Deer Management in Scotland: Report to the Scottish Government from Scottish Natural Heritage 2016 Annexes
Deer Management in Scotland: Report to the Scottish Government from Scottish Natural Heritage in 2016
Annexes
October 2016 Contents
Annexes 1 Annex 1 ADMG Benchmark Categories 1 Annex 2 Wild Deer Distribution Maps 4 Annex 3 Trends in the Sheep Population of Scotland 6 Annex 4 Public Interest Categories 8 Annex 5 DMG Plan Assessments: Example of Types of Change between 2014 and 2016 11 Annex 6 DMG Plan Assessments: Public Interest Category Mean Scores 12 Annex 7 DMG Plan Assessments: Results for Public Interest Categories 8 – 14 13 Annex 8 DMG Plan Assessments: Changes in Public Interest Criteria between 2014 and 2016 21 Annex 9 Summary Information on eleven Section 7 Control Agreements 29 Annex 10 Site based assessments of changes in deer numbers and densities with time 34 Annex 11 Details of changes in Habitat Impact Assessments across Section 7 Agreement areas 39 Annex 12 Data for woodland habitats derived from Section 7 Control Agreements 50
i Annexes
Annex 1 ADMG Benchmark Categories
Benchmark Categories (15 categories subdivided into 45 criteria).
1. Area and boundaries
1.1. Identify the appropriate boundaries for the group to operate in 1.2. Define appropriate sub populations where applicable
2. Membership
2.1. 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
3. Meetings
3.1. DMGs should meet regularly. Two formal meetings per year is the norm but more frequent interaction between members, between meetings, should be encouraged 3.2. 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 3.3. 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 3.4. Meetings should operate to an agenda and be accurately minuted. Attendees should be encouraged to participate and agreed actions and decisions should be recorded 3.5. 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
4. Constitution & Finances
4.1. 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 4.2. Good management and budgeting of finances
5. Deer Management Plans
5.1. All DMGs should have an up to date, effective and forward looking Deer Management Plan (DMP) 5.2. The DMP should record all the land management objectives within the DMG area 5.3. Where applicable, the plan should include a rolling 5 year population model 5.4. Appropriate use of maps to illustrate relevant detail
1 5.5. The DMP should identify the public interest aspects of deer management 5.6. DMP should make appropriate reference to other species of deer within the DMG area, and provide a level of detail proportionate to this interest 5.7. 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 5.8. It is important that all DMG Members should play a full part in the planning process and in the implementation of agreed actions 5.9. The DMP may identify potential conflicts and how they can be prevented or addressed to ensure an equitable approach to the shared deer population 5.10. Relevant local interests should be consulted on new DMPs and advised of any changes as they come forward
6. Code of Practice on Deer Management
6.1. 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
7. ADMG Principles of Collaboration
7.1. The Principles of Collaboration should be incorporated into all DMG Constitutions and Deer Management Plans
8. Best Practice
8.1. All deer management should be carried out in accordance with Best Practice 8.2. All Deer Management Plans should reference and follow WDBP which will continue to evolve
9. Data and Evidence gathering - Deer Counts
9.1. Accurate deer counting forms the basis of population modelling. An ethos that reflects this should be in evidence 9.2. 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 9.3. Recruitment and mortality counts are also essential for population modelling. 9.4. Other census methods may be required in some circumstances; e.g. dung counting in woodland or other concealing habitats, or on adjoining open ground
10. Data and evidence gathering - Culls
10.1. All DMGs should agree a target deer population or density which meets the collective requirements of Members without detriment to the public interest 10.2. 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 10.3. The Group cull target should be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted annually
11. Data and evidence gathering - Habitat Monitoring
11.1. 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
2 11.2. HIAs should be carried out on a systematic and regular basis. A three-year cycle is the norm but many find annual monitoring useful 11.3. Data is required on other herbivores present and their impact on the habitat 11.4. DMPs should include a section on habitat monitoring methods and procedures and record annual results so as to measure change and record trends
12. Competence
12.1. It is recommended that in addition to DSC 1 deer managers should also attain DSC 2 or equivalent 12.2. 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
13. Training
13.1. All DMGs should have a training policy and incorporate it in the DMP 13.2. All DMG Members or those acting on their behalf should undergo the necessary training to demonstrate Competence 13.3. The training policy should promote and record continuing professional development through Best Practice Guidance
14. Venison Marketing
14.1. Membership of the Scottish Quality Wild Venison scheme is recommended by ADMG 14.2. There is evidence of collaborative venison production within the Group
15. Communications
15.1. 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 15.2. 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 15.3. A Deer Management Plan should be accessible and publicly available, and local consultation during its development is advised
3 Annex 2 Wild Deer Distribution Maps
Maps of UK-wide red deer and roe deer distribution as recorded in 2007 and 2011, compiled by the British Deer Society in 2013. Distribution in 2011 is additional to 2007 and thus both maps show range expansion.
4
Maps of UK-wide fallow deer and sika deer distribution as recorded in 2007 and 2011, compiled by the British Deer Society in 2013. Distribution in 2011 is additional to 2007 and thus both maps show range expansion.
5 Annex 3 Trends in the Sheep Population of Scotland
Trends in the sheep population over the last decade show the total number of sheep decreasing by 1.18 million (15%) from 7.88 million in 2005 to 6.70 million in 20151. Figure 3.1 displays trends for breeding ewes and lambs, which in June 2015 made up 87 per cent of the total sheep population2.
Figure 3.1. Ewes used for breeding and lambs, trends 2005 to 20152
Over the past ten years, there has been a decline of 553,000 ewes for breeding (18 per cent) from 3.14 million in 2005 to 2.59 million in 2015. Most of this decline occurred between 2005 and 2010, with more modest declines since then. The introduction of Single Farm Payments in 2005 signalled a steeper decline in sheep numbers than had been witnessed earlier in the decade (following restocking after the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak) with a decrease of 1.13 million sheep evident between 2005 and 2010 (annual average decline of 3.0 per cent)1. The largest declines were in Lochaber, the Western Isles, Argyll and Bute Islands, Ross and Cromarty, Skye and Lochalsh and the Shetland Islands.
Since 2010, the number of sheep has generally averaged around 6.7 million, with fluctuations driven by variability in the number of lambs. The annual lamb numbers have been affected by how harsh the winters and springs have been1.
Figure 3.2 below shows the number of sheep per hectare, using the total area in the parish, not just the area of agricultural land. While one might associate the large areas of rough grazing in the Highlands with sheep farming, the highest concentration of sheep is to be found south of the central belt, and to a lesser extent on the east coast.
6
Figure 3.2. Density of sheep per parish (sheep per hectare), June 20152
References
1. Economic Report on Scottish Agriculture 2015 Edition (June 2015) Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services (RESAS), Scottish Government Directorate for Environment and Forestry. 2. Results from the June 2015 Scottish Agricultural Census (October 2015), Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services (RESAS), Scottish Government.
