This document provides a summary of consultee responses to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ()’s 2022 public consultation on proposals for deer management strategy for England and government’s response.
At the right level, ‘browsing’ (foraging) by deer can help maintain a balance between open space, scrub and ground flora in our woodlands. This can benefit other woodland species but when browsing, or other activities, such as trampling, become excessive this causes damage, especially to young trees and ground flora. Over-browsing by deer is now threatening the sustainability of tree planting and natural regeneration of woodlands. This risks impacting on the government’s target to increase woodland and tree canopy cover in England to 16.5% by 2050, reducing timber value, causing crop damage and impacting woodland biodiversity.
From 4 August to 2 September 2022, consulted on proposals under 6 main themes, covering:
The consultation questions were made up of 5 demographic questions, 14 multiple choice questions (10 questions with responses on a 4-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and 4 yes or no questions) and 2 open text questions. All 14 multiple choice questions included free text boxes.
Analysis of consultation responses was carried out by Eunomia on behalf of .
Survey respondents were asked in what capacity they were responding to the consultation by selecting from a list of categories, allowing respondents multiple categories to identify themselves by. The most common categories were:
Of the 330 respondents who identified themselves as ‘other’, the most common description was ‘deer manager’, followed by ‘deer stalker’.
Most of the emailed responses (30) came from organisations, associations and user groups. Some of the emailed responses did not answer every question.
Where results refer to the whole sample, each respondent was counted once, regardless of how many capacities they identified as. Where the results are referred to by type of respondent these were counted in the following manner:
Using the approach outlined above, we have only included data for landowners, farmers and ecologists.
The summary of 10 multiple choice questions based on the whole sample includes the total number of all respondents who answered by their level of agreement on a 4-point scale without a neutral option (either strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree), and those who replied as ‘I don’t know’. The tables with quantitative data containing count and percentage for each of the 10 questions are presented in Annex A. The results for each of these multiple-choice questions are also presented and summarised by type of respondent.
Software was used to identify the most mentioned topics and their frequency (‘Qualtrics’ and natural language processing software). A set of codes was developed manually, based on key themes for each question, to ensure human interpretation and focus on relevant topics.
As the questionnaire did not restrict the length of open text responses, the survey received open text amounting to approximately 450,000 words. This meant that analysis focused on the open text responses of those who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the relevant multiple-choice questions.
The summary of responses to the 4 yes or no questions based on the whole sample shows the total number of respondents who answered with any of the 3 options (yes, no or do not know/unsure). It includes an overview of topics provided in free text explanations by those respondents who selected ‘yes’.
The 2 free text questions (questions 13 and 15) were analysed by human interpretation, using a set of codes developed for each question by reading all the responses. The summary of free text questions presents the number of responses in each code.
Those who emailed or posted their responses were analysed separately to the survey responses. These tended to be from organisations, associations and user groups.
Funding for measures such as fencing to exclude deer from woodlands has been made available by under schemes such as the England Woodland Creation Offer. wished to test its view that introduction of financial support for additional measures, principally lethal control, may increase focus on reducing deer impacts on woodlands.
Of those who expressed a preference, an overwhelming majority of respondents were in support (80% either strongly agreed or agreed).
For those who disagreed or strongly disagreed (17%), the main reasons were:
Analysis by type of respondents shows that landowners (88%), farmers (90%) and ecologists (87%) largely agreed with this proposal.
notes the overwhelming support for this proposal. This commitment is included in the deer impacts policy statement.
recognises the concerns expressed by those who disagreed with this proposal. However, the current approach to reducing impacts is insufficient as deer damage to woodlands has increased in recent decades. Fertility control is not a viable option at this time for wild deer and other methods of reducing impacts, such as fencing, have limited effects alone.
Grant support for lethal control is subject to confirmation that deer impacts warrant this, that it will be beneficial to manage these impacts (whether alone or alongside other measures), and that it will be conducted safely and in a manner that seeks to minimise suffering.
will continue to support deer management training and England and Wales best practice guidance, to help ensure lethal control is safe and humane. This is covered further in the response to question 14.
