Chamber and committees

Two different sets of tests were carried out. There was a review of welfare issues using image-intensifying rifle sights for culling deer at night. I do not know what ammunition was used for that testing. There was separate testing on the use of copper bullets. That testing looked extensively at where the animal was hit and whether it was still possible to dispatch the animal humanely. Both of those tests have been done.

Scotland’s chief veterinary officer was one of the members of the deer management round table.

I want to make it really clear that night shooting requires an authorisation from NatureScot. The authorisation requires that the good practice guidelines be met and that NatureScot is allowed to come and see the site where the night shooting will take place and even to accompany the practitioners when they do that. That is unchanged—night shooting requires that special authorisation.

We know that there is demand for this move because, as I said, 17 per cent of the animals that are culled are shot at night. The need for authorisation will not change: night shooting will still require that special authorisation and special oversight from NatureScot. Again, the legislation does not make night shooting a requirement. People who wish to manage their deer at night may now use these new technologies—that is what has changed. It is a new option open to land managers, should they wish to use it. They are absolutely not required to do so, but if they do, they will be required to obtain the correct authorisation from NatureScot.

Certainly, convener.

The proposal to reduce the minimum ammunition weight to shoot deer will make non-lead ammunition more accessible. That is important as venison suppliers switch to accepting only carcases that are shot with non-lead ammunition.

The use of night sights will allow longer deer shooting hours, especially in the winter months, and more effective culling operations in areas where deer use the cover of forest and woodland during the day and then, during hours of darkness, come out into more open areas, where they can be shot more easily.

The measures are part of a wider package of deer reforms that are designed to deliver a range of public outcomes, including native woodland expansion, the protection and enhancement of peatlands, and the reduction of human health and safety concerns on issues such as Lyme disease and road traffic accidents. I thank all the organisations and individuals that have contributed to their development and to delivering on these vital objectives.

As the committee probably knows, deer numbers have doubled in Scotland since 1990. That is not a sustainable trajectory, given that deer can have serious impacts on the environment through overgrazing and trampling of vulnerable habitats, preventing young trees from growing. Research on the national forest estate in 2013 found that 15 to 20 per cent of young trees at that time had been damaged by deer—and, of course, deer numbers are higher today.

In 2021, a ClimateXChange report found that browsing changes the plant diversity and foliage present, which alters our potential to capture carbon. High levels of grazing are likely to affect bog species, and associated trampling causes greater levels of damage by breaking up the moss layer and exposing bare peat. Overgrazing occurs at a much lower density in bogs compared to forestry as well. Furthermore, Forestry and Land Scotland estimates that the cost of deer damage to on-going management is around £10 million a year and is at least £47 million a year across Scotland. Between 2015 and 2020, Scottish Forestry spent just under £19 million on deer fencing.

In addition to the environmental concerns that the member highlights, there are human and public safety concerns with regard to deer-vehicle collisions. It is estimated that there are between 8,000 and 14,000 deer-vehicle collisions in Scotland every year, and, in 2016, a report estimated that DVCs in Scotland cost £13.8 million, although the deer working group found that that number is very much higher. So, you can see that the issue is affecting not only our forest and tree regeneration. Having high numbers of deer affects many aspects of society and is very costly.

The intention of the SSI is to allow the use of the additional technology that we have mentioned. As you suggest, using the lamping technique might not be everyone’s preference, and the change opens up the possibility of using night sights.

It should be noted that that means that the sights can be used during the day, too—that is currently not allowed—which is an additional tool for the land managers, who will have that option should they wish to use it.

I do not have that data in front of me.

This measure is one piece of a much broader programme of work that the deer working group identified. The measure on its own will not help us to achieve the results that we need, but it is one piece of the puzzle that has been recommended to us, so I recommend it to you all as something that was proposed by the deer working group, based on its evidence. It allows land managers to do something that they are already doing, but with less paperwork. It gives them the choice, as part of our measures to increase the number of deer that are culled in Scotland, which we know that we need to do because of the growth in numbers.

If we were to continue to allow its use, yes. It is with the manufacturer to bring forward its evidence. One reason why the emergency authorisation was rejected is that the manufacturer has been repeatedly asked to show the evidence that the product does not have that effect. If it can provide that information, and, as Rachael Hamilton said, it intends to do that research and share its evidence, that is fine. Once it does so, the matter can be reconsidered.

All these measures are intended to make it easier to manage deer, and part of that involves giving land managers more tools to do so. This measure is part of the kit to allow that to happen.

As one measure on its own, it will not achieve that—it is part of the whole picture and is, relatively, such a small piece of the puzzle. It removes one bit of the administrative burden as part of a large programme and that is how it needs to be pictured. It may well increase the number of land managers who choose to manage in that way.

The cull return information that NatureScot gets will be the same as it gets now—that is unchanged.