EASTLOCHSHIELDEERMANAGEMENTGROUP

DEERMANAGEMENTPLAN

23May2017

FINALDRAFTREVISIONNo.8

Compiledby:DavidMosgroveMRICSBroadlandPropertiesLtdC/oAryhoulanLodgeConaglenEstateArdgourPH337AHTel:01855841321Email:dmosgrove@broadlandproperties.co.uk

CONTENTS

Section

Introduction 1

Objectives 2

Policy 3

CodeofPracticeonDeerManagement 4

BestPractice 5

ADMGPrinciplesofCollaboration 6

ELSDeerRange–Type,Condition&OtherLandManagementConsiderations 7

Monitoring 8

DeