Section 17 Non-Native Deer Species
1 Public policy in Scotland has long been against expansion of the ranges of Scotland’s two species of non-native wild deer, sika and fallow deer. An illustration of this position described in Section 3 of this Report, was the change in 2011 to s.1 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 to clarify that the conservation of deer only refers to species native to Scotland.
2 Current public policy for deer management in Scotland, as represented by ‘Wild Deer: A National Approach’ (WDNA), includes the objective to “minimise further spread of non-native species in Scotland”. This Section reviews the implementation of that objective for fallow and sika deer respectively. In addition, the commitment in the WDNA as part of that objective to prevent the establishment of muntjac deer in Scotland, is examined.
3 The distributions and estimated population sizes of fallow and sika deer in Scotland were described earlier in Section 2 of the Report, together with the annual cull totals for these species and the distributions of the culls in Scotland.
17.1 Fallow Deer
4 Fallow deer (Dama dama) are native to mainland Europe and have been in Scotland for centuries. They appear to have been first introduced to Scotland as park deer in the 13th century and then became established in the wild from releases or escapes. By the early 20th century, the locations where wild fallow deer populations had become established included Dumfriesshire, Argyll, along the Tay Valley, at Dornoch in Sutherland and on Mull.
5 The distribution map of fallow deer in Scotland at the end of the 1980s in Figure 35 indicates that there had been limited expansion in their distribution by then. That position tends still to be reflected in the continuing statements by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and others that “Fallow deer occur in isolated populations around areas in which they were originally kept in captivity”. SNH also considers that the range of fallow in these areas “is not currently expanding significantly”.
6 Fallow deer are recognised as having a relatively limited tendency to expand their range compared to Scotland’s other species of deer, even where the fallow occur at high densities. However, the distribution map for fallow deer in 2016 in Figure 35 indicates that there has been expansion of fallow range around its traditional areas in Scotland with some now merged together. The map also shows that fallow deer now occur in additional areas due to releases or escapes.
7 The expansion in the range of existing fallow deer populations and the occurrence of fallow deer in new areas, does not match the long-term vision for wild deer in Scotland adopted by the Deer Commission for Scotland (DCS) in 2000. The vision stated that in 15-20 years (i.e. the current period) “There will have been little, if any, expansion in the range of the localised populations of fallow deer and in some cases, a reduction”.
Source: British Deer Society (Records from 2007-16)
8 The Group considers that SNH should be giving the spread of fallow in Scotland more attention than is apparent at present. While the WDNA has the objective to “minimise further spread of non-native deer species in Scotland”, the document only refers to sika deer with no mention of fallow deer. Also, while SNH informed the Group that “it is important to monitor the range and condition of populations of fallow deer”, there seems to be no apparent evidence that SNH is doing this. In addition, SNH continues to quote a national population estimate for the number of fallow deer in Scotland that has become a conspicuous under-estimate based on SNH’s own data from cull returns.
9 Fallow deer can build up to relatively high densities, as demonstrated in both their main concentrations in Scotland: in the Tay valley around Dunkeld and in Dumfriesshire around Annandale. As a herding species, they can cause serious damage to agriculture and woodlands. High densities can also contribute significantly to deer vehicle collisions (DVCs) as, for example, in the Dunkeld area.
10 That area also illustrates that fallow deer are comparatively tolerant of people, coming in to the town as well as causing damage in local gardens. Fallow deer are also occurring in other settlements. The emergence of a new population on the northern side of Aberdeen, for example, means that fallow deer now occur in the Seaton Park area of the city. In England, where fallow deer are much more widespread, significant issues have arisen from fallow deer colonising peri-urban and urban areas.
11 The Group considers that there is a clear, continuing public interest in restricting the distribution of fallow deer in Scotland, so that they and the damage that they can cause do not expand beyond their current range. The Group therefore considers that SNH should have a specific strategy to implement the WDNA public policy objective of minimising the further spread of fallow deer. The relative limited tendency of fallow to expand their range makes this a realistic target.
12 The Group considers that SNH should develop its own distribution maps for fallow deer in each of the localities where fallow deer are known to occur, using cull returns and other local information. SNH should then actively promote in these localities the public policy of minimising further spread and also ensure that fallow deer are being managed at densities that minimise the chance of dispersal outwith the existing locations.
