to capture.

Page 32: 2014 DMG Assessment

32

12. ACTIONS to minimise the economic costs of deer, and ensure deer management is cost-effective

Identify and quantify capital investment in deer management related infrastructure.

N Not currently done by DMG DMG will discuss and agree what information the Group would like to capture and on what time scale.

Identify where deer are impacting on other land uses and include all relevant stakeholders to assist the group in understanding costs of deer within the DMG (e.g. woodland, agriculture, DVCs)

N Not currently done by DMG DMG will discuss and agree what information the Group would like to capture and on what time scale.

Where there are management changes, assess the likely economic impacts across the DMG

N Not currently done by DMG DMG will discuss and agree what information the Group would like to capture and on what time scale.

Formulate a strategy to minimise the negative economic impacts in an equitable way.

N Not currently done by DMG DMG will discuss and agree a strategy if appropriate.

Summary: Agree a colour for current delivery of the Action (red, amber, green) and detail what is going to happen to deliver future actions

Not currently done by DMG DMG will discuss and consider what information would be useful to collect and discuss potential options. DMP to capture.

13. ACTIONS to ensure effective communication on deer management issues.

Provide regular opportunity for wider community and public agency engagement in planning and communications.

N No current communications policy. DMP to include a Communications Policy. Will update ADMG web site and send DMP to community council.

Identify and implement actions to address community issues on deer or deer management activity.

N No current communications policy. DMG will investigate opportunities to ensure community issues are identified and addressed.

Support and promote wider opportunities for further education on deer.

N Members hold larder days with local School.

DMG will investigate further opportunities to promote deer and deer management.

Summary: Agree a colour for current delivery of the Action (red, amber, green) and detail what is going to happen to deliver future actions

No communications policy but opportunities for education and engaging with the public.

DMP to include a Communications Policy. Will update ADMG web site with DMG information and DMP once developed. Copy of DMP to be sent to Community Council. Opportunities for further engagement with the public to be discussed.

14. ACTIONS to ensure deer welfare is taken fully into account at individual animal and population level.

Agree, collate and review data available within the DMG which might be used as a proxy for deer health/welfare i.e recruitment, winter mortality, larder weights etc

N Not currently done by DMG DMG will discuss and agree what information the Group would like to capture and on what time scale.

Take reasonable actions to ensure that deer culling operations safeguard welfare; for culled and surviving animals (e.g. for example by following BPG)

N Good level of skills within Groups. BPG followed in principle but not quantified as such.

DMG will sign up to principles of BPG through the DMP.

Take reasonable actions to ensure that the welfare of surviving populations is safeguarded (e.g. provision and access to food and shelter)

N Some welfare issues discussed at DMG but not formally captured.

Deer welfare policy to be included in the DMP.

Periodically review information on actions to safeguard welfare, identify and impliment changes as required.

N Not currently done by DMG DMG will discuss and agree actions where relevant.

Summary: Agree a colour for current delivery of the Action (red, amber, green) and detail what is going to happen to deliver future actions

N Welfare safegaurded in DMG through members following Best Practice and generally high skill level within group.

DMG will discuss and agree what information the Group would like to capture and on what time scale. DMP will capture.

Delivery of objective is good, in line with actions

Delivery of objective is only partial/ variable in quality

Group is not delivering this element

Page 33: 2014 DMG Assessment

33

Page 34: 2014 DMG Assessment

34

Annex 3 Public Interest Objectives - Detail

1 Actions to develop mechanisms to manage deera Carry out an assessment of effectiveness against the

Benchmark.

b Develop a series of actions to be implemented and assign roles.

c Produce and publish a forward-looking, effective deer management plan which includes public interest elements relevant to local circumstances. Plan should include an agreed action-plan to clarify roles and monitor progress against objectives. Minutes of DMG meetings should be publicly available.

2 Actions for the delivery of designated features into Favourable Condition.

a Identify designated features, the reported condition and herbivore pressures affecting designated sites in the DMG area.

b Identify and agree actions to manage herbivore impacts affecting the favourable condition of designated features.

c Monitor progress and review actions to manage herbivore impacts affecting favourable condition.

3 Actions to manage deer to retain existing native woodland cover and improve woodland condition in the medium to long term.

a Establish overall extent of woodland and determine what proportion is existing native woodland.

b Determine current condition of native woodland.

c Identify actions to retain and improve native woodland condition and deliver DMG woodland management objectives.

4

38

1

5

36

3

11

26

7

7

24

12

8

30

6

11

28

5

15

24

5

2220

2

21

21

2

Group is not delivering this element

Delivery is only partial/variable in quality

Delivery is good

Page 35: 2014 DMG Assessment

35

d Monitor progress and review actions to manage herbivore impacts.

4 Actions to demonstrate DMG contribution to the Scottish Government woodland expansion target of 25% woodland cover.

a Identify and quantify extent of recent woodland establishment (through SRDP (last 20 years) and through other schemes).

b Identify and quantify opportunities and priorities for woodland expansion over the next 5-10 years.

c Consider at a population level the implication of increased woodland on deer densities and distribution across the DMG.

d Implement actions to deliver the DMG woodland expansion proposals and review progress.

5 Actions to monitor and manage deer impacts in the wider countryside.

a Identify habitat resource by broad type.

b Identify required impact targets for habitat types.

c Identify a sustainable level of grazing and trampling for each of these habitat types.

d Identify where different levels of grazing may be required and prioritise accordingly.

e Conduct herbivore impact assessments, and assess these against acceptable impact ranges. Identify and implement actions to attain impacts within the range.

2220

2

2220

2

2220

2

12

28

4

17

24

3

14

24

6

2317

4

2514

5

2514

5

18

24

2

Group is not delivering this element

Delivery is only partial/variable in quality

Delivery is good

Page 36: 2014 DMG Assessment

36

f Regularly review information to measure progress and adapt management when necessary.

6 Actions to improve Scotland’s ability to store carbon by maintaining or improving ecosystem health.

a Quantify the extent of the carbon-sensitive habitats within the DMG range.

b Conduct herbivore impact assessments, and assess these against acceptable impact ranges for these sensitive habitats. Identify and implement actions to attain impacts within the range.

c Identify opportunities for the creation/restoration of peatlands.

d Contribute as appropriate to River Basin Management Planning.

7 Actions to reduce or mitigate the risk of establishment of invasive non-native species

a Manage invasive non-native species (e.g. muntjac) to prevent their establishment and spread e.g. report sightings of muntjac to SNH.

b Agree on local management of other non-natives which may be utilised as a resource e.g. sika, fallow, goats, to reduce their spread and negative impacts.

8 Actions to protect designated historic and cultural features from being damaged by deer e.g. by trampling.

a Identify any historic or cultural features that may be impacted by deer and undertake deer management to retain these features.

b Consider the implications of fencing on the landscape with due regard to the Joint Agency Guidance on Fencing.

2217

5

28

14

2

18

24

2

29

14

1

2617

1

16

24

4

5

37

2

21

22

1

17

23

4

Group is not delivering this element

Delivery is only partial/variable in quality

Delivery is good

Page 37: 2014 DMG Assessment

37

9 Actions to contribute to delivering higher standards of competence in deer management.

a Undertake a skills and training assessment to establish current skill levels applicable to deer management within the DMG.

b Identify training and development needs / requirements of DMG members including opportunities for Continuous Professional Development (i.e. in relation to Best Practice).

c Ensure all those who actively manage deer are “competent” according to current standard.

d Promote and facilitate the uptake of formal and CPD training opportunities for those participating in deer management.

10 Actions to identify and promote opportunities contributing to public health and wellbeing.

a Identify and quantify public safety issues associated with deer within the DMG area. e.g. DVCs, airports etc.

b Identify actions with landowners, Local Authority, DMG to reduce or mitigate public safety risk and monitor effectiveness of actions.

c Identify means of ensuring food safety is maintained in carcass handling and venison processing and compliance with BPG in relation to meat hygiene.

d Ensure deer managers are familiar with notifiable diseases and that a system for recording is in place and all deer managers are familiar with course of action to take.

e Ensure that appropriate bio security measures are enacted when visitors from areas where CWD is present are involved with deer management activities.

f Identify opportunities to raise awareness of the risks associated with Lyme’s Disease.

2317

4

2318

3

13

25

6

18

20

6

11

27

6

14

25

5

13

25

6

8

29

7

14

28

2

14

28

2

Group is not delivering this element

Delivery is only partial/variable in quality

Delivery is good

Page 38: 2014 DMG Assessment

38

g Identify main access and recreational activity within the DMG area and assess how this fits with deer management activity.

h Identify actions to mitigate any effects of public access and recreation activities during peak periods of deer culling e.g. use of Hill phones and web sites.

i Facilitate public access and promote positive communication between visiting public and wildlife managers.

11 Actions to maximise economic benefits associated with deer.

a Identify and quantify the main sources of revenue related to deer (sport, tourism etc.).

b Identify and quantify deer related employment. Identify opportunities to increase and improve prospects throughout the DMG.

c Identify opportunities to add value to products from deer management (SQWV, venison branding).

d Explore options for larder sharing, infrastructure improvement and carcass collection to ensure maximum benefit from venison production whilst reducing carbon costs.

12 Actions to minimise the economic costs of deer, and ensure deer management is cost-effective.

a Identify and quantify capital investment in deer management related infrastructure.

b Identify where deer are impacting on other land uses and include all relevant stakeholders to assist the group in understanding costs of deer within the DMG (e.g. woodland, agriculture, DVCs).

c Where there are management changes, assess the likely economic impacts across the DMG.

8

29

7

5

34

5

7

33

4

2317

4

2514

5

14

25

5

18

23

3

27

15

2

21

19

4

2416

4

Group is not delivering this element

Delivery is only partial/variable in quality

Delivery is good

Page 39: 2014 DMG Assessment

39

d Formulate a strategy to minimise the negative economic impacts in an equitable way.

13 Actions to ensure effective communication on deer management issues.

a Provide regular opportunity for wider community and public agency engagement in planning and communications.

b Identify and implement actions to address community issues on deer or deer management activity.

c Support and promote wider opportunities for further education on deer.

14 Actions to ensure deer welfare is taken fully into account at individual animal and population level.

a Agree, collate and review data available within the DMG which might be used as a proxy for deer health/welfare i.e. recruitment, winter mortality, larder weights etc.

b Take reasonable actions to ensure that deer culling operations safeguard welfare; for culled and surviving animals (e.g. for example by following BPG).

c Take reasonable actions to ensure that the welfare of surviving populations is safeguarded (e.g. provision and access to food and shelter).

d Periodically review information on actions to safeguard welfare, identify and implement changes as required.

2219

3

19

21

4

2911

5

29

12

3

2214

8

26

12

4

22

11

11

2315

6

Group is not delivering this element

Delivery is only partial/variable in quality

Delivery is good

Page 40: 2014 DMG Assessment

Recommended