7 Annex 4 Public Interest Categories
Public Interest Categories (14 categories subdivided into 56 criteria). 1. Actions to develop mechanisms to manage deer
1.1. Carry out an assessment of effectiveness against the Benchmark 1.2. Develop a series of actions to be implemented and assign roles 1.3. Produce and publish a forward-looking, effective deer management plan which includes the public interest elements relevant to local circumstances. The plan should contain an action plan which sets out agreed actions and monitors delivery. Minutes of DMG meetings should be made publicly available
2. Actions for the delivery of designated features into Favourable Condition
2.1. Identify designated features, the reported condition and herbivore pressures affecting designated sites in the DMG area 2.2. Identify and agree actions to manage herbivore impacts affecting the Favourable Condition of designated features 2.3. 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
3.1. Establish overall extent of woodland and determine what proportion is existing native woodland 3.2. Determine current condition of native woodland 3.3. Identify actions to retain and improve native woodland condition and deliver DMG woodland management objectives 3.4. 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
4.1. Identify and quantify extent of recent woodland establishment (through SRDP (last 5 years) and through other schemes). 4.2. Identify and quantify opportunities and priorities for woodland expansion over the next 5-10 years 4.3. Consider at a population level the implication of increased woodland on deer densities and distribution across the DMG 4.4. Implement actions to deliver the woodland expansion proposals and review progress
5. Actions to monitor and manage deer impacts in the wider countryside
5.1. Identify and quantify the habitat resource by broad type 5.2. Identify required impact targets for habitat types 5.3. Quantify a sustainable level of grazing and trampling for each of these habitat types 5.4. Identify where different levels of grazing may be required and prioritise accordingly 5.5. Conduct herbivore impact assessments, and assess these against acceptable impact ranges. Where necessary, identify and implement actions to attain impacts within the range
8 5.6. 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
6.1. Quantify the extent of the carbon-sensitive habitats within the DMG range 6.2. 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 6.3. Identify opportunities for the creation/restoration of peatlands 6.4. Contribute as appropriate to River Basin Management Planning
7. Actions to reduce or mitigate the risk of establishment of invasive non-native species
7.1. Manage invasive non-native species (e.g. muntjac) to prevent their establishment and spread e.g. report sightings of muntjac to SNH 7.2. 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
8.1. Identify any historic or cultural features that may be impacted by deer and undertake deer management to retain these features 8.2. Consider the implications of fencing on the landscape with due regard to the Joint Agency Guidance on Fencing
9. Actions to contribute to higher standards of competence in deer management
9.1. Undertake a skills and training assessment to establish current skill levels applicable to deer management within the DMG 9.2. Identify training and development needs/requirements of DMG members including opportunities for Continuous Professional Development (i.e. in relation to Best Practice) 9.3. Ensure all those who actively manage deer are “competent” according to current standard 9.4. 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
10.1. Identify and quantify public safety issues associated with deer within the DMG area. e.g. DVCs, airports etc. 10.2. Identify actions with landowners, Local Authority, DMG to reduce or mitigate public safety risk and monitor effectiveness of actions 10.3. Identify means of ensuring food safety is maintained in carcass handling and venison processing and compliance with BPG in relation to meat hygiene 10.4. 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 10.5. Ensure that appropriate bio security measures are enacted when visitors from areas where CWD is present are involved with deer management activities
9 10.6. In areas where public access is significant and tick abundance is high, consider some form of awareness-raising for risks associated with Lyme disease 10.7. Identify main access and recreational activity within the DMG area and assess how this fits with deer management activity 10.8. Identify actions to mitigate any public access and recreation activity during peak periods of deer culling, e.g. use of Hillphones and websites 10.9. Facilitate public access and promote positive communication between visiting public and wildlife managers
11. Actions to maximise economic benefits associated with deer
11.1. Identify and quantify the main sources of revenue related to deer (sport, tourism etc) 11.2. Identify and quantify deer-related employment. Identify opportunities to increase and improve prospects throughout the DMG 11.3. Identify opportunities to add value to products from deer management (SQWV, venison branding) 11.4. 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
12.1. Identify and quantify capital investment in deer management related infrastructure 12.2. 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) 12.3. Where there are management changes, assess the likely changes to the economic costs across the DMG 12.4. Formulate a strategy to minimise the negative economic impacts in an equitable way
13. Actions to ensure effective communication on deer management issues
13.1. Provide regular opportunity for wider community and public agency engagement in planning and communications 13.2. Identify and implement actions to address community issues on deer or deer management activity 13.3. Support and promote wider opportunities to further education on deer
14. Actions to ensure deer welfare is taken fully into account at individual animal and population level
14.1. 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. 14.2. Take reasonable actions to ensure that deer culling operations safeguard welfare; for culled and surviving animals (e.g. for example by following BPG) 14.3. Take reasonable actions to ensure that the welfare of surviving populations is safeguarded (e.g. provision and access to food and shelter) 14.4. Periodically review information on actions to safeguard welfare, identify and implement changes as required
10 Annex 5 DMG Plan Assessments: Example of Types of Change between 2014 and 2016
The improvement shown in a plan could be a change in the assessment rating of the criteria from either red in 2014 to amber in 2016, or amber to green or red to green. No change in RAG rating has also been analysed between the 2 years, i.e. criteria classed as red, amber or green in both 2014 and 2016. Table 5.1 illustrates this for a small sample of criteria.
Table 5.1. The analysis of changes in DMG plans for a small sample of criteria.
Number of DMG Plans showing change Improvement Negative change No Change Bench red to amber red to Total green amber green Total Total mark amber to green to to red to red criteria green amber 5.5 2 22 11 35 0 0 0 0 9 10.1 2 9 1 12 5 2 0 7 25 11.4 8 3 7 18 4 1 0 5 21 13.3 6 6 17 29 0 0 0 0 15
11 Annex 6 DMG Plan Assessments: Public Interest Category Mean Scores
Mean scores were calculated for each public interest category by taking the mean score of all criteria in the category for each one of the 44 DMG plans, followed by calculating the mean score for all the DMG plans for that category. Criteria scores were calculated using 0 for a red rating, 1 for an amber rating and 2 for a green rating. The categories most relevant to the natural heritage are highlighted in bold.
Mean category score Category across all plans 2014 2016 1 Actions to develop mechanisms to manage deer. 0.9 1.8 2 Actions for the delivery of designated features into Favourable 1 1.5 Condition. 3 Actions to manage deer to retain existing native woodland cover and improve woodland condition in the medium to long 0.6 1.5 term. 4 Actions to demonstrate DMG contribution to the Scottish Government woodland expansion target of 25% woodland 0.6 1.4 cover. 5 Actions to monitor and manage deer impacts in the wider 0.6 1.1 countryside. 6 Actions to improve Scotland’s ability to store carbon by 0.5 1.3 maintaining or improving ecosystem health. 7 Actions to reduce or mitigate the risk of establishment of 0.8 1.7 invasive non-native species. 8 Actions to protect designated historic and cultural features from 0.6 1.5 being damaged by deer e.g. by trampling. 9 Actions to contribute to delivering higher standards of competence in 0.7 1.6 deer management. 10 Actions to identify and promote opportunities contributing to public 0.9 1.6 health and wellbeing. 11 Actions to maximise economic benefits associated with deer. 0.6 1.4 12 Actions to minimise the economic costs of deer, and ensure deer 0.5 1.1 management is cost-effective. 13 Actions to ensure effective communication on deer management 0.8 1.6 issues. 14 Actions to ensure deer welfare is taken fully in to account at 1.1 1.6 individual animal and population level.
12 Annex 7 DMG Plan Assessments: Results for Public Interest Categories 8 – 14
Public Interest Category 8. Actions to protect designated historic and cultural features from being damaged by deer e.g. by trampling
8.1 Identify any historic or cultural features that may be impacted by deer and undertake deer management to retain these features. 8.2 Consider the implications of fencing on the landscape with due regard to the Joint Agency Guidance on Fencing.
45 40
35 75% 30 25 20 50% 15
No. of DMGs of No. 10 25% 5 0 2014 2016 2014 2016 8.18.1 Identify Identify features features that that may be impacted 8.2 Consider implications of may be impactedby by deer deer fencing
Category 8: Protect designated historic and cultural features
Figure 7.2. Number of DMGs with each colour status for each criterion in Category 8. Horizontal lines on the graph represent 25%, 50% and 75% of the total number of DMGs
This public interest category to protect designated historic and cultural features has shown considerable improvement from a very low 2014 baseline. The extent of progress across the two individual criteria within this category is slightly varied, with 75% of plans showing an improvement in identifying historic and cultural features which may be impacts upon by deer (8.1), and 61% showing improvement in considering the implications of fencing on the landscape (8.2).
