Sustainable Deer Management A Case Study Report for the Deer ...

Sustainable Deer Management 

A Case Study Report for 

the Deer Commission for Scotland 

ESTATE 

Key 

Findings 

DMG 

MONITOR 

R Rose March 2010

Introduction 

Wild deer are widespread throughout Scotland, 

present in woodlands, open hill and increasingly on 

the edges of urban areas affecting land managers and 

society in many different ways with associated costs 

and benefits. 

Deer management in Scotland has been primarily 

influenced by the fact that, in the wild, deer belong 

to no one until killed or captured and they can freely 

cross boundaries between different land ownerships 

which may have differing land management 

objectives. 

As a result a collaborative approach to deer 

management has been developed through the 

formation of voluntary Deer Management Groups 

(DMGs) which are run by representatives of the 

landholdings in the area to manage the local deer 

population as a common resource (Fig 1 – map of 

DMG coverage). 

DMG’s cover most of the red deer range in the 

uplands but little of the area of the lowlands where 

roe deer predominate. These arrangements have 

been effective in some areas where there are similar 

private objectives amongst land managers. However, 

there is general agreement that in their current form 

they struggle to address or resolve conflicting private 

objectives or to deliver multiple public benefits. 

Partly in response to this, the Deer Commission 

for Scotland (DCS) has to focus resources on 

specific geographical locations where deer are 

having a detrimental impact on the natural heritage, 

agriculture or public safety. This essentially reactive 

approach to deer management problems is expensive 

and is regarded as a temporary stop-gap in a longerterm 

proactive approach to sustainable deer 

management (SDM). 

In order to inform a more proactive approach, the 

Sustainable Deer Management Project, governed by 

a Steering Group with representation from Forestry 

Commission Scotland (FCS), Scottish Natural 

Heritage (SNH), DCS and the Association of Deer 

DMGs 

Case Study 

areas 

Fig.1. Deer Management Group map 

Management Groups (ADMG), has been working 

over the last 20 months to better understand what 

local and national Sustainable Deer Management 

(SDM) looks like. 

W Sutherland E Sutherland 

Through one-to-one meetings with over 90 

landowners, factors, stalkers, non-government 

organisations (NGOs) and community councillors the 

project has sought to: 

S Perthshire 

Borders 

♦♦ 

improve understanding of what SDM is and 

identify aspects that can be quantified, 

♦♦ 

articulate both the private and public interest 

delivered through SDM, 

♦♦ 

understand and improve the role of DMGs 

and land managers in delivering SDM and the 

decision-making processes behind delivery, 

♦♦ 

consider appropriate management mechanisms 

and support tools to underpin delivery of SDM. 

2 Sustainable Deer Management • 24.06.10 © DCS 2010 • www.dcs.gov.uk

The participants were chosen to include views from 

all over Scotland, ranging from the traditional open 

hill deer forest of the highlands, grouse moors and 

forests to the lowlands near cities (see fig.1). 

2. Key Findings 

Evaluating Sustainable Deer 

management 

To fully understand what sustainable deer 

management is and what it looks like, a range of 

criteria were developed and identified for participants 

to consider. These ranged across the 3 pillars of 

sustainability – environmental criteria, economic 

criteria and social criteria and also included some 

cross cutting themes considered essential for delivery 

(refer to annex on p.12 for list of criteria used). 

Participants were asked to consider those criteria 

which best described what they considered to be 

the key deer management objectives needed to make 

their land management sustainable and describe how 

they measure if these are being achieved or not. 

The results have been analysed, ranked and 

evaluated at the local and national scale. The results 

demonstrate a range of relative importance of the 

criteria identified for each Case Study area which 

helps illustrate the way deer are regarded for a given 

locality. Comparisons of the relative importance 

of criteria between sites allows consideration and 

evaluation of what SDM could look like on both a 

local and national scale. 

For instance, the forestry sector in case study no.1 

is very focused on a few key economic, technical and 

environmental criteria to achieve SDM and attaches 

less importance to the social elements. 

To consider the key elements of SDM on a national 

scale, there were five criteria which consistently 

came top of the list across all the case studies. (see 

fig.2.) 

♦ ♦ Safeguard Welfare of all deer species. 

Welfare issues ranged from deer health 

through to minimising suffering associated 

with road traffic accidents (RTAs), poaching 

etc. and the relative importance of each varied 

depending on locale 

♦♦ 

Conserve/Enhance Biodiversity. The 

importance of conserving biodiversity was a 

given, particularly within the semi-natural and 

more extensively managed landscapes. 

