Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is to be decided. The James Hutton Institute provided an evidence review that identified all the gaps, which is now with the Scottish Government to think about how we want to move that forward. At the round table last week, we discussed the research priorities. I have committed to writing to the committee about how we intend to take forward that research.

That is an excellent question. The work of the deer working group was primarily around concerns about what the deer are nibbling on. Those concerns are partly commercial, relating to crops and forestry, but they are also environmental. Overgrazing causes environmental and commercial problems, which is why we need to address the overall deer numbers.

The member touches on the point that the legislation will not solve the whole problem on its own. The working group made 99 recommendations and this single, relatively minor change to the paperwork that is needed to manage male deer out of season will not resolve the problem by itself. However, it is a small step towards that. It is one tool that we can use to support land managers to do what they already want to do. We know that some land managers wish to manage their deer in that way, and the instrument means that they will be able to do so without the paperwork. It is nice to be able to remove a paperwork burden where we can. Where our interests align, in that land managers want this option and the Scottish Government wishes to update deer management, it is a good thing that we are able to do that.

It is unknown how many land managers would wish to manage their deer that way over and above what is currently being done. The percentage of male deer that are shot out of season has gradually increased from 23 per cent in 2013 to 48 per cent between 2019 and 2020—almost a 5 percentage point increase per year. Therefore, even with the current authorisation requirement, there has been a steady year-on-year increase in the number of land managers who wish to manage their deer in that way. I cannot predict how many more land managers might wish to take up the option. The number might increase, but we will, to some extent, have to wait and see. Given that such a significant proportion of deer are already being managed in that way, land managers clearly have an appetite for it.

I do not have that information in front of me.

Forestry and Land Scotland has to prepare the authorisation forms and send them in. NatureScot then has to process them. The forms are never declined; they are always accepted, so there is no need for that step to be taken.

All deer, of either sex, do damage through overgrazing. By reducing male deer numbers we will reduce that impact, particularly in the season in which they are removed.

I think that you are alluding to the fact that, for long-term deer management, we also need to manage female deer numbers. I do not want to be distracted by this particular bit of legislation, which is, as we have discussed, one part of the 99 recommendations for updating deer management in Scotland. The other two items that we are discussing today, of course, apply to female deer, as do many of the items that come under those 99 recommendations.

The order is just one small piece of the puzzle of that picture. The measure was identified by the deer working group as an opportunity to reduce paperwork and align interests, and it recommended that we undertake it.

The member might know that in England, Wales and Ireland, for example, male deer can be culled during the rut, and that has been the case for many years without there being any significant concern about welfare. It is common practice in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are no welfare concerns about hunting male deer at any particular time of the year over and above whether the deer is tired when you shoot it, which does matter to that particular deer. It is up to the stalkers—

Absolutely. The figures that I have come from the deer working group, which looked into the evidence to present the 99 recommendations. The change that we have seen since the 1950s is that roe deer and red deer are now established across Scotland. They have increased their ranges. In 1959, the estimated red deer population was around 155,000 individuals. By 1990, that estimate had doubled. In 1990, the total deer population was estimated to be 500,000 individuals. In 2020, the deer working group estimated that we were approaching 1 million individuals, so the figure had doubled again. That estimate was made in 2020, which is three years ago, so the figure is likely to be higher now.

I am not aware that any have been rejected.

I think that that is true—the land managers understand the need to manage deer. That is why so many deer management groups are largely voluntary organisations in which land managers have got together with their neighbours to figure out how to manage deer. The specific awareness of those exact 99 recommendations will vary, of course. Not all of them are legislative changes—some are changes to other policy areas or to the work of NatureScot and so on, so there is quite a broad range of actions.

The issue of how to reduce deer numbers in Scotland is not a simple one like legislating for people to wear seat belts; it is about a whole bunch of things, including legislation, to help to turn the ship in a slightly different direction. The existing legislation has not been sufficient to prevent the damage to tree growth, crops and human health and safety in the way that was hoped in 1959, when it was passed. The measures that we are considering today are part of that work.

When meeting stakeholders and deer management groups, I find that they are keen to emphasise that they understand the need for deer management and have concerns for animal welfare, as has been discussed. However, most of their issues are about funding and how to pay for things, or, if someone wants to manage deer differently from how their neighbour does it, they want to know how to resolve those interests. Mostly, very practical issues come up.