13 The fact that some land owners may like the expansion of fallow on to their land, for example, as an additional species for hunting, should not be allowed to override or damage the public interest represented by the public policy of minimising the spread of fallow as a non-native species. The Group recognises that SNH encourages Deer Management Groups to agree local management to reduce the spread of fallow deer. However, the Group considers that SNH should be prepared to use its regulatory powers under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, to limit the density or spread of fallow deer where this is not happening on a voluntary basis.
14 The main fallow populations in Dumfriesshire and Perthshire should each be a particular focus for this approach. However, the Group considers it is important that SNH also pays attention to the other localities where fallow occur to prevent their further development. Some of these fallow populations appear to have become established relatively recently and an early priority for containing these populations should be those areas where the fallow could give rise to issues in peri-urban areas.
15 The Working Group recommends that Scottish Natural Heritage should develop its own maps of the existing distribution of fallow deer in Scotland and implement a clear strategy to prevent the further spread of these fallow deer populations, including the use of Scottish Natural Heritage’s regulatory powers under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 if necessary.
16 There is also a need for SNH to avoid new fallow deer populations becoming established. The occurrence of fallow deer in new areas seems to have been happening despite the fact that, as fallow deer are a non-native species, any person who releases a fallow deer from captivity or allows a fallow deer to escape from captivity in Scotland is guilty of an offence under s.14(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
17 An example of how captive fallow can lead to fallow becoming established in the wild seems to be illustrated by a recent report from the Cairngorms National Park area. The Mammal Atlas of North-East Scotland recorded for fallow deer “the presence of individuals observed with young in Strath Avon, close to a site known to hold captive animals,” and concluded from this that fallow may now breed at large in the area. SNH was aware of captive fallow in Strath Avon, but not of any free-living fallow deer there. The Group recommended in Section 16 of this Report that SNH and the Cairngorms National Park Authority should be working together to ensure no fallow deer populations become established in the Park.
18 There is limited information on the extent of captive fallow deer in Scotland. While fallow deer are sometimes kept as farmed deer, they were the most common species in Scotland after red deer in the British Deer Society’s 2017 survey of other enclosed and captive deer. The need to address the issue of fallow deer being kept in enclosed areas as so-called park deer and managed as if they were wild deer was discussed in Section 12.
19 The Working Group recommends that Scottish Natural Heritage should be more actively raising awareness that releasing or allowing fallow deer to escape from captivity is an offence, and that Scottish Natural Heritage should be taking enforcement action in any situation where that appears to have happened.
17.2 Sika Deer
20 Sika deer (Cervus nippon) are native to Asia and were introduced into Britain from Japan in the second half of the 19th century. However, by the early 20th century, there had been releases and escapes at a range of locations in Scotland, including in Peebleshire, Fife, Argyllshire, Inverness-shire, Ross-shire, Sutherland and Caithness.
21 Sika deer are predominantly a woodland species and their spread in Scotland from the 1920s mirrored the expansion of large areas of forestry. They are very successful colonisers with pioneer stags travelling relatively long distances to new habitats and hinds following in future years. Sika deer are also a very resilient species and can achieve higher densities than red deer in comparable habitats. They show no reduction in performance at densities which would result in reduced reproductive performance in red deer.
22 The spread of sika deer soon resulted in considerable damage to woodlands through browsing and bark stripping, with sika deer also recognised as more difficult to control than red or roe deer due to their use of thick cover and tendency to become more secretive and nocturnal if frequently disturbed. There was also increasing evidence by the 1970s of hybridisation between sika and red deer resulting in fertile hybrids. This led to the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1982 which, amongst other measures, amended the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 to include sika deer and sika/red hybrids.
23 The establishment of nearly half a million hectares of new woodland in the 1970s and 1980s resulted in the rapid spread of sika deer in many areas. By the 1990s, there was growing concern over the levels of damage by sika deer to woodlands and the spread of hybridisation. The DCS was increasingly concerned that the spread of hybridisation “will eventually lead to the loss of the genetic integrity and possibly the appearance of Scottish red deer”. The DCS reported that “In parts of Scotland it is already impossible to distinguish between ‘pure’ red deer, ‘pure’ sika deer and sika/red hybrids”.