♦♦ 

Maintain balanced integration between 

agriculture, forestry & natural heritage. 

Deer management was always considered 

in the context of the main land uses of the 

landholding with the aim of achieving maximum 

net benefit across all the different parts. 

♦♦ 

Minimise costs associated with Wild Deer. 

Costs were associated with damage to crops/ 

habitat, employing professional deer managers, 

developing/maintaining infrastructure 

♦♦ 

Deer management is proactive and to 

an industry recognised standard (Best 

Practice). 

However, in analysing a limited number of case 

studies in this way, we may fail to pick up on 

nationally important criteria which are site specific 

e.g Securing favourable condition of designated sites 

was always deemed essential if an SSSI or similar was 

on a landholding but otherwise was considered less 

important. 

Private and Public Benefit 

Associated with Sustainable Deer 

management 

The Case Studies enabled comparison of SDM in 

differing local contexts and circumstances which 

allowed comparisons between areas where deer 

management is considered the main land use 

as opposed to areas where deer are managed 

to minimise negative impacts on other land use 

objectives. 


fig.2. Key elements of SDM 

♦♦ 

Deer management 

is proactive 

♦ ♦ Safeguard deer 

welfare 

♦♦ 

Conserve/enhance 

biodiversity 

♦♦ 

Maintain balanced integration 

between agriculture, forestry 

and natual heritage 

♦♦ 

Minimise costs associated 

with deer management 

In all cases there was a blend of economic, 

recreational and aesthetic benefit associated with 

delivery of SDM, the relative value of each, differing 

between sites and to a lesser extent between 

individuals within each site. (see fig.3.) 

Most of the public funding which currently 

supports deer management is either associated 

with improving the condition of designated sites or 

paid to support woodland establishment. Over the 

remainder of Scotland, any public benefit currently 

associated with deer and their management is a 

by-product of private sector land management 

aspirations. Evidence from the Case Studies 

demonstrates that nurturing the SDM process will 

ensure continued and enhanced contributions to the 

outcomes of a broad spectrum of National Strategies 

and provide additional site-specific public benefits. 

Delivering SDM through 

Collaboration 

There is general agreement from the majority of 

participants that DMGs are a good concept, which 

allow co-ordination and flow of relevant information 

and discussion on how to manage a common 

land resource - but they could do more - and 

participants recognised that the voluntary system 

has its limitations. For instance, it can be difficult to 

achieve consensus amongst members, DMG’s are 

not regarded as decision-making bodies and are 

weakened by non-attendance of some land managers. 

To support sustainable deer management, DMGs 

have to carry out certain functions and take on 

specific roles which enable members to manage the 

shared resource of deer and the landscape on which 

they reside. After a wide ranging literature review on 

this subject, participants were asked to consider a list 

of 16 key roles of a DMG. Interviewees were asked 

to record which they regarded as the most important 

for attaining sustainable management of the deer 

resource in their area, and also which functions they 

did not consider essential, but that would lead to 

additional benefit if attained. (see fig.4). 


fig.3. The private and public 

benefits of SDM 

key: 

A Ensure skills, 

knowledge and 

training development 

to manage deer 

B Native deer are 

recognised as an 

iconic species and an 

asset 

C Conserve/enhance 

biodiversity 

D Guided by a Deer 

Management 

Plan and Policy 

Document 

E Deer management 

is proactive and to a 

industry recognised 

standard (BP) 

F Develop the market 

and supply chain for 

venison 

G Secure favourable 

condition of 

designated sites 

H Safeguard welfare of 

all deer species 

I Provide security for 

jobs of good quality 

J Maintain balanced 

age structure across 

the age profile 

K Minimise costs 

associated with wild 

deer 

H 

G 

I 

F 

community 

L Maintain balanced 

integration between 

agriculture, forestry 

& natural heritage 

M Ensure estate 

viability 

N Deer management 

assists achievement 

of multiple land 

management 

objectives 

O Minimise negative 

impacts of deer in/ 

around communities 

P Contribute to 

safe and healthy 

environment for 

people 

J 

82 

64 64 100 

73 

73 

91 

73 91 

82 

D 

E 

N 

M 

C 

A 

F 

L 

46 

42 

58 

B 

C 

A 

42 33 

67 

83 

H 

92 

J 

D 

88 

K 

88 

F 

P 

O 

53 53 

66 

66 

66 

73 

B 

E 

D 

forestry 

93 

80 

A 

87 

87 

E 

lowland 

colour key: 

H 

L 

common to all 

common to some 

uncommon 

These pie charts 

illustrate the top 

10 ranked benefits 

of SDM listed by 

participants in 3 case 

studies 

3. CONCLUSIONS 

Evaluating Sustainable Deer management 

Despite the fact that deer management objectives 

and techniques change with factors like geology, 

geography, land use, estate size, and resident deer 

species, five objectives consistently came top of the 

list across all of the case studies. 