The Deer Act 1991 (as amended) specifies dates in the calendar year when male deer cannot be shot (‘close seasons’). The original intent included to protect males while growing antlers. Shooting of males in the close season can only be carried out by licence for specific reasons. Or, under section 7 of the Deer Act, which provides a defence for those who take or shoot deer without a licence, if this was done to protect against serious damage to crops or timber.
Male deer can be currently shot during the mating season without licence, with many dominant male deer being shot for their large antlers (“trophy hunting”).
sought to test views on reviewing and amending existing legislation to allow shooting of male deer during the close season.
Respondents’ views were strongly polarised, 51% either strongly agreed or agreed, and 47% either strongly disagreed or disagreed.
Reasons for disagreeing and strongly disagreeing with amending existing legislation to allow shooting of male deer during the existing close season were:
Landowners (67%) and farmers (69%) were the most likely groups to agree with the proposal whilst 59% of ecologists agreed.
notes the polarised response to this proposal and as a result will not be pursuing changing male close seasons in the Deer Act.
Instead, , the Forestry Commission and Natural England will work together on improvements to the existing licensing regime (that allows shooting of male deer during the close season, in specific circumstances). These will continue to include where this would prevent deer impacts to woodlands, crops, biodiversity or other natural heritage . The changes will seek to simplify the process of gaining a licence for management of male deer throughout the year for these purposes.
Protecting male deer during their period of antler growth will remain the default legal position and will still be possible where this is the objective of the land manager. Allowing some lethal control of male deer during the current close season, through licensing, is unlikely to affect the evolution of the deer herd.
notes that the existing close seasons for female deer have an important function to protect the welfare of dependant young deer. We are not currently proposing changes to the close seasons for female deer.
If deer impacts on woodlands or other societal assets continue to increase (despite the deer impacts policy statement being implemented), will revisit if there is a need to review and amend the male or female close seasons as specified in the Deer Act.
Under existing legislation (principally the Deer Act 1991) killing any deer at night is an offence unless carried out under a licence, for reasons including to prevent damage. As the close seasons broadly overlap with the winter months, and therefore shorter days, it can be difficult to achieve sufficient levels of control to avoid damage. wished to test views on the proposals to either reduce or remove the existing licensing process, for the above purposes.
Respondents’ views were strongly polarised, with 49% either agreed or strongly agreed while 48% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Reasons for disagreeing and strongly disagreeing with reducing or removing the licensing process to permit shooting of deer at night included:
Analysis by type of respondents shows that:
notes the polarised response to this proposal and as a result will not be pursuing it. Instead, will work with Forestry Commission and Natural England on amendments to the current licensing regime to make it more effective and the application process more straightforward.
The current licensing regime for night shooting already addresses many of the concerns raised. For example, it ensures it is conducted by individuals with the necessary experience, and any amendments to the process will retain these safeguards. The availability of high-quality affordable night vision technology has also increased its effectiveness and safety.
wished to test views on whether provisions in the current legislation are sufficient to enable landowners and managers to manage deer impacts for the above reasons. For example, a deer may be shot in its close season, without a licence, to prevent specific types of damage (such as to crops) either under section 7 of the Deer Act 1991 (as described under question 7) or if done in pursuance of a Notice under the Agriculture Act 1947. However, use of such Notices is infrequent.
Of those who expressed a preference, an overwhelming majority of respondents agreed (73% agreed or strongly agreed) with reviewing deer legislation to enable landowners and managers to reduce deer damage to woodlands or to other public interests.
Reasons for disagreeing and strongly disagreeing with reviewing legislation to enable landowners and managers to reduce deer damage to woodlands or to other public interests included:
notes the significant support for this proposal and will take forward proposals for amending the licensing processes governed by existing legislation, as described above.
Muntjac are currently the only invasive non-native deer species listed under the assimilated Invasive Alien Species Regulation 1143/2014 (the ‘IAS Regulations’). will commission updates of the risk assessments for both Sika and Chinese water deer. Updated risk assessments will allow us to better understand the current risk these species pose in Great Britain (), and where possible direct future action can be taken against these identified risks. Based on the outcome of the risk assessments, further action has the potential to include the consideration of listing these species under the IAS regulations as Species of Special Concern. This would potentially allow stronger controls on activities such as translocations, if warranted.
recognises that many who disagreed view current legislation as sufficient. However, many responses raised concerns that existing provisions (such as under section 7 of the Deer Act 1991), are difficult to use and that this is a possible reason that sufficient management of impacts is not carried out. Combined with the strong support, this indicates scope for improvement to the existing provisions. will review the case for this.