24 The DCS took a number of steps in response to this situation. In 1997, the DCS published ‘A Policy for Sika Deer in Scotland’ and also established a Sika Working Group that published its report ‘Sika Deer in Scotland’ in 1998. The DCS recognised that the red and sika deer in the north of Scotland were likely to become a fully-hybridised population in time. The DCS considered that there was little that could be done to prevent that, but advocated more generally slowing the spread of sika deer by shooting colonising sika and reducing source populations. The DCS also urged the culling of any sika deer found on the open hill.
25 In the South of Scotland, where there had been separate populations of red deer in Galloway and sika deer in the Upper Tweed, these populations had started to have overlapping ranges by the 1990s. The DCS was particularly concerned to protect the integrity of the Galloway red deer and advocated the reduction of the core populations of red and sika deer to minimise dispersal, linked to “a policy of rigorous control” for red deer outwith the core Galloway area and sika deer in all areas. The DCS followed this up with a series of s.7 Control Agreements in the Borders between 1998/99-2002/03 to try to reduce the sika population.
26 A further initiative in the 1990s was an amendment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Under Schedule 9 of that Act, it was already illegal to translocate sika deer to areas where they were not already established in the wild. However, there was concern about establishing island refuges where there had never been sika deer to protect populations of Scottish red deer from hybridisation. As a result, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Variance of Schedule 9) Order 1999 made it an offence to release deer of the genus Cervus in the Outer Hebrides and islands of Arran, Islay, Jura and Rum without a licence. This is now covered by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Keeping and Release and Notifications) (Scotland) Order 2012, Schedule 1, Part 1.
27 A limitation to the island refuges for red deer is that the red deer in the Hebrides are amongst those that have been influenced in the past by the introduction of exotic red deer. The refuges should therefore be seen as conserving a Scottish red deer phenotype rather than a pure genotype.
28 Another weakness in the policy is that it does not cover farmed red deer, which can still be imported to deer farms in the Hebrides. In 2009, for example, it was reported that some imported red deer had recently escaped on the Isle of Barra. The Group considers that this loophole for captive deer should be closed by requiring a licence for any red deer imported into the areas covered by the 2012 Order, including those to be held in captivity due to the chance that the red deer may include sika deer genes.
29 While the DCS had a focused approach in its early years after the 1996 Act on trying to slow the spread of sika, the DCS seemed to give up pursuing its 1997 policy for sika as the 2000s progressed. At the time of that policy, sika deer were estimated to occupy around one third of red deer range. Now, sika deer are considered to occupy 40% or more of red deer range as the expansion of sika deer range continues.
30 Hybridisation also continues to spread. While assortative mating is strong (red-type deer mate selectively with red deer and sika-type with sika) and first generation hybridisation relative rare, the assortative mating can break down with intermediate animals creating ‘hybrid swarms’ that can spread into adjoining areas.
31 The WDNA, first produced in 2008, continues to have as one of its public interest objectives, to “minimise further spread of non-native deer species in Scotland”. However, there appears to be very limited intent in the document to pursue this objective for sika deer. The text notes that sika deer are already established across many parts of Scotland and continue to spread.
32 The WDNA text also comments that, while some land managers view sika deer as an economic opportunity, others see them as a threat due to the significant damage they can cause to forestry and woodlands. Then, after observing that hybridisation occurs in some areas, the text concludes simply that “Where there is local agreement, their spread and the damage they cause will be minimised through active management ”. This quote from the WDNA seems a very limited approach to delivering the public policy objective of minimising the further spread of sika deer and reflects a position where SNH appears to be taking no particular action over sika deer.
33 The Group recognises that SNH encourages Deer Management Groups to agree local management to reduce the spread of sika deer. However, the Group considers that SNH should have a clear national strategy for slowing the spread of sika into new areas as part of implementing the WDNA policy objective, and be required to report on the measures it is taking to support that as part of the ongoing WDNA process. The Group has recommended earlier that the current eight month close season for shooting male sika deer should be removed and the close season for shooting female sika deer shortened.
34 Releasing sika deer from captivity or allowing them to escape from captivity is already an offence in Scotland under s.14(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Group considers that there should also be a clear policy position that the further spread of existing sika deer populations is, as an invasive non-native species, against the public interest and of itself constitutes damage to the natural heritage under the provisions of the deer legislation.
35 The Group considers that, against a clear policy background, SNH should have a targeted approach to where it intends to slow the spread of sika deer. As part of that, SNH should end the approach in the WDNA at present where, if one or more land owners in an area view sika deer as an ‘economic opportunity’, then SNH does not pursue limiting the spread of sika deer. The Group considers, like the DCS in its sika deer policy paper, that the public interest position where an area is at risk from colonisation by sika deer, is that “their potential damage outweighs any sporting gain”.
36 In considering a targeted approach to limiting the spread of sika, the north and west Highlands might be considered more or less fully colonised by sika, as with the core area of sika deer in the Borders. The further spread of sika over time might also be viewed as fairly inevitable given their ability to colonise new woodland areas. However, as the map of the current distribution of sika deer in Figure 36 shows, sika deer are not yet established in most of eastern Scotland, north of the Firth of Forth, as well as most of the Central Belt and much of southern Scotland. The Group considers that it is in the public interest to slow the spread of sika into these areas.
37 The Group considers that SNH should be using its cull return system and other local sources of information to develop more detailed distribution maps for sika deer in Scotland than those produced by the British Deer Society. SNH should then be identifying target areas to slow the spread of sika deer. SNH should seek Forestry and Land Scotland’s support by prioritising the control of any sika deer in National Forest Estate woodlands in the area. SNH should also be communicating clear messages to the other land owners and occupiers in the target area on the need to prevent sika colonising by culling pioneer stags at any opportunity and preventing any build up of sika.
38 SNH should also identify source populations of sika deer behind the front line of the spread, to control those populations to reduce dispersal. SNH should be prepared to use ss.10 and 11 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 to control sika deer if a land owner or occupier is not doing that adequately, with the scope to use s.11 where there is not the physical damage to warrant the use of s.10. SNH could also use s.7 Control Agreements if a more concerted effort is required across a number of properties.
39 A conspicuous area for a targeted approach to limiting the spread of sika deer is the Cairngorms National Park. There are sika deer in the Monadhliaths on the western edge of the Park and sika deer have been spreading eastwards along the northern edge of the Park. Pioneering sika deer have also been culled in a number of locations in the Park over the decades.
40 However, there is no established sika population within the Cairngorms National Park area at present and a study has indicated limited evidence of hybridisation with sika deer amongst red deer in the Park. The Group recommended in Section 16 that SNH and the Cairngorms National Park Authority should be working together to prevent sika deer starting to colonise the Park area.
41 The Working Group recommends that Scottish Natural Heritage should be taking a clearer, more robust approach to minimising the spread of sika deer in Scotland, and should be targeting areas where Scottish Natural Heritage intend to prevent or slow colonisation by sika deer.
17.3 Muntjac Deer
42 The Chinese muntjac deer (Muntacus reevesi) was first introduced into the UK at Woburn Abbey in southern England in the late 19th century. The first known releases into the wild were at Woburn Abbey in 1901 and muntjac deer soon became widely established in the wild in England as a result of escapes from private collections and further releases at new locations. Muntjac deer have continued to spread since, expanding their range throughout England and Wales at an estimated compound rate of around 10% a year over the last four decades.
43 Muntjac deer are a small, non-gregarious and hardy species of deer that have the capacity for rapid population growth and spread. They breed continuously with fawns born at any time of year and both males and females are sexually mature at less than a year old. They colonise deciduous and conifer woodland and other habitats with sufficient cover, including gardens and amenity lands in peri-urban and urban areas. They can reach densities as high as 120 per square km and are recognised as having the capacity to cause “substantial environmental harm”.
44 Public policy in Scotland has long aimed to prevent the establishment of muntjac in Scotland to avoid the damage they would cause as an invasive non-native species. The inclusion of muntjac deer in Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 from 1999, made it illegal to release or allow muntjac deer to escape into the wild.
45 However, the escape of muntjac deer from the Camperdown Wildlife Centre in Dundee in 2004 led to concerns that there was no record of where muntjac deer were kept in Scotland and no procedures for dealing with escapes. In 2005, the DCS produced staff guidance on reporting and investigating any escape of muntjac deer. Then, in 2006, the DCS carried out an audit of known captive muntjac deer in Scotland. This recorded that, while only three of the eight known populations of captive muntjac deer in 2001 remained, four of the eight populations had experienced escapes.