This suggests that there is wide ranging support 

across the Scottish deer industry for “strong” 

sustainable development where the limitations of 

land are identified, and understood. Consequently 

there is broad agreement between both the private 

sector and government on the key environmental and 

economic objectives associated with SDM. 

♦ ♦ Safeguard deer welfare 

♦♦ 

Conserve/enhance biodiveristy 

♦♦ 


agriculture, forestry and natural heritage 

♦♦ 

Minmise costs associated with deer 

management. 

These are delivered and based on the premise that 

any deer management activity should be carried out 

proactively and to an industry recognised standard 

(Best Practice). These sentiments are reflected in the 

Wild Deer: A National Approach (2008). 

However, there is evidence to suggest that 

although the private sector has regard for the social 

benefits which are relevant for their locality, they 

tend not to attach as much importance to them as 

the costs attached to their achievement outweighs 

any private benefit. 

To deliver on both a local and a national scale and 

in the long-term, the objectives of SDM are only one 

part of the Sustainable Deer Management process. 


fig.4. Essential roles of a DMG 

monitor 

& adapt 

Use standard monitoring 

methods 

Provide regular reports to 

DMG members 

induce 

compliance 

Agree what information 

is needed to manage the 

deer sustainably 

capacity building 

Agree DMG boundary 

DMG to have a clear set of 

objectives 

Use local information 

Reflect local constraints & 

opportunities 

develop consensus 

This process requires an ability for all land mangers 

to adapt to changing circumstances (environmental, 

economic and social) through objective monitoring 

and if required adopt a change of management 

prescriptions. 

Since deer can move freely across land ownership 

boundaries, it is more appropriate for SDM to be 

measured at a suitably large spatial scale where 

deer and the landscape within which they exist can 

be considered to be a shared resource. Delivery of 

SDM will require land managers, DMGs and Agencies 

to agree the scale, identify their particular role in 

the process and recognise that the current lack of 

objective monitoring of deer impacts on habitats or 

crops, habitat condition or business viability at the 

individual land unit level has a significant detrimental 

knock on effect on this process. (see fig.5). 

Ideally the process would enable land managers 

to pursue land use objectives into the long-term 

with the minimum of bureaucracy by satisfying 

government agencies that public benefit is 

secured. Development of a code of sustainable 

deer management, which identifies and agrees the 

minimum standards for a range of public benefits, 

will assist this process. However until such times 

as agreed standards are developed and assigned 

to differing habitats and landscapes and the other 

associated public benefits identified in this report, it 

will be difficult to measure if SDM is being delivered 

in any given location. 


fig.5. The SDM Process 

♦ ♦ Safeguard Deer Welfare 

♦♦ 

Conserve/Enhance Biodiveristy 

♦♦ 


agriculture, forestry and natual heritage 

♦♦ 

Minimise costs associated with Deer 

management 

LEARN 

participate 

YES 

pass on 

information 

to DMG 

YES 

measure if 

objectives are 

being achieved 

YES/NO 

NO 

LEARN 

& 

ADAPT 

NO 

measure 

if DMG 

objectives are 

being achieved 

YES 

NO 

co-operate 

with DMG 

membership 

Private and Public Benefit 

Associated with Sustainable Deer 

management 

Whilst it is relatively easy to present broad-brush 

statements describing the private and public benefits 

associated with SDM in each Case Study area we 

are currently unable to take this any further and 

complete any meaningful detailed cost-benefit 

analysis. In order to do this we would need to 

allocate monetary values to the benefits associated 

with the cultural and environmental benefits, such 

as ecosystem services. This would require the 

development of suitable indicators with allocated 

standards to measure against. Such information is 

important for the SDM decision-making process to 

enable amongst other things: 

♦♦ 

The development of a fiscal incentive scheme 

which is both attractive to the private sector 

and identifies the additional public benefits 

(environmental, economic, social) which are 

being bought by the public purse. 