The significant improvement in criteria 8.2 is the result of a transition towards formalised policy agreement and guidance relating to future fencing proposals, and direct reference to the Joint Agency Guidance.
An example of an assessment for a plan delivering well against criterion 8.1 is given below:
“Green – ‘Deer not considered to be a threat to existing features through planning process, but group commitment to maintaining contact with local community to understand where/when this management may be a tension and action is required’ (East Sutherland)”
13 Public Interest Category 9. Actions to contribute to higher standards of competence in deer management
9.1 Undertake a skills and training assessment to establish current skill levels applicable to deer management within the DMG. 9.2 Identify training and development needs/requirements of DMG members including opportunities for Continuing Professional Development (i.e. in relation to Best Practice). 9.3 Ensure all those who actively manage deer are “competent” according to current standard. 9.4 Promote and facilitate the uptake of formal and CPD training opportunities for those participating in deer management.
45 40
35 75% 30 25 20 50% 15
No. of DMGs of No. 10 25% 5 0 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 9.1 Skills and 9.1 Skills and training 9.29.2 Identify Identify training and 9.3 Ensure competency to 9.4 Promote and training assessment trainingdevelopment and needs competencycurrent standards to facilitate training assessment development needs current standards Category 9 : Delivering higher standards of competence in deer management
Figure 7.3. Number of DMGs with each colour status for each criterion in Category 9. Horizontal lines on the graph represent 25%, 50% and 75% of the total number of DMGs.
This category regarding standards of competence in deer management shows substantial improvement across all 4 criteria. For individual criteria, the range is between 66% to 75% of plans showing improvement. The progress across all criteria within this category provides some insight into the way in which the planning process has enabled DMGs to move beyond thinking about competence as an individual landholding/employee/employer concern to thinking collaboratively about mechanisms for delivering high standards and competency across a DMG-scale.
Between 61% and 75% of plans are rated green across the 4 criteria in 2016. An example of an assessment for a plan delivering well against criterion 9.1 is given below:
“Green – ‘Included in DMP. 65 staff trained to DSC 1 standard, 30 to DSC 2 standard’ (South Perthshire)”
14 Public Interest Category 10. Actions to identify and promote opportunities contributing to public health and wellbeing
10.1 Identify and quantify public safety issues associated with deer within the DMG area. e.g. DVCs, airports etc 10.2 Identify actions with landowners, Local Authority, DMG to reduce or mitigate public safety risk and monitor effectiveness of actions 10.3 Identify means of ensuring food safety is maintained in carcass handling and venison processing and compliance with BPG in relation to meat hygiene 10.4 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 10.5 Ensure that that appropriate biosecurity measures are enacted when visitors from areas where CWD is present are involved with deer management activities 10.6 In areas where public access is significant and tick abundance is high, consider some form of awareness-raising for risks associated with Lyme disease 10.7 Identify main access and recreational activity within the DMG area and assess how this fits with deer management activity 10.8 Identify actions to mitigate any public access and recreation activity during peak periods of deer culling e.g. use of Hillphones and websites 10.9 Facilitate public access and promote positive communication between visiting public and wildlife managers
45 40
35 75% 30 25 20 50% 15
No. of DMGs 10 25% 5 0 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 10.1 Identify 10.2 Mitigate 10.3 Food safety 10.4 Familiarity 10.5 Biosecutrity 10.6 Raise 10.7 Identify 10.8 Mitigate 10.9 10.1 Identify 10.2 Mitigate 10.3 Food 10.4 10.5 10.6 Raise 10.7 Identify 10.8 Mitigate 10.9 public safety public safety risk with notifiable measures awareness of access and effects of public Facilitate public public safety Familiarity Biosecurity awareness access and effects of Facilitate issues diseases Lyme's disease recreational access during public safety safety with notifiable measures of Lyme recreational public access public issues risk diseases disease activityactivity duringculling culling accessaccess Category 10: Public health and wellbeing
Figure 7.4. Number of DMGs with each colour status for each criterion in Category 10.
15 The range of improvement across individual criteria in the public health and wellbeing category was 57% - 77%. Amongst the most notable are criterion 10.6, which is concerned with raising awareness of the risks associated with Lyme disease (77% of plans showed improvement), 10.4 (familiarity with notifiable diseases), and 10.3 (food safety). An important couple of developments which are likely to have acted as drivers contributing to this improved performance are the identification of a CWD case in Europe and the venison- related E.coli breakout.
An example of an assessment for a plan delivering well against criterion 10.6 is given below:
“Green – ‘Tick awareness - as part of plan HPS Lyme awareness leaflet circulated to the group and included as part of estate visitor information’ (Morvern)”
16 Public Interest Category 11. Actions to maximise economic benefits associated with deer
11.1 Identify and quantify the main sources of revenue related to deer (sport, tourism, etc.) 11.2 Identify and quantify deer-related employment. Identify opportunities to increase and improve prospects throughout the DMG 11.3 Identify opportunities to add value to products from deer management (SQWV, venison branding) 11.4 Explore options for larder sharing, infrastructure improvement and carcass collection to ensure maximum benefit from venison production whilst reducing carbon costs
45 40 35 75% 30 25 20 50% 15 No. of DMGs 10 25% 5 0 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016
11.111.1 Identify Identify main sources 11.211.2 Identify Identify deer related 11.311.3 Add Add value value to products 11.4 Max. benefit main sourcesof revenue deeremployment related to products from venison of revenue employment production
Category 11: Maximise economic benefits
Figure 7.5. Number of DMGs with each colour status for each criterion in Category 11. Horizontal lines on the graph represent 25%, 50% and 75% of the total number of DMGs.
Across the four criteria within this category, the greatest improvement was seen in efforts to identify and quantify revenue related to deer (criterion 11.1) where 73% of plans improved from 2014.
In the same criterion (11.1), 66% of plans were considered to be delivering well (compared with 9.1% in 2014). The minimum percentage of plans scoring green on any individual criteria within this category was 50% (criteria 11.4 which relates to maximising the benefit from venison production).
An example of an assessment for a plan delivering well against criterion 11.2 is given below:
“Green – ‘Captured in the plan (5 full-time deer managers and 11 part-time of seasonal staff); action at a wider DMG group to monitor the Group Operation’ (West Sutherland East)”
17 Public Interest Category 12. Actions to minimise the economic costs of deer, and ensure deer management is cost effective
12.1 Identify and quantify capital investment in deer management related infrastructure. 12.2 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) 12.3 Where there are management changes, assess the likely changes to the economic costs across the DMG 12.4 Formulate a strategy to minimise the negative economic impacts in an equitable way
45 40
35 75% 30 25 20 50% 15 No. of DMGs 10 25% 5 0 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016
12.112.1 Identify Identify capital 12.212.2 Deer Deer impacts on 12.3 Economic impacts of 12.412.4 Minimise Minimise capitalinvestment impactsother on land other uses impactsmanagement of changes negativenegative investment land uses management economiceconomic changes impactsimpacts Category 12: Minimise economic cost of deer
Figure 7.6. Number of DMGs with each colour status for each criterion in Category 12. Horizontal lines on the graph represent 25%, 50% and 75% of the total number of DMGs.
From a low 2014 baseline, an improvement was demonstrated across each criteria associated with minimising the economic costs of deer. The range of this positive change was between 41% and 61% of plans.
Less than 50% of plans scored green across all four criteria in this category, with good delivery falling between 25% and 36% in each instance.
An example of an assessment for a plan delivering well against criterion 12.2 is given below:
“Green – ‘BPDMG members identify where deer are impacting on other land uses (including farms, forests & DVCs) and include relevant stakeholders’ (Birse Parish)”
Progress across both public interest categories related to economic costs and benefits (Categories 11 & 12) has been relatively low in comparison with other categories. While the ADMG’s PACEC study has been a useful tool for DMGs to highlight some of the benefits associated with deer, they are difficult to transpose from the national to the local scale.
18 Public Interest Category 13. Actions to ensure effective communication on deer management issues
13.1 Provide regular opportunity for wider community and public agency engagement in planning and communications 13.2 Identify and implement actions to address community issues on deer or deer management activity 13.3 Support and promote wider opportunities to further education on deer
45 40
35 75% 30 25 20 50% 15
No. of DMGs of No. 10 25% 5 0 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 13.113.1 Community Community and public 13.213.2 AddressAddress community 13.3 Further and publicengagement communityissues education engagement issues Category 13: Effective communication on deer management issues
Figure 7.7. Number of DMGs with each colour status for each criterion in Category 13. Horizontal lines on the graph represent 25%, 50% and 75% of the total number of DMGs
All criteria relating to effective communications on deer management issues demonstrated a positive change within the range of 61% to 75% of plans.
The extent of progress across the three individual criteria was varied, with the community and wider public engagement criterion (13.1) demonstrating the greatest change and the highest percentage of plans delivering well (77% had green status). Criterion 13.3, relating to further education on deer, was delivered well by the lowest percentage of plans (48%).
An example of an assessment for a plan delivering well against criterion 13.3 is given below:
“Green – ‘Members hold larder days with Gairloch School. Deer Museum and Deer Park for viewing deer within DMG area’ (Gairloch)”
Through the planning process, the improvement in effective communication has been considerable. The vast majority of upland DMGs now have publically-available DMPs and have undertaken some form of public consultation.
19 Public Interest Category 14. Actions to ensure deer welfare is take fully into account at individual animal and population level
14.1 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. 14.2 Take reasonable actions to ensure that deer culling operations safeguard welfare; for culled and surviving animals (e.g. for example by following BPG) 14.3 Take reasonable actions to ensure that the welfare of surviving populations is safeguarded (e.g. provision and access to food and shelter) 14.4 Periodically review information on actions to safeguard welfare, identify and implement changes as required
45 40
35 75% 30 25 20 50% 15
No. of DMGs of No. 10 25% 5 0 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016
14.114.1 Data Data on deeron deer 14.214.2 Safeguard Safeguard welfare 14.314.3 WelfareWelfare ofof surviving 14.414.4 Review Review health/welfarehealth/welfare welfareduring duering culling survivingpopulations actionsactions to to culling populations safeguardsafeguard welfarewelfare Category 14: Deer welfare
Figure 7.8. Number of DMGs with each colour status for each criterion in Category 14. Horizontal lines on the graph represent 25%, 50% and 75% of the total number of DMGs.
The range of improvement across the four individual criteria in the deer welfare category was 39% - 61% of plans. Criterion 14.2, concerned with actions to ensure deer culling operations safeguard welfare, showed the greatest improvement, while the least improvement was in the collation and review of data as a proxy for deer health/welfare (criterion 14.1).
Actions to ensure deer culling operations safeguard welfare (criterion 14.2) had the highest percentage of plans with good delivery (91%).
For criteria 14.1 and 14.4, the lack of uniform data-collation protocols – which limits the use of this data at a collaborative group scale – remains a limiting factor in some cases.
While progress was demonstrated across criterion 14.3 (welfare of surviving populations), the common understanding of the relationship between forage, shelter and welfare at a collaborative scale was a limiting factor.
An example of an assessment for a plan delivering well against criterion 14.1 is given below:
“Green – ‘Captured in DMP Deer welfare is discussed at meetings. Mortality, calving rates, deer condition, stag antler quality all feature as part of discussions’ (Islay)”
20 Annex 8 DMG Plan Assessments: Changes in Public Interest Criteria between 2014 and 2016
Graphs of percentage of DMGs showing positive, negative and no change in each criterion for each of the 14 public interest categories. DMGs with no change in green status are maintaining the highest status and therefore cannot improve.
100 90 80 negative change 70 no change (red & amber) 60 50 no change (green) 40 30 positive change
Percentage of DMGs 20 10 0 1.1 Effectiveness 1.2 Develop 1.3 Deer against series of actions management plan Benchmark
Category 1: Mechanisms to manage deer
100 90 80 negative change 70 60 no change (red& amber) 50 40 no change (green) 30 positive change 20 Percentage of DMGs 10 0 2.1 Designated 2.2 Actions to 2.3 Progress for features within manage managing DMG herbivore herbivore impacts impacts Category 2: Designated features in to Favourable Condition
21
100 90 80 negative change 70 60 no change (red& amber) 50 no change (green) 40
30 positive change Percentage of DMGs 20 10 0 3.1 Establish 3.2 Determine 3.3 Deliver 3.4 Actions to extent of condition of DMG manage native native woodland herbivore woodland woodland management impacts objectives Category 3: Retain existing native woodland cover
100 90 80 negative change 70 60 no change (red& amber) 50 no change (green) 40 30 positive change
Percentage of DMGs 20 10 0 4.1 Quantify 4.2 Identify 4.3 Consider 4.4 Actions to recent opportunities implication on deliver woodland for woodland deer woodland establishment expansion expansion proposals Category 4: DMG contribution to SG woodland expansion target
22 100 90 80 negative change 70 60 no change (red& amber) 50 40 no change (green) 30 positive change 20 Percentage of DMGs 10 0 5.1 Identify habitat5.2 Identify impact 5.3 Identify 5.4 Identify if 5.5 Conduct 5.6 Review types targets sustainable level different levels of herbivore impact information to of grazing and grazing are assessments measure progress trampling required
Category 5: Monitor and manage deer impacts
23 100 90 80 negative change 70 60 no change (red& amber) 50 40 no change (green) 30 positive change
Percentage of DMGs 20 10 0 6.1 Quantify 6.2 Conduct 6.3 Identify 6.4 Contribute extent of herbivore opportunities to River Basin carbon impact for creation/ Management sensitive assessments restoration of Planning habitats peatlands Category 6: Improve Scotland's ability to store carbon
100 90 80 negative change 70 no change (red& amber) 60 50 no change (green) 40 positive change 30
Percentage of DMGs 20 10 0 7.1 Manage INNS to 7.2 Agree local prevent establishment management of INNS and spread Category 7: Reduce/mitigate risk of INNS
24 100 90 80 negative change 70 no change (red& amber) 60 50 no change (green) 40 positive change 30
Percentage of DMGs 20 10 0 8.1 Identify features 8.2 Consider that may be impacted implications of fencing by deer Category 8: Protect designated historic and cultural features
100 90 80 negative change 70 60 no change (red& amber) 50 40 no change (green) 30 positive change
Percentage of DMGs 20 10 0 9.1 Skills and 9.2 Identify 9.3 Ensure 9.4 Promote training training and competency and facilitate assessment development to current training needs standards Category 9: Delivering higher standards of competence in deer management
25 100
90
80 negative change 70
60 no change (red& amber) 50
40 no change (green) 30 Percentage of DMGs 20 positive change
10
0 10.1 Identify 10.2 Mitigate 10.3 Food 10.4 10.5 10.6 Raise 10.7 Identify 10.8 Mitigate 10.9 Facilitate public safety public safety safety Familiarity Biosecutrity awareness of access and effects of public access issues risk with notifiable measures Lyme's recreational public access diseases disease activity during culling
Category 10: Public health and wellbeing
26 100 90 80 negative change 70 60 no change (red& amber) 50 40 no change (green) 30 positive change Percentage of DMGs 20 10 0 11.1 Identify 11.2 Identify 11.3 Add value 11.4 Max. main sources deer related to products benefit from of revenue employment venison production
Category 11: Maximise economic benefits
100 90 80 negative change 70 60 no change (red& amber) 50 40 no change (green) 30 positive change Percentage of DMGs 20 10 0 12.1 Identify 12.2 Deer 12.3 Economic 12.4 Minimise capital impacts on impacts of negative investment other land management economic uses changes impacts
Category 12: Minimise economic cost of deer
27 100 90 80 70 negative change 60 no change (red& amber) 50 40 no change (green) 30 positive change Percentage of DMGs 20 10 0 13.1 Community 13.2 Address 13.3 Further and public community education engagement issues
Category 13: Effective communication on deer management issues
100 90 80 70 negative change 60 no change (red& amber) 50 40 no change (green) 30
Percentage of DMGs 20 positive change 10 0 14.1 Data on 14.2 14.3 Welfare 14.4 Review deer Safeguard of surviving actions to health/welfare welfare during populations safeguard culling welfare Category 14: Deer welfare
28 Annex 9 Summary Information on eleven Section 7 Control Agreements
1. Glenfeshie Catchment 2001-2010
A Control Agreement was secured with Glenfeshie Estate to underpin a Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS) from The Forestry Commission. Five properties were involved covering a total area of 23,700ha. Deer numbers have reduced from the 2001 baseline by 90%. Woodland habitat targets were considered to be met in the 2009 survey with the woodland showing positive recovery. The control agreement was concluded in 2010.
2. Inchnadamph 2003-2008
A Control Agreement was secured in 2003 on the Inchnadamph Estate to prevent damage to the 1,325ha of the Inchnadamph candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The control area covered a total of 4,500ha.
An initial deer density target of 8 deer/km2 was set and deer numbers were reduced to a density of 18.6 deer/km2. Monitoring showed herbivore impacts had been reduced and habitat targets were achieved in 2008. Although deer density was higher than the target density of 6-8 deer/km2, the herbivore impact targets were met and the agreement was considered to have achieved its objectives. It was concluded in 2008.
Monitoring continued until 2012 and the results showed the impacts remained low. Cull levels increased during the agreement, but reduced afterwards and the current deer density (2016) has risen to pre-agreement levels.
3a. Caenlochan Glen 2003-2013 and 2014-2019
The Caenlochan Control Agreement was signed in 2003 with ten ownership units to prevent damage by deer to 600ha of upland habitats in Caenlochan Glen. The total control area was much larger covering 25,337ha. This was to allow for management of the highly mobile deer population within the area. A new Section 7 was agreed for the period 2014 to 2019 and covers a total 35,144ha.
The initial target was to reduce the deer population from a summer density of 44 deer/km2 to a density of 19 deer/km2 by 2007 (year four of agreement). Cull levels increased dramatically with assistance from DCS; however, after 11 years the population target has still not been reached. Counts have shown populations fell from almost 12,000 to 6,000. However, the summer population shows a steady increase since 2008 and much of this is considered due to deer movement changes and immigration. Latest counts show the winter population remaining stable, but summer populations have continued to increase. The population reduction recorded shows how ambitious the targets are, but also how large the population was within the area.
HIAs were carried out in 2008, 2012 and 2015 on seven habitats (blanket bog, montane acid grassland, wind clipped heaths, dry heaths, flushes, species rich grassland and mountain willow scrub). Habitats targets have not been fully met and impacts appear to be increasing in some areas.
29 Other herbivores are another component which must be considered. Sheep were of concern in the early years of the agreement due to incursions from neighbouring farms. Hare dung counts from DCS staff showed increases in dung from 2002 to 2010, then a plateau.
The original Control Agreement had the unintended consequence of reducing the role, responsibilities and function of the East Grampian Sub Groups which cover the Section 7 Agreement area. Sub Area 1 became dormant, therefore minimal collaborative discussion took place between the Section 7 area, Glenprosen extension area and properties to the east of this. As the agreement progressed, a more collaborative approach involving wider sub group properties developed.
3b. Caenlochan Area – Current Agreement 2014-2019 A new agreement over an extended area (13 properties and 34,144ha) was signed in 2014. This agreement seeks to deliver Favourable Condition on upland habitats over the Caenlochan SAC, Garbh Corrie and Glen Callater SSSIs using eight indicator habitats as proxies for the rest of the sites. The new agreement seeks to build on the previous agreement with a focus on delivery of Favourable Condition of designated habitats.
There have been significant management changes on properties surrounding the control area during the term of the agreement. This has seen significant areas of the East Grampian DMG area fenced with deer excluded. This has changed patterns of deer movement and distribution (particularly in summer) which deer counts have shown.
It is anticipated that new DMG sub group Deer Management Plans will align with the Control Agreement aims and ensure future DMG engagement and ownership of delivering features into Favourable Condition.
4. Kinveachy 2005-2015 (extended for 2016)
The Kinveachy Control Agreement aimed to prevent damage to Caledonian Forest and Bog Woodland. Management was supported with public funding through an associated Management Agreement (SNH) and Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme (FCS) covering 8,196ha.
The estate was culling more than the minimum cull target each year which was a result of both a productive resident deer population and deer immigration from neighbouring estates. Whilst there are fluctuations in population levels throughout and between years, the population target set out in the agreement was not met. Greater collaboration between neighbouring estates has been identified as a means to reduce browsing levels further and limit the impacts to neighbouring socio-economic interests.
Annual monitoring of tree seedlings within this Control Agreements showed that damage to seedlings has been prevented, but soil conditions are a significant factor in the slow growth of the seedlings. Woodland habitat targets have not been met. Although impacts are reducing, deer browsing levels are suppressing existing regeneration. Browsing pressure has been much reduced, but in some areas it is still at a level which suppresses regeneration.
This agreement has now concluded with further management supported through the Forestry Grant Scheme. The Kinveachy Estate is a member of the Monadhliath DMG and future deer management is being considered in the context of the wider DMG plan.
30
5. Ardvar 2009-2014 (Dissolved in early 2012)
A Control Agreement, signed in 2009 by DCS, Ardvar Estate and the John Muir Trust sought to prevent damage to the designated features on Ardvar SAC. The agreement covered 5,144ha.
This agreement dissolved in 2012 when parties to the Section 7 Agreement disagreed on how best to achieve the objectives. Deer density has increased based on the latest count, with continued impacts on the woodland. Habitat targets were not met.
6. Inverpolly 2010-2015 (extension to 2016 and currently under review)
The current Inverpolly Section 7 Control Agreement is an extension of a previous agreement with one property at Drumrunie. The Inverpolly Agreement was signed in June 2010 to help address concerns over the impacts of sheep and deer within the wider area of Inverpolly SAC. The total control area is 12,115ha and covers three properties.
Deer densities were relatively low at around 5 deer/km2 at the outset of the agreement and this has been maintained. Cull levels have increased and the 2016 count indicates deer density is within the upper and lower deer density target. Communication across the estates has increased, but more collaborative approaches to delivery of cull targets have not been progressed.
Herbivore impacts on upland habitats have reduced. Herbivore impacts on woodland habitats are not reducing. Tree seedlings outwith fenced enclosures are still being suppressed through browsing. A fire in 2011 has possibly increased the attractiveness of the site to deer. It has been decided that a fence will be used to restore the woodland rather than reduce deer numbers further. Consideration is being given to extending the Control Agreement until 2020.
This agreement has been extended until 2016 and a full review will take place with a view to extending the agreement to incorporate a wider range of neighbouring properties and continue the progress achieved. Woodland habitat will be fenced to reduce herbivore impacts. This review is taking place in the context of the development of the West Sutherland DMG plan.
7. Beinn Dearg 2010-2015 (extension to 2016 and currently under review)
Beinn Dearg SAC covers an area of 13,894ha. The Agreement encompasses seven different properties totalling 46,389ha.
In May 2009, DCS/SNH commissioned a Collaborative Upland Habitat Management Plan to consider how best to secure the nature conservation objectives for the site, while taking in account the owners’ objectives. The plan was finalised in March 2010.
The annual cull targets have not, for the most part, been met. The upper deer target was, however, met within the timescale outlined in the agreement. The reduction in population from 2008 to 2015 is 8%. The 2013 HIA showed maintained or increasing impacts on three of the four habitats monitored – blanket bog, montane willow scrub and wind-clipped heath habitats. A slight increase in population has occurred since the last count.
31 This agreement is currently being reviewed in light of the recent HIA information and the development of the North Ross DMG plan.
8. Ben Wyvis 2010-2015 (extension to 2016 and currently under review)
The Ben Wyvis Agreement extends to 12,031ha and is within the North Ross DMG.
In March 2010 owners were consulted on a Section 7 Control Agreement to underpin the management plan, which was signed in July 2010. The deer population was to be reduced to target by the end of the second year and then maintained at that level. A focus on the habitat targets was to occur after year two for the remaining three years.
Reduction culls took place in 2011 and subsequent culls have been at maintenance levels. The deer population target was met and herbivore impacts did show initial reductions. The time-frames for delivery of hind reductions set within the agreement have not been met. This is in part a response to the reduced impacts shown in the 2013 monitoring.
The Control Agreement recognised that most impacts were localised and a focus on these areas would allow the targets to be met. The 2013 HIA showed good progress; however, the latest HIA of 2015 shows impacts have increased since 2013. In light of the recent HIA results, an increase in cull will likely be required to match the lower population target.
This agreement is currently being reviewed in light of the recent HIA information and the development of a new North Ross DMG plan.
9. Breadalbane Hills 2010-2015 (extension to 2016 and currently under review)
The Breadalbane Hills Control Agreement covers 75,561ha. This was the first control agreement to cover a full DMG. 6,400ha of the agreement area is designated for upland features. The Agreement covers five designated sites over 27 properties. The designated sites covered are Ben Lawers (SAC/SSSI), Meall na Samnha (SAC/SSSI), Carn Gorm and Meall Garbh (SSSI), Meall Ghoardie (SSSI) and Ben Heasgarnich (SAC/SSSI).
The Control Agreement sought to reduce red deer from a summer density of 17.1 deer/km2 to 12.8 deer/km2. The reduction in population sought through the agreement has largely been met with a modelled summer population of 13.6 deer/km2. The Control Agreement set targets to reduce the deer population over three years and then focus on meeting habitat targets.
Habitat targets were met across the Section 7 area for one of the habitats monitored (flush) and almost met for tall herb communities. Habitat targets for wind-clipped heath were not met, but impacts have reduced since 2007. The target for montane willow scrub was met on one out of four sites monitored with herbivore impacts varying among the four sites. Generally, herbivore impacts appear to be decreasing across parts of the site suggesting that the long-term damage is beginning to recover.
While the Control Agreement is based on reducing deer impacts, it is important to note that from 2006 to 2010 more than 10,000 sheep were removed from the Breadalbane Deer Management Group area. Notable decreases in impact on the habitats from 2007 to 2011 can be matched to the areas where sheep numbers were reduced.
32
10. Fannich Hills 2010-2020
The Fannich Hills SAC covers 9,500ha, comprising Fannich Estate, Strone (Foich) Estate and Kinlochluichart Estate. In March 2010, DCS/SNH concluded and agreed a Collaborative Upland Habitat Management Plan for the site, which included consultation with the neighbouring Loch Rosque Estate. All four owners signed a Section 7 Control Agreement to underpin the management plan, with the control agreement area extending to 19,612ha.
The deer population target (11 deer/km2) was achieved. The annual targets were not met in the first year, but exceeded thereafter and delivered the target population within the timeframe outlined in the agreement. The average yearly cull has increased from 242 to 326 since the agreement began. Cull analysis excludes Loch Rosque Estate as this is a large property with a small proportion of the area within the Control Agreement area.
Habitat targets were not met for blanket bog and dwarf shrub heath habitats. The habitat target for montane acid grassland was met. Delivery of habitat targets will be the focus in the next five years and the recent HIA shows that the deer population may need to be reduced further. Overall, the habitats show an increase in impacts since the 2008 baseline.
This agreement is currently being reviewed in light of the recent HIA information and the development of the West Ross DMG plan.
11. Mar Lodge 2010-2020
SNH and the National Trust for Scotland (NTS) signed the Section 7 Agreement in 2010, covering the full estate land of approximately 29,000ha. The main purpose of the agreement is to underpin the estate deer management plan, protect the public investment in the site and ensure damage to woodland is prevented.
The estate was split into two zones to facilitate the management of conservation and sporting objectives before the Control Agreement began. A population target for the property is set for the moorland zone and totals 1,650 deer, a density of 5.6 deer/km2. The cull to protect the designated woodland is focused on the woodland zone of the estate with effort focussed on controlling all deer in this area. The deer density target on the moorland zone has not been met and deer numbers are higher now than at the start of the control agreement.
The woodland habitat targets have been met and overall browsing levels have reduced. The woodland monitoring is showing that there are more seedlings above the ground vegetation and browsing levels on Scots pine are at a level which will allow regeneration to establish. Broadleaved species are showing a higher level of browsing which, especially for rowan, is likely to limit the chances of seedling establishment.
An assessment of the upland habitats showed that three habitats (dry heath, blanket bog and grassland) have overall impacts in-line with Favourable Condition. Targets for wind- clipped heath have not been met.
Steering group meetings have provided a forum for more constructive discussions and open communication channels on management to take place.
Challenges remain in managing the wider deer population outwith the woodland which is being taken forward through the DMG planning process and the three DMGs – West Grampian Tayside, East Grampian 5 and Cairngorm Speyside DMGs.
33 Annex 10 Site-based assessments of changes in deer numbers and densities with time
(Change in deer numbers (% changes shown in brackets) in top right of each plot where applicable).
Deer Numbers in Woodland-Based Agreements
-71 (-11%) Inverpolly reduction in deer numbers 800 700 600 500 lower target 400 upper target 300 Cull Number of of Number deer 200 100 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Ardvar no change 900 800 700 600 500 400 Cullcull 300 Number of of Number deer 200 100 0 2009 2010 2011 2012
-60 (-3%) Mar Lodge Estate reduction in deer numbers 2500
2000
1500 Target 1000 Cull
Number of of Number deer 500
0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
34 -740 (-69%) Kinveachy reduction in deer numbers 1400 1200
1000 800 Upper target 600 Lower target Cull 400 Number deer of Number 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
-1,987 (-93%) Glen Feshie Estate (Zone 2) reduction in deer numbers 1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800 Cull
Number deer of Number 600
400
200
0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
35 Deer Density in Woodland-Based Agreements
Lower target Inverpolly deer density
8 Upper target
2 Cull 6
4
2 Deer per km 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Ardvar and Quinag deer density
15 2 10 Cull density 5
Deer per km 0 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mar Lodge Estate deer density 10
2 8 6 Target 4 Cullcull density
Deer per km 2 density 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
15
2 Kinveachy deer density 10 Upper target 5
Deer per km Lower target 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Cull density
12
2 10 Glen Feshie estate (Zone 2) deer densities 8 6 4
Deer per km 2 Cull density 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
36 Deer Numbers in Upland-Based Agreements
-574 (-8%) Beinn Dearg reduction in deer numbers 8000
Cull 6000
4000 Upper target (summer)
2000 Number of of deer Number 0 Lower target (summer) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
-446 (-28%) Ben Wyvis reduction in deer numbers
2000
1500 1000 Lower Target Upper Target 500 cul Cull 0
Number deer of Number 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
-222 (-26%) Inchnadamph reduction in deer numbers 1200
1000
800 600 Cull 400 200 Number deer of Number 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
-4,309 (-33%) Breadalbane reduction in deer numbers
15000 Summer target
10000 Cull Predicted 2015 5000 summer Number of of Number deer 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
37 -563 (-21%) Fannich Hills reduction in deer numbers 3500 3000 2500 2000 Count 1500 Target 1000 cullCull
Number deer of Number 500 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Caenlochan
14000
12000
10000 Winter 8000 Summer 6000 Cull Summer target
Number deer of Number 4000 Winter target 2000
0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Deer Density in Upland Based Agreements
Beinn Dearg deer density 20
15 Lower summer 10 target
5 Upper Deer per km2 summer target 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Cu
Ben Wyvis deer density
20 2 15 Lower target 10 Upper target 5 CulCull Deer per km 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
38
Inchnadamph deer density
30
2 20 10 CullCu Deer per km 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Breadalbane deer density 20 15 10 Summer target CullCull Deer per km2 5
0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Fannich Hills deer density 20
2 15 Cull 10 Cull Target 5 Deer per km 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Summer and Winter densities for Caenlochan control area 50
40
2 Winter Density 30 Summer Density Summer Target 20 Winter Target Deer per km 10 CullCull 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
39 Annex 11 Details of changes in Habitat Impact Assessments across Section 7 Agreement areas
Upland Habitats In the plots on the left-hand side, the arrows indicate change, where it is evident, in habitat condition over time (lack of arrow represents no obvious change). Green arrows (↑) represent noticeable improvement, amber arrows (↑) represent slight reduction in impacts and red arrows (↓) indicate deterioration.
The lines in the plots on the left-hand side have been smoothed for presentational reasons. This has resulted in some lines appearing just below zero. This is a consequence of the smoothing and not a reflection of actual numbers.
Ben Wyvis
Ben Wyvis blanket bog overall Ben Wyvis Blanket Bog overall Ben Wyvis Blanketimpacts Bog overall Ben Wyvis Blankettarget Bog overall 100 100 impacts target 100
100 100 Out of
2009 (no NNR) Out of
50 Target 50 2009 (no NNR) Target 2009 (no NNR) 50 2013 50 In Target 2013 50 In Target 2013 % of plots % of % of plots % of 0 % of plots % of 0 2015 plots % of
% of plots % of 2015 Target 2015 0 Target -50 2008 2013 2015
Ben Wyvis Dry Heath overall 2009 Ben Wyvis Dry Heath overall target 100 impacts (Wyvis estate2009) 100
(wyvis Out of
50 estate) Target 2013 50 In Target % of plots % of 0 plots % of % of plots % of % of plots % of 2015 Target 0 -50 2009 2013 2015
Ben Wyvis Wind Clipped Heath Ben Wyvis Wind Clipped Heath overall impacts overall target 100 2009 (no
100 Out of
NNR)
NNR) Target 50 2013 50 In Target 2015 % of plots % of 0 plots % of % of plots % of % of plots % of 0 Target -50 2009 2013 2015
Ben Wyvis Montane Acid Ben Wyvis Montane Acid Grassland overall impacts Grassland overall targets 100 2009
80 (U7&10) 100 60 80 60 40 2013 Out of target 20 40 % of plots % of % of plots % of 20 % of plots % of % of plots % of In Target 0 0 In Target -20 2015 Low Low Low Low Target High High High High Mod Mod Mod Mod 2013 2015 2013 2015 2013 2015 2013 2015 2009* 2009* 2009* 2009* LowMod LowMod LowMod LowMod ModHigh ModHigh ModHigh ModHigh U10 U7 * U7 & U10 U10 U7 40 Caenlochan
Caenlochan Smooth Grassland Species Rich Grassland grazing grazing impacts target 100 100
Out of
Target 50 2008 50 In Target 2012
0 2015 plots % of % of plots % of Target N.B 2008 is the 0 -50 same as 2015 2008 2012 2015
Caenlochan Wind Clipped Heath Caenlochan Wind Clipped Heath overall impacts grazing target 100 100
Out of Target 50 2008 50 IN Target 2012
0 plots % of
% of plots % of 2015 0 Target -50 2012 2015
Caenlochan Blanket Bog overall Caenlochan Blanket Bog trampling impacts target
100 2008 100
50 2012 Out of target 50 % of plots % of 2015 0 IN Target % of plots % of Target 0 2012 2015 Caenlochan Montane Acid Caenlochan Montane Acid Grassland overall impacts Grassland target 100 100
2008 80 50 Out of 2012 60 Target 2015 40 In Target
0 plots % of 20
% of plots % of 0 Target -50 2012 2015 2012 2015 Grazing Target Trampling -100 Target
41 Caenlochan Dry Heath grazing Caenlochan Dry Heath grazing impacts target 100 100 80
80 Out of 60 Target 2008 60 40 In Target 2012 40 20 % of plots % of 2015 plots % of 0 20 Target -20 0 2008 2012 2015
Caenlochan Willow scrub browsing Caenlochan Willow Scrub browsing impacts target 100 100
50 2008 Out of target 50 2012 IN Target
0 plots % of % of plots % of 2015 Target 0 -50 2008 2012 2015
Caenlochan Flush trampling Caenlochan Flush trampling target 100 impacts 100
2008
80 50 2012 60 Out of target 0 2015 40 % of plots % of IN Target % of plots % of 20 -50 0 2008 2012 2015
42 Fannich Hills
Fannich Hills Montane Acid Fannich Hills Montane Acid Grassland impacts Grassland trampling target
100 100
80 Out of 50 Target 2008 60 In Target 0 40 % of plots % of 2015 plots % of Low Low High High
Mod Mod 20 Target -50 LowMod LowMod
ModHigh ModHigh 0 2008 2015 Trampling Browsing
Fannich Hills Blanket Bog impacts Fannich Hills Blanket Bog
100 trampling target