46 The results of the DCS audit and recognition that there might be other muntjac being kept in Scotland that the DCS did not know about, led to legislation to make it illegal to keep muntjac in Scotland without a licence. Since 2011, it has been an offence in Scotland to keep any species of muntjac without a licence from SNH. Initially, this was done through two pieces of secondary legislation in 2011 under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. However, those measures were replaced in 2012 as part of secondary legislation under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
47 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Keeping and Release and Notification Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2012 states that a licence continues to be required to keep muntjac in captivity and that it is also a requirement to report any escapes. Anyone guilty of keeping muntjac without a licence could face a substantial fine, imprisonment or both. The Order also requires an occupier of land who is, or becomes, aware of the presence of muntjac on their land to notify SNH without delay. However, an occupier who fails to follow this statutory requirement is not guilty of committing an offence.
48 Since the 2012 legislation, SNH has issued two licences to keep muntjac. These have been to the Scottish Deer Centre and Heads of Ayr Farm Park. However, the Jedburgh Deer and Forest Park and the Five Sisters Zoo at West Calder were also listed as keeping muntjac in the British Deer Society’s 2017 survey of enclosed and captive deer.
49 The Jedburgh Deer and Forest Park was reported as having one male and two female muntjac in 2011. The Park has since closed and SNH has been unable to make contact with the former owners of the Park to find out what happened to the muntjac. SNH’s approach would be to seek the transfer of any unlicensed muntjac to a zoo in England rather than kill them. The other site, the Five Sisters Zoo, is currently applying for a licence to keep muntjac. However, in 2017 when the zoo was not licensed to keep muntjac, a muntjac escaped from the zoo and was subsequently shot by the owners.
50 That escape, like those recorded by the DCS and the one at Camperdown in 2004 mentioned above, illustrate the capacity of muntjac to escape enclosures. The licences to be issued under the previous 2011 Regulations included detailed specifications for the fences and gates for enclosures for keeping muntjac. However, those specifications are not a requirement under the 2012 Order and the Group’s understanding is that SNH does not set specifications for muntjac enclosures.
51 The current sites in Scotland with captive muntjac may have both sexes. SNH’s position is that it would require the sexes to be kept separately if licensing a site with both sexes. However, SNH is currently unaware of the number and sex of the muntjac at the sites it has licensed.
52 The WDNA objective to “minimise further spread of non-native deer species” includes that “action will be taken to prevent the release and subsequent establishment of non-native deer species, in particular muntjac, in Scotland”. The WDNA also refers to preventing escapes of non-native deer species and “especially muntjac”. However, the Group considers that SNH has not been taking a rigorous enough approach to enforcing the requirement that the keeping of captive muntjac must be licensed. This is illustrated by the Five Sisters Zoo example, the lack of information on the numbers and sexes being kept at licensed sites and the lack of attention to the adequacy of the enclosures used.
53 There may also be other captive muntjac in Scotland of which SNH is unaware. In that context, the Group understands that the implementation of an EU Regulation on Invasive Alien Species will result in SNH writing to all zoos and wildlife parks in Scotland in the near future to make them aware of the need to apply for a licence for keeping muntjac and other species of concern.
54 The licensing and reporting requirements for captive muntjac might, if properly implemented, limit escapes and facilitate control measures to capture or kill any that do escape before they become established in the wild. However, the Group considers that the capacity of muntjac to escape from enclosures and the costly consequences of muntjac becoming established in the wild in Scotland, mean that SNH should have a clear policy against issuing any further licences for keeping muntjac except where an exceptional level of public interest could be clearly demonstrated.
55 The Working Group recommends, firstly, that Scottish Natural Heritage should take a more rigorous approach to identifying sites with captive muntjac and knowing the numbers and sexes of muntjac and adequacy of enclosures at the existing sites licensed to keep muntjac, and secondly, that Scottish Natural Heritage should have a clear policy of not issuing any further licences for keeping muntjac in captivity unless exceptional public interest can be demonstrated.