♦♦ 

A credible calculation of the trade-offs 

associated with environmental and socioeconomic 

impacts of deer management. 

♦♦ 

Adaptive management by deer managers 

through the development and use of support 

tools which allows the integration of biological, 

social, economic and institutional information. 

Deer Management Groups 

If voluntary DMGs are to remain the main institution 

to facilitate and deliver SDM in Scotland, they need 

to adopt the characteristics and principles which 

are generally deemed important for long-term 


sustainable governance of natural resources as 

suggested by Dietz, Ostrom & Stern (2003)*: 

to: 

♦♦ 

Simple and cost effective monitoring and 

reporting on the resource and use of the 

resource by members. 

♦ ♦ Enabling members to maintain frequent face 

to face communications thus increasing the 

potential to trust and lowering the cost of 

compliance monitoring. 

♦ ♦ Nurturing members support for compliance. 

♦ ♦ Providing timely and objective information that 

explains areas of uncertainty and tradeoffs. 

♦ ♦ Dealing with conflict using a participatory 

process. 

♦ ♦ Providing a support infrastructure for 

members. 

♦ ♦ Support moderate rates of change in the 

resource in response to internal and external 

changing circumstance. 

This process would enable the DMG membership 

♦♦ 

Gather their own information on their 

particular deer population’s welfare, landscape/ 

habitat/crop condition, general business 

viability, wider community considerations and 

use this to agree the best way forward to 

achieve the greatest benefit for all concerned. 

♦♦ 

Adapt to changing environmental, economic 

and social circumstances in a timely way 

through objective monitoring. 

Crucially the voluntary approach would also require 

a process that enabled it to deal effectively with 

disagreements between members and deal with 

those whose actions may significantly impact the 

DMG’s ability to achieve statutory obligations and the 

greatest benefits, but who do not actively engage/ 

co-operate with the DMG membership. 

The responses from the Case Studies provide 

a current snapshot of land managers views on the 

various stages of the above process and displays: 

1. Strong support for: 

♦♦ 

Agreeing what information is needed to 

sustainably manage the shared resource 

♦♦ 

Clearly defined DMG boundaries 

♦♦ 

Clear objectives which are established using 

local information and reflect local constraints 

and opportunities 

♦♦ 

Measuring (deer welfare, habitat, crop damage, 

business viability) and reporting back to the 

DMG membership on a regular basis. 

2. Agreement that added value could be derived 

from: 

♦♦ 

Agreeing membership roles to supply the 

required information to the DMG 

♦♦ 

Sourcing training/equipment if required 

♦♦ 

Utilising NGOs & Agencies in information 

gathering where applicable 

♦♦ 

Working out how to best take account of the 

views of the wider community. 

♦♦ 

Majority of members agreeing on objectives 

♦♦ 

Providing appropriate conditions to resolve 

disagreements 

♦♦ 

Adapting to changing circumstances 

The one principle for which there was little 

support or perceived value was that of developing 

consequences for non-compliance of DMG 

objectives/rules. (see fig. 6). 

Supporting Delivery - Scottish 

Rural Development Programme 

At present, the Scottish Rural Development 

Programme (SRDP) is the only source of public 

funding to support deer management related 

activities. Despite encouragement, the deer industry 

has been slow to take advantage of the resources 

that are now available and the Case Studies provides 

a partial insight as to why this is the case. 

Other than land managers seeking to expand and 

establish woodlands on land with nature conservation 

designations, there is little take-up by land managers 

for deer management purposes. 

Evidence from the case studies suggests the main 

reasons for this include: 

*Dietz T., Ostrom E. & Stern P. C. (2003). The Struggle to 

Govern the Commons. Science, New Series, 302907-1913 


fig.6. Essential roles of a DMG 

monitor 

& adapt 

Standard monitoring methods 

Adapt to circumstances 

Provide regular reports 

induce 

Provide disagreement 

resolution 

Agree procedures for 

non-compliance 

compliance 

Participant priority key: 

essential functions 

functions with potential added value 

functions with little support 

Agree info needs 

Agree membership roles 

Source training 

Utilise agencies 

capacity building 

Agree DMG boundary 

Clear objectives 

Democratic setting of objectives 

Use local information 

Reflect local constraints 

Objectives acceptable to all 

Majority agreement of objectives 

develop consensus 

♦♦ 

a lack of “deer specific” options available for 

land managers. 