Analysis by type of respondents shows that landowners (80%), farmers (89%) and ecologists (72%) agreed with this proposal.
In England and Wales, rights to take or kill deer often sit with the landowner, but can be legally assigned to others. Occupiers of the land can therefore be refused permission to manage deer impacts through lethal control on land they occupy by the ‘deer rights’ holder. wished to test views on changing this, so that occupiers can manage deer impacts, when needed.
Of those who expressed a preference, an overwhelming majority of respondents agreed (71% agreed or strongly agreed) with the proposal.
Stakeholders who responded via email had mixed responses to this question. Some landowners who rent land for recreational deer stalking were concerned it would infringe on property rights while others thought this proposal would support tenant farmers claiming compensation for damages.
Reasons for disagreeing and strongly disagreeing with enabling occupiers of land to control deer, where the deer rights are retained by the landlord or previous owner included:
Analysis by type of respondents shows that landowners (71%), farmers (90%) and ecologists (79%) agreed with this proposal.
notes the support for this proposal and will pursue an update to the Deer Act, where parliamentary time allows. notes the concerns raised but considers the measure necessary, including to address situations where private landowners are benefiting from high deer densities to support sporting interests, at the expense of wider public and environmental interests. considers that tenants should be able to address deer damage in instances where deer densities are kept high to maintain sporting values at the expense of damage to tenant’s assets.
With the exception of Section 2(3) of the Deer Act, the Act makes no distinction between ‘wild deer’ and other ‘kept’ deer. This can lead to issues such as:
sought to check views on whether the legal status of wild deer should be clarified, to help address such matters.
Of those who expressed a preference, an overwhelming majority of respondents agreed (75% agreed or strongly agreed), compared to 12% who either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Reasons for disagreeing and strongly disagreeing included:
Some stakeholders in their consultation response outlined differences in opinion on park and wild deer between legislation such as The Tuberculosis in Animals (England) Order 2021, Animal Welfare Act 2006 and Game Meat Regulations Guidance 2022.
Analysis by type of respondents shows that landowners (75%), farmers (87%) and ecologists (79%) agreed with this proposal.
notes the support for this proposal to clarify the legal status of wild deer, particularly in relation to enclosed deer in parks or private collections. , the Forestry Commission and Natural England will seek to work with relevant stakeholder groups to provide this clarity.
recognises that many of those who disagreed had concerns that this proposal would be counterproductive. This proposal seeks not to classify enclosed wild deer as farmed, but to differentiate them from wild deer that are unenclosed. The 2015 Law Commission report on Wildlife Law made the recommendation that the current legislation be amended to remove ambiguity.
Currently there is no expectation in government policy that landowners should have any responsibility to manage the impacts of deer utilising their land. wished to test views on the proposal for a more statutory approach to landowner responsibilities for deer which are causing significant negative impacts to neighbouring land.
Of those who expressed a preference, most respondents agreed (70% agreed or strongly agreed) with a more statutory approach to landowner responsibilities for deer where they are causing significant negative impacts to neighbouring land.
Reasons for disagreeing and strongly disagreeing include:
Analysis by type of respondents shows landowners (63%), farmers (74%) and ecologists (82%) agreed with the proposal.
notes that most respondents agreed with this proposal for a stronger approach to landowner responsibilities for deer impacts and will proceed with it.
The concerns raised are noted. will seek to take this proposal forward. The intent is to seek to ensure landowners who are unengaged in such management take action, where needed. Such disinterest can lead to negative impacts on neighbouring land and its interests
Fertility control is not a viable option at this time for wild deer and other methods of reducing impacts such as fencing have limited effectiveness alone.
Muntjac are currently the only invasive non-native deer species listed under the assimilated Invasive Alien Species Regulation 1143/2014. wished to obtain views on actions to allow more effective means of controlling them, for the above purposes.
All relevant free text answers from this question were manually analysed (as opposed to using software) to understand which actions to control muntjac population were most popular among respondents.
The most frequently proposed actions were to:
notes the responses to this question. As covered in question 8, will amend the current application process for night shooting licences. This will make licences for the control of muntjac more straightforward to obtain.
As covered under question 6, incentives (grants) to reduce deer impacts on woodlands are available. will seek to improve these to increase uptake. does not consider bounties an appropriate way forward for this species. Reasons include: that grant support already exists, it would be costly and difficult to administer, and incentivising profit from invasive non-native species as a means to control them can lead to their spread. Regarding the increased use of fences to manage muntjac impacts, muntjac have been seen to be the most effective species at breaching fences.
It is important to ensure that where lethal control is necessary, those conducting it have the right ability and skills. This is in the interests of humaneness, public safety, food standards and animal disease control. wished to understand views on introducing minimum training standards to carry out lethal control.
The analysis showed that whilst most survey respondents agreed (64%), there was a substantial minority who disagreed (33%). Stakeholder email responses also had mixed responses to this question. Reasons for disagreeing and strongly disagreeing included:
Analysis by type of respondent shows that landowners (65%), farmers (66%) and ecologists (73%) agreed with this proposal.
notes the concerns raised by those who disagreed with this proposal. values experience but also believes that demonstration of a minimum level of competence can ensure the safe, humane and effective management of deer, especially by new entrants to the sector. This includes the ability to identify deer species, understand their biology, and ensure that shots are correctly placed, benefiting deer welfare and quality wild venison production. Public safety must also be considered, particularly at a time when we are seeking to increase access to woodlands, improve food standards and hygiene, and respond to animal disease control.
It is for these reasons that seeks engagement with the Home Office and National Police Chiefs’ Council, to explore whether and how existing guidance might be strengthened, including to encourage police forces to request evidence of competence from those applying to use relevant firearms for the purposes of shooting deer in England. will also continue to support the England and Wales Best Practice Guidance and make funding available for appropriate training, particularly in the case of those seeking grant support for lethal control of deer.
Currently, some constabularies require that only firearms police dispatch injured deer following collisions, while some operate a network of trained civilian volunteers to do this, and so relieve pressure on police forces. wished to gain views on the most effective means of developing a consistent approach across England to responding to incidents such as deer vehicle collisions.
All relevant free text answers from this question were manually analysed to find which actions were considered by respondents to be most effective.
The following actions were the most frequently proposed:
notes the suggestions on the most effective means of developing a consistent national approach to responding to deer collisions and deer welfare incidents. Several constabularies in England are in the process of setting up Humane Animal Dispatch () schemes that are supported by trained volunteers (as described in point 1), and proactively aiding others to do the same. will continue to support relevant training in safe and humane lethal control of wild deer. This will help increase the number of suitably trained individuals who may be able to assist in the expansion of schemes.
sought to obtain views on whether respondents considered there to be barriers to the development of commercially successful markets for domestic wild venison, given its value can help deer managers offset costs of managing deer impacts.
Analysis showed most respondents think that there are presently barriers to the development of a commercially successful wild venison market (62%) compared to 23% who were unsure and 15% who thought there were not barriers.
Barriers to the wild venison market that were identified included:
Analysis by type of respondent shows most landowners (55%) farmers (51%) and ecologists (62%) stated there are presently barriers to the market development of wild venison. It is notable that in all categories there is a sizeable minority who were not sure.
notes that most respondents considered there to be barriers to the development of commercially successful markets for domestic wild venison. will continue to work with the collaborative government and industry group, the Great Britain Wild Venison Working Group, on appropriate ways to aid in addressing such barriers, including on communications around wild venison and the British Quality Wild Venison Standard quality assurance scheme, launched in 2023. This will help promote wild venison and improve market confidence. Grant support for processing equipment, facilities and wild venison projects has been made available. will keep its actions under review, to ensure the level of support provided is effective, appropriate and avoids unintended consequences, such as over-incentivisation of lethal control. This could occur, for example, if funding or markets became so favourable that levels of lethal control drove declines in the favourable conservation status of native deer species, or in practices such as poaching (which is an offence under section 10 of the Deer Act).
wished to obtain views on whether the government should support development of the wild venison sector given wild venison sales can be a key part of managing deer impacts, where impacts are such that lethal control is warranted.