56 In addition to captive muntjac escaping, there are two other risks of muntjac becoming established in Scotland. These are, as discussed below, the spread of muntjac into Scotland from northern England and deliberate releases of muntjac.
57 There are small isolated muntjac populations in the north of England, as shown in the British Deer Society’s 2016 distribution map for the species shown in Figure 37. This position has led to a presumption that it will only be a matter of time before muntjac start to cross the border into Scotland.
58 The areas with woodland cover on both sides of the border are the most likely to be the routes for colonisation by muntjac into Scotland. The Group considers that SNH should be targeting these areas, actively promoting awareness of muntjac and the requirement on occupiers to report any sighting of muntjac on their land. While SNH states that it raises awareness through press articles and other means, it appears that this tends only to be as a result of a credible reported sighting and not to have happened since 2012.
59 The Group also supports a vigorous programme of detection and control if or when muntjac are recorded. The Group recognises that it is likely to prove difficult to prevent muntjac becoming established if significant numbers start to cross the border. However, the Group considers that investment in detection and control will be worthwhile to limit and slow their spread because of the damage they can cause.
60 The third potential source of muntjac becoming established in Scotland is deliberate releases, despite this being illegal. Figure 38 shows several apparent records of muntjac in Scotland since 1980 and SNH investigates several reported potential sightings each year. SNH considers nearly all of these are unlikely to be muntjac based on witness statements.
61 The majority of records in Figure 38 were unconfirmed or accepted on the basis of the observer’s experience. In five cases there was photographic or physical evidence of muntjac and all of these are considered to have escaped from captivity nearby. SNH’s view is that the muntjac that have been seen have been captured or killed and that there is no established population of muntjac in the wild in Scotland.
Source: British Deer Society (2016)
Source: SNH Information Response 4
62 A particular risk of deliberate releases appears to come from people who like to hunt deer and see muntjac as an additional species to shoot. This translocation of muntjac seems anecdotally to have occurred as part of the expansion of muntjac into northern England, as well as the expanding populations in Ireland and several European countries. Muntjac are relatively easy to capture and move to another location and during the passage of the 2011 muntjac legislation in Scotland, it was noted that muntjac “are becoming increasingly popular as a quarry species in England” and “it is quite possible that someone might transport some animals from England for release in Scotland”.
63 The prevention of muntjac becoming established is part of the WDNA and supported by the organisations representing the deer sector in Scotland. However, the Group considers that it is particularly important that SNH continues to actively promote through those bodies and to deer hunters directly, that it is illegal to have captive muntjac without a licence and illegal to release muntjac into the wild. SNH should, as part of that, emphasise that anyone committing either of those offences could face a substantial fine, imprisonment or both.
64 The costs of muntjac becoming established in Scotland would be high and the Group considers that it is important that SNH continues to raise public awareness of the risk of muntjac on its website and through periodic press articles to encourage any reports of any potential sightings. The Group also considers that SNH should be reporting the awareness raising that it has undertaken each year through the WDNA reporting process.
65 The Working Group recommends that Scottish Natural Heritage should be maintaining a more active focus on the likely routes by which muntjac deer may colonise Scotland from the north of England, and that Scottish Natural Heritage should have an annual programme of raising awareness about muntjac deer to reduce the risks of muntjac deer becoming established in Scotland.
1 Ritchie, J. (1920). The Influence of Man on Animal Life in Scotland. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2 Ritchie, J. (1920) Op cit.
3 SNH (2016). Deer Management in Scotland: Report to the Scottish Government from SNH, October 2016, p.17; Edwards, T. and Kenyon, W. (2013). SPICe Briefing: Wild Deer in Scotland.
4 SNH Information Response 17.
5 DCS (2000). Wild Deer in Scotland: A long-term vision, p.11.
6 SNH (2014). Scotland’s Wild Deer: A National Approach. Including 2015-2020 priorities, p.16.
7 SNH Information Response 17.
8 See Section 2.
9 See, for example, the British Deer Society website.
11 As observed by a Member of the Working Group.
12 Putman, R.J., Watson, P., Green, P. and Langbein, J. (2009). Methods for control of wild deer appropriate for use in the urban environment in England. The Deer Initiative, Report to Defra.