♦♦ 

the current payment rates are not attractive 

enough to justify employing external expertise. 

♦♦ 

the application process is complex and 

competitive. 

♦♦ 

the added complexity when sheep are also 

present on the ground: problems arise in the 

application process when trying to make a 

collaborative application. 

Participants generally agreed that SRDP funding 

could usefully support DMGs and consideration 

should be given to: 

♦♦ 

Collaborative applications for multiple 

properties, 

♦♦ 

Provision of training for stalkers and land 

managers (e.g. habitat monitoring), 

♦♦ 

Provision of additional man-power for deer 

counting and stalking, 

♦♦ 

Supporting independent counts. 

In negotiating changes to SRDP it is clear that any 

measures must demonstrate the delivery of additional 

tangible public benefits over and above that which 

might be expected as a legal duty/responsibility. 

However, there is a cultural hurdle to be 

overcome in making public funding more widely 

available to deer managers in exchange for the 

delivery of public benefits; to make this acceptable to 

both them and the public. 


4. NEXT STEPS 

Since SDM has the potential to positively contribute 

to the outcomes of a broad spectrum of National 

Strategies and provide additional site-specific public 

benefits it would be appropriate for government to 

consider options for supporting the process. 

It would be appropriate for government to 

consider options for supporting each of the key 

stages of the SDM process utilising an appropriate 

blend of providing information, advice and training; 

promoting voluntary agreements, imposing 

regulation, use of financial instruments (incentives 

through to taxes), creating new markets and 

instigating relevant research. 

The cross-cutting objective must be to promote 

the role land managers play as individuals and as 

members of a DMG, and where appropriate assist 

them to fulfil their role. One option would be the 

development of an interactive web based tool to 

provide advice, information, guidance on individual 

roles and actions required of them and how they 

might best go about performing these actions. 

Evaluating Sustainable Deer 

management 

Evidence from the Case Studies suggests that land 

managers are already incentivised to attain most of 

the economic and environmental criteria described 

as nationally important in the recently published 

Scotland’s Wild Deer: A National Approach (wDNA). 

This project, in addition to the legislative review of 

the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, has highlighted that 

deer managers, individually and collectively, would 

benefit from the provision of better information, 

advice and guidance on their individual roles and how 

they might best go about performing these actions. 

It is also clear that certain objectives listed in the 

wDNA which were considered in this study to be 

of additional benefit and could produce added value 

with government assistance: 

♦ ♦ Ensure skills, knowledge and training 

development to manage deer. 

♦♦ 

Develop the market and supply chain for 

venison. 

In addition the social benefits of SDM were 

consistently considered as desirable across all sites. 

Hence, land managers/DMGs may also benefit from 

advice on communicating with the local community 

through the development of best practice guidance. 

Since SDM is a process rather than an endpoint the 

Code of Practice for responsible deer management 

proposed under the Wildlife & Natural Environment 

Bill Consultation, will assist the development of 

criteria based indicators which can be readily 

measured by land managers. These indicators will 

need to be robust and accepted by land managers, 

yet relatively easy and cheap to attain. The standards 

attached to these indicators would then provide the 

“goal posts” for land managers to measure success/ 

failure against on a local basis and satisfy government 

agencies that land is being managed sustainably. 

Scottish Rural Development 

Programme 

The Scottish Government and Association of Deer 

Management Groups (ADMG) should seek to 

influence SRDP measures to support collaborative 

planning and local capacity building. 

Consideration will also have to be given to how 

these measures relate to cross-compliance and the 

legislative framework being proposed to bolster the 

voluntary DMG approach. 

Deer Management Groups 

Scottish Government, in partnership with the ADMG 

and their membership, need to ensure that right 

blend of “carrot and stick” will: 

♦ ♦ minimise government regulation and 

bureaucracy 

♦ ♦ encourage the DMG membership to develop 

the necessary capacity 


♦♦ 

enable land managers to take “ownership” 

of the information and various processes 

associated with SDM. 

As such, government advice, information, training 

and fiscal incentive should focus on developing local 

capacity, with particular emphasis on those parts of 

the process where there is most potential to achieve 

added value. 

Some important DMG functions cannot easily be 

allocated to any one person within the membership 

to perform and since DMGs are run on a voluntary 

basis, most office bearers have full-time jobs and 

may have difficulty in providing the additional focus, 

energy and time required to improve the DMG 

performance. In such cases, DCS staff will aim 

to provide direct support to DMG’s to focus on 

supporting the implementation of those functions 

which were consistently considered difficult to 

achieve in practice as a consequence of requiring 

additional input in time or resources. 

However, in addition and in order for the voluntary 

approach to successfully deliver SDM, certain key 

DMG functions need to be backed up by legislation 

to make sure that they can: 

♦♦ 

Deal effectively with those whose actions 

may significantly impact on a DMG’s ability to 

achieve the greatest benefit, but who do not 

actively engage/co-operate with the DMG 

membership. 

♦♦ 

Deal effectively with disagreements between 

members with a recognised arbitration 

process. 

If a significant deer issue arose in a locale with no 

established DMG, an independent panel or facilitator 

would also have an important role in identifying key 

stakeholders, collating information on the relevant 

local “deer-human-landscape” interactions and act as 

a catalyst to bring about practical long-term solutions. 

This type of facilitation to allow conflict resolution 

to take place must be seen to be independent, 

trustworthy, knowledgeable of the processes 

involved and be able to listen to and reflect on 

the desires of the DMG membership. This type 

of approach is being actively pursued through the 

developing proposals within the Wildlife And Natural 

Environment Bill. 


For ease of interpretation the 38 criteria which 

have been developed for evaluating SDM can be 

considered under four broad headings; 

Environmental (12) 

♦ ♦ Safeguard Welfare of all deer species 

♦ ♦ Minimise spread of non-native species 

♦ ♦ Secure Favourable Condition of Designated 

Sites 

♦ ♦ Conserve/Enhance Biodiversity 

♦ ♦ Secure Favourable Condition of Nondesignated 

Sites 

♦ ♦ Mitigation/Adaptation to Climate Change 

♦ ♦ Conserve and enhance the cultural and historic 

environment 

♦ ♦ Implement precautionary measures, such as 

forest habitat network creation. 

♦ ♦ Increase the role of forestry in environmental 

protection including sustainable flood and 

catchment management and soil protection 

♦ ♦ Increase long-term carbon retention in 

woodlands through low impact silvicultural 

systems, promoting woodland regeneration 

(e.g. by managing grazing pressure) 

♦ ♦ Encourage the development and monitoring 

of short rotation coppice and short rotation 

forestry on appropriate sites. 

♦ ♦ Native deer are recognised as an iconic species 

and an asset 

Economic (16) 

♦ ♦ Increase Economic Opportunities Assoc. with 

Wild Deer 

♦ ♦ Minimise Costs Assoc. with Wild Deer 

♦ ♦ Develop the market and supply chain for 

venison 

♦ ♦ Contribute to Social and Economic 

Development of Communities 

♦ ♦ Maintain balanced integration between 

agriculture, forestry & natural heritage 

♦ ♦ Deer management assists achievement of 

multiple land management objectives 

♦ ♦ Provide security for jobs of good quality 

♦ ♦ Satisfy demands of various types of sporting 

client 

♦ ♦ Maintain balanced age structure across the age 

profile 

♦ ♦ Maintain/improve the long-term capital value 

of estate/property 

♦ ♦ Contribute to a financially self-sufficient 

business plan where asset value is maintained 

♦ ♦ Ensure estate viability. 

♦ ♦ Appropriate proportion of tourism income 

comes into the estate 

♦ ♦ Enable Diversification of income e.g. green 

tourism, accommodation etc. 

♦ ♦ Non-economic benefits associated with deer 

outweigh the net cost of their management 

♦ ♦ Retain natural winter mortality to a minimum 

through provision of food & shelter 

Social (7) 

♦ ♦ Increase Participation in Management and 

Enjoyment of Wild Deer 

♦ ♦ Contribute to Safe and Healthy Environment 

for People 

♦ ♦ Minimise Negative Impacts of Deer in/around 

Communities 

♦ ♦ Deer Encourage the Participation of 

Responsible Outdoor Recreation 

♦ ♦ Community well informed on all aspects of 

deer management 

♦ ♦ Community appreciates the benefit associated 

with deer and their management 

♦ ♦ Community proactively educated by the deer 

sector 

Technical (3) 

♦ ♦ Guided by a Deer Management Plan and Policy 

Document 

♦ ♦ Deer management is proactive and to a 

industry recognised standard (BP) 

♦ ♦ Ensure skills, knowledge and training 

development to manage deer

Sustainable Deer Management A Case Study Report for the Deer ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?