80 100 60
Out of 40 80 Target 20 2008 60 plots % of In Target 0 2015 40
-20 plots % of Low High Mod 20 Target LowMod ModHigh Very High 0 Trampling Grazing 2008 2015
Fannich Hills Dry Heath impacts Fannich Hills Dry Heath browsing target 100
80 100 60 80 Out of 40 Target
% of plots % of 20 60 2008 In Target 0 40 2015 % of plots % of Low Low High High Mod Mod 20 Target LowMod LowMod ModHigh ModHigh 0 Browsing Trampling 2008 2015
43 Inverpolly
Inverpolly Blanket Bog overall Inverpolly Blanket Bog target impacts 100
100 80 Out of Target
60 50 2008 In Target 2013 40 % of plots plots % of 2015 20 Target % of plots % of 0
0 -50 2008 2013 2015
Inverpolly Montane Acid Grassland Inverpolly Montane Acid Grassland overall impacts target
100 100
80 80 Out of 60 Target 2008 60 40 In Target 2013 40 20 % of plots plots % of % of plots % of 2015 0 20 Target -20 0 2008 2013 2015
Inverpolly Dry Heath overall Inverpolly Dry Heath target
impacts 100 100 80 80 Out of Target 60 60 2008 40 In Target 2013 40 % of plots plots % of
% of plots % of 20 2015 20 Target 0 -20 0 2008 2013 2015
44 Breadalbane
Breadalbane Smooth Grassland Breadalbane Smooth Grassland impacts target
100 100 80 80 60 Out of 60 40 2007 Target 40 20 In Target 2011 plots % of 20 0 0 -20 2014
Low Low Target High High Mod Mod
2007 2011 2015 2007 2011 2015 LowMod LowMod ModHigh ModHigh Meall na Carn Gorm Meall Na Samnha Carn Gorm Samnha
Breadalbane Smooth Grassland Breadalbane Smooth Grassland impacts target
100 100 80 80 60 Out of 60 Target 40 2007 40 IN Target 20 2011 0 plots % of 20 2014 -20 Target Low Low 0 High High Mod Mod LowMod LowMod 2007 2011 2015 2007 2011 2015 ModHigh ModHigh Ben Lawers Ben Heasgarnich Ben LawersBen Heasgarnich
Breadalbane Wind Clipped Heath Breadalbane Wind Clipped Heath impacts target 100 100
80 80 60 60 40 2007 Out of target 20 40 % of plots % of 0 2011 plots % of 20 IN target -20 2014 0 Target Low Low High High Mod Mod 2007 2011 2014 2007 2011 2014 LowMod LowMod ModHigh ModHigh Ben Lawers Meall na Ben Lawers Meall na Samnha Samnha
Breadalbane Wind Clipped Heath Breadalbane Wind Clipped Heath impacts target
80 2007 100
60 80 2011 40 60 2014 40 Out of target 20 % of plots % of 20 IN target % of plots % of 0 0 Target Low Low High High
-20 Mod Mod 2007 2011 2014 2007 2011 2014 LowMod LowMod ModHigh ModHigh Meall Carn Meall Ghoardie Carn Gorm Ghoardie Gorm
45
Breadalbane Flush impacts Breadalbane Flush target 100 100
80 80 60 Out of 60 Target 40 2007 20 40 IN Target % of plots % of 2011 plots % of 0 20 -20
Low Low 2014 High High Mod Mod 0 LowMod LowMod
ModHigh ModHigh 2007 2011 2015 2007 2011 2015 Ben Lawers Ben Ben Lawers Ben Heasgarnich Heasgarnich
Breadalbane Flush impacts Breadalbane Flush target
100 100 80
80 60 Out of Target 40 2007 60 IN Target 20 40 % of plots 2011 0 % of plots 2014 20 -20 Low Low High High Mod Mod 0 2007 2011 2015 2007 2011 2015 LowMod LowMod ModHigh ModHigh Meall na Samnha Carn Gorm Meall na Samnha Carn Gorm
Breadalbane Tall Herb impacts Breadalbane Tall Herb target 100 100 80 80 2007 60 2011 60 40 Out of 2014 40 Target % of plots % of % of plots 20 20 IN 0 Target 0 Low Low High High 200720112014 200720112014 Mod -20 Mod
LowMod LowMod ModHigh ModHigh Ben Lawers Ben Heasgarnich Ben Lawers Ben Heasgarnich
46
Breadalbane Tall Herb impacts Breadalbane Tall Herb target 100 100
80 80 Out of
Target 60 2007 60 IN 40 2011 40 Target
plots % of 2014 Target plots % of 20 20
0 0 2007 2011 2014 2007 2011 2014 2007 2011 2014 Low Low Low High High High -20 Mod Mod Mod Meall na Meall Gaordie Carn Gorm Meall na Meall Carn Samnha Samnha Ghaordie Gorm
Breadalbane Willow impacts Breadalbane Willow target 100 100 80 80
Out of 60 2007 60 Target
40 2011 IN 40 Target % of plots % of
% of plots % of 20 2014 20 Target 0 N.B 2007 same as 0 Low Low High High Mod -20 Mod 2011 in 200720112014 200720112014 Ben LowMod LowMod ModHigh ModHigh Ben Lawers Ben Lawers Heasgarnich Ben Lawers Ben Heasgarnich Breadalbane Willow impacts Breadalbane Willow target
100 100
80
2007 80 60 Out of 2011 60 Target 40 2014 40 IN 20 % of plots % of % of plots % of Target 0 20
Low Low High -20 High 0 Mod Mod 200720112014 200720112014 LowMod LowMod ModHigh ModHigh Meall Ghoardie Carn Gorm Meall Ghoardie Carn Gorm
47 Beinn Dearg
Beinn Dearg Blanket Bog impact Beinn Dearg Blanket Bog impacts
distribution versus target 100 100 Out of
80 80 Target 60 60 In 40 2008 40 Target % of plots
20 plots % of 2013 20 0 Target 2015 0 High High Low Low Mod Mod 2008 2013 2015 2008 2013 2015 LowMod LowMod ModHigh ModHigh Trampling Grazing Trampling Grazing
Beinn Dearg Smooth Grassland Beinn Dearg Smooth Grassland 100 impact versus target 2008 100
80 80 Out of
2013 Target 60 60 40 2015 40 In plots % of 20 Target % of plots % of 20 0 0 Target
2008 2013 2015 2008 2013 2015 Low Low High High Mod -20 Mod Smooth grazing Smooth LowMod LowMod ModHigh ModHigh target trampling Grazing Trampling target
Beinn Dearg Wind Clipped Heath Beinn Dearg Wind Clipped Heath impact distribution impacts versus target 100 100 80
60 Out of 50 40 Target 2008 % of plots % of 20 In 0 2013 % of plots % of 0 Target Low Low High High Mod Mod 2015 -50 2008 2013 2015 2008 2013 2015 Target LowMod LowMod ModHigh ModHigh Wind clipped heath Wind clipped Wind-Clipped Wind-Clipped trampling heath grazing Heath Trampling Heath Grazing
Beinn Dearg Montane Acid Beinn Dearg Montane Acid Grassland impact distribution Grassland impacts versus target
80 100
60 80 60 Out of 40 Target 2008 40 20 In Target 2013 plots % of 20 plots % of 0 0 2015
-20 Low Low Target High High Mod Mod 2008 2013 2015 2008 2013 2015 LowMod LowMod ModHigh ModHigh Grazing Target Trampling Trampling Grazing Target
48
Comparison of quantitative indicators for browsing on Salix scrub, 2013 and 2015
60
49 50
40 34.5 2013 30 23 2015
20 16.7
10
0 Average ht of stems (cm) % of shoots browsed
49 Annex 12 Data for woodland habitats derived from Section 7 Control Agreements
Woodland habitats
Kinveachy
Average height across sub compartments versus average browsing across sub compartments 40 80 35 70 30 60 25 50
20 40 Average Height
(cm) 15 30 Average Browsing 10 20
5 10 (%) level Broswing
Average seedling height height seedling Average 0 0 2006200720082009201020112012201320142015
Average height versus average lead shoot browse levels on marked seedlings excluding Sub Compartment 1 40 100 35 80 30 25 60 20 Average Height (cm) 15 40 Average Browsing 10 20
5 (%) level Browsing Average seedling height height seedling Average 0 0 2006200720082009201020112012201320142015
50 Mar Lodge Estate
NTS Report 2014: Average percentage of current year browsing recorded on all the seedlings in the quadrats.
NTS Report 2014: Mean height of marked seedlings within regeneration quadrats. Taken from Mar Lodge Ecologist Report 2014
51 Ardvar
Ardvar average seedling height and browsing level 40 100 35 90 80 30 70 25 60 20 50 Average height 15 40 Browsing 30 10 20 (%) level Browsing 5 10
Average (cm) height seedling Average 0 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Glenfeshie
Glen Feshie average seedling height and browsing level 42 100 37 90 32 80 27 70 60 22 Average Height 50 17 40 Browsing 12 30
7 20 (%) level Broswing 2 10 -3 0 Average (cm) height seedling Average 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Inverpolly
52 Average height change of marked seedlings within compartments of Drumrunie and Inverpolly Estate 7 6 5 4 3 2 Drumrunie 1 Inverpolly 0 -1 2009 2010 2011 2012 -2
(cm) height average in Change -3 -4
53