13 As part of the assessments of Deer Management Group carried out by SNH in recent years, as described in Section 26.
14 North East Scotland Biological Records Centre (2017). Mammal Atlas of North-East Scotland and the Cairngorms.
15 DWG correspondence with SNH, 13 May 2019.
16 British Deer Society (2017). Enclosed and Captive Deer Survey.
17 Ratcliffe, P.R. (1987). Distribution and current status of Sika Deer, Cervus nippon, in Great Britain. Mammal Review, 17(1),
18 DCS (1997). A Policy for Sika Deer in Scotland.
19 DCS (1997) Op cit.
20 Red Deer Commission Annual Report, 1992; DCS (1997) Op cit.
21 Ratcliffe (1987) Op cit.
22 See Section 3.
23 DCS (1997) Op cit, p.4.
24 DCS (1997) Op cit, p.4.
25 DCS (1997) Op cit, p.6.
26 See Section 24.
27 Pérez-Espona, S., Pemberton, J.M. and Putman, R.J. (2009). Red and sika deer in the British Isles, current management issues and management policies. Mammalian Biology, 74(4), pp. 247-262.
28 Pérez-Espona et al. (2009) Op cit.
29 DCS (1997) Op cit.
30 Smith, S.L., Senn, H.V., Pérez-Espona, S., Wyman, M.T., Heap, E. and Pemberton, J.M.(2018). Introgression of exotic Cervus (nippon and canadensis) into red deer (Cervus elaphus ) populations in Scotland and the Lake District. Ecology and Evolution, 8(4), pp. 2122-2134.
31 Smith et al. (2018) Op cit.
32 SNH (2014) Op cit, p.16.
33 SNH (2014) Op cit, p.16.
34 As part of the assessments of Deer Management Group carried out by SNH in recent years, as described in Section 26
35 See Section 5.
36 DCS (1997) Op cit, p.4.
37 North East Scotland Biological Records Centre (2017) Op cit.
38 Cairngorms National Park Authority (2011). Deer Framework for the Cairngorms National Park.
39 DCS (2005). Recording and investigating reports of free-living muntjac in Scotland. DCS Staff Guidance.
40 Ward, A.I. and Lees, K. (2011). Analysis of cost of preventing establishment in Scotland of muntjac deer (Muntiacus spp.). Scottish Natural Heritage.
41 Ward and Lees (2011) Op cit.
42 DSC (2005) Op cit.
43 The particular difficulties of controlling muntjac in peri-urban and urban areas are described in Watson et al. (2009) Op cit.
44 Ward and Lees (2011) Op cit, p.1.
45 DCS Annual Report, 2004/05.
46 DCS (2005) Op cit.
47 Explanatory Note produced by Scottish Government to accompany The Muntjac Keeping (Scotland) Order 2011.
48 The Keeping of Muntjac (Scotland) Order 2011 and The Keeping of Muntjac (Scotland) Regulations 2011.
49 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Keeping and Release and Notification Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2012.
50 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, s.21.
51 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Keeping and Release and Notification Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2012, paragraph 4.
52 SNH Information Response 4.
53 DWG correspondence with SNH 10 December 2018.
54 British Deer Society (2017) Op cit.
55 Ward and Lees (2011) Op cit.
56 DWG correspondence with SNH 9 May 2019.
57 DWG correspondence with SNH 9 May 2019.
58 DWG correspondence with SNH 9 May 2019.
59 SNH Information Response 4, reported as recaptured in WDNA Annex ‘Summary of Progress with 2017/18 Actions’.
60 DWG correspondence with SNH 9 May 2019.
61 SNH (2014) Op cit, p.16.
62 SNH (2014) Op cit, p.26.
63 DWG correspondence with SNH 9 May 2019; Regulation (EU) No. 1143/2014.
64 Ward and Lees (2011) Op cit.
65 Ward and Lees (2011) Op cit.
66 SNH Information Response 4 and DWG correspondence with SNH, 9 May 2019.
67 Ward and Lees (2011) Op cit.
68 SNH Information Response 4.
69 SNH Information Response 4.
70 Explanatory Note produced by Scottish Government to accompany The Muntjac Keeping (Scotland) Order 2011.
71 SNH (2014) Op cit; SNH (2018) WDNA Action Plan for 2018/19.
72 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, s.21.
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback