The British Deer Society - animal health and welfare consultation

The British Deer Society (BDS) was founded in 1963 and is the only national body representing the welfare interests of wild deer throughout the UK. We have a total membership of over 6000 and about 1000 members in Scotland including many professional gamekeepers and professional deer stalkers.

Failure to Heed BDS Initial Response

Following a meeting in Pentland House, BDS initial response to this consultation was made on the SE assurance that the Bill would be used as a legislative vehicle to make the necessary changes required to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 to ensure animal welfare - Page 18 Paragraph 4 of the consultation document confirms this.

SE now appears to be reneging on this assurance because at Page 304 in the Analysis of Responses (Feb 2005) it states that wild deer responses are being excluded from this Bill. It claims that all deer-related responses to the initial consultation have been sent to the Deer Commission for Scotland which is itself consulting over wild deer Close Seasons. One week ago the DCS had received nothing from SE on this matter and was unaware of the SE intention to send all deer responses to the welfare consultation to them.

It is also an unsatisfactory way in which to proceed because:

Some of the welfare amendments BDS proposed were actually modifications to the powers of DCS e.g. the removal of its exemption from prosecution under the Deer Act for committing what would otherwise be illegal acts with severe deer welfare consequences.
The required changes to the Deer (Scotland) Act cannot be made without primary legislation and there is no published plan to amend the D(S)A in the parliamentary timetable.
We do not believe it is appropriate to expect DCS to recommend modification of its own powers and liabilities;
We anticipate that the DCS will set aside the whole matter when it reports to the Minister in the near future- particularly if they have not received the responses or instruction from SE.

These points have already been raised with the Scottish Executive without a satisfactory answer and need to be brought to the Minister's attention.

Part 2 - Animal Welfare Issues

BDS has few comments to make on the draft Bill as it stands which is hardly surprising when all wild deer welfare issues have been removed from it. However there is one important aspect concerning deer.

Question 1. Wild deer clearly fall within the definition of "animal".

The definition of "protected animal" would seem to included deer (certainly those of red, sika and fallow species) which are all commonly domesticated in the British Isles (Para 15a) as well as deer of any species not living in a wild state (Para 15c) i.e. zoo or farmed animals.

Protected animal status must also be awarded under (Para 15b) in the case of any wild deer coming under control of man having been "taken" i.e. trapped alive and thus taken into captivity. Indeed similar protected status must also apply to apply to any wild animal or bird taken into captivity whether legally or illegally.

Question 2. It is difficult to define exactly who "owns" (or is responsible for) a trapped wild deer in the context of this draft legislation. The legal rights to take deer usually belong to the land owner or someone to whom he has granted them. However in some circumstances a land occupier has rights to take wild deer over which the land owner has no control and similar rights to take deer can also be exercised legally by the DCS or those acting on their behalf.

Wild deer themselves belong to nobody but having been taken, they are owned by to the person who took them (even if he was a poacher and took them illegally). Therefore the person who set the trap is probably the legal owner and becomes responsible for the welfare of any deer caught in it whether that trap was set legally (with or without the landowner's permission) or illegally. The Bill does not make it clear what the situation is if the owner of an animal is a company or Government Agency and whether employees of the corporate owner responsible are themselves personally responsible for causing suffering.

Question 3. What constitutes "suffering" may vary very considerably depending on the degree of domestication. A farmed deer born in captivity or well tamed can often be handled and will be used to many different stimuli. Were deer which had been wild a few hours earlier, subjected to similar treatment it could amount to cruelty.

What is the definition of "unnecessary"? If it is necessary to drive recently captured wild deer into a crush in order to kill them, does that mean any method of doing so is acceptable because it is "necessary"?

We accept that killing of captured deer may sometimes be required. It is going to be very difficult to decide what is appropriate and humane together with what constitutes suffering and is necessary - all these uncertainties will probably require specific codes of acceptable practice to be drawn up.

Question 3. Ear clipping, ear tagging, castration and freeze branding - all commonly done to domestic stock presumably do not count as "mutilations" if done to protected animals. This needs to be clarified in the Bill.

Question 7. In view of the problems identified with wild animals above we believe trapping wild deer should be subject to licensing as it is in England and Wales and Scottish ministers should amend the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 to this effect to ensure the welfare of the animals involved.