Analysis shows that most respondents agreed (88%) that the government should support development of the wild venison sector, compared to 9% who disagreed.
Those who disagreed gave the following reasons:
Analysis by type of respondent shows most landowners (90%), farmers (90%) and ecologists (92%) agreed with the proposal.
notes that most respondents agreed with this proposal and is proceeding with relevant actions, as described under question 16.
notes the concerns raised by the minority who disagreed. On concerns of potential unintended consequences such as over-incentivisation or negatively impacting markets. will ensure uptake and effectiveness of relevant support is reviewed, through established processes and ensuring such support is based on appropriate evidence. will also ensure advice from the Wild Venison Working Group informs its approach, including on avoiding unintended outcomes.
As noted in the consultation document, limited deer impact, distribution, density and management data currently exists to inform local and national strategies and approaches. wished to obtain views on means to improve collation and availability of information on deer density, their impacts and management of these.
Analysis showed most respondents agreed with the development of a dashboard with 77% who agreed compared to 13% who disagreed.
Those who disagreed gave the following reasons:
Analysis by type of respondent shows most landowners (74%), farmers (77%) and ecologists (78%) agreed with this proposal.
notes that most respondents agreed with this proposal and as a result will work with relevant stakeholders to ensure data can be readily shared on deer distribution, abundance, management and impacts on woodlands. This will include Forestry Commission and continuing to invite landowners to submit returns and data on deer management activity on their land as part of agri-environment schemes, and ensuring its use for monitoring effectiveness of the relevant options within these schemes.
wished to obtain views on whether the proposed actions would have any positive or negative financial implications for the woodland/land management sector.
Analysis showed that 49% of respondents believed the proposals would have either a positive or negative financial implication for the woodland and land management sector, compared to 17% who thought there would be no implications and 34% who were unsure.
The software analysis of free text answers from respondents who replied ‘yes’ to the consultation question and gave examples of financial implications (either positive or negative) shows that overall positive implications were mentioned more often than negative.
notes the implications raised and has taken these into consideration when developing an economic and equalities impact assessment for policy statement. The financial implications have been considered and where possible monetised in the impact assessment.
As it is currently impossible to determine the scale of many of the financial implications, those that are positive have been framed as a likely reduction in baseline costs and otherwise qualitatively stated. Whilst the negative implications have been monetised as new costs or included qualitatively also.
wished to obtain views on whether the proposed actions would have any positive or negative financial implications for those involved in deer management.
Analysis showed that 55% of respondents believed the proposals would have either positive or negative financial implications for those involved in deer management, compared to 16% who thought there would be no implications and 29% who were unsure.
Analysis of the free text answers (using software) from respondents who replied ‘yes’ to the consultation question gave examples of financial implications (either positive or negative) and shows that overall negative implications were mentioned more often than positive.
Positive financial implications named included:
Negative financial implications named included:
notes the implications raised and has taken these into consideration when developing an economic and equalities impact assessment for the policy statement. Within this, the financial implications have been considered and, where possible, monetised. For many of these implications the scale of the financial impact is currently unknown, so implications cannot be monetised and have been included qualitatively within the impact assessment.
wished to obtain views on whether the proposed actions would have any positive or negative financial implications for wild venison production.
Analysis showed that 48% of respondents believed the proposals would have either positive or negative financial implications for wild venison production, compared to 18% who thought there would be no implications and 34% who were unsure.
Analysis of the free text answers (using software) from respondents who replied ‘yes’ to the consultation question gave examples of financial implications (either positive or negative) and shows that overall, positive implications were mentioned more often than negative.
notes the implications raised and has taken these into consideration when developing a light-touch impact assessment for the policy statement. Within this, the financial implications have been considered and, where possible, monetised. It is currently difficult to estimate the scale of impact that the proposals will have on the wild venison market, however market impacts have been considered qualitatively as part of the impact assessment. Mitigations for avoiding unintended consequences such as market impacts are outlined under question 17.
The next step following publication of the deer impacts policy statement will be to progress to its implementation.
This data was provided in response to Question 3: What capacity are you responding to the consultation in? The total sample was n=2,064. However, participants were permitted to select more than one category so choice count exceeds 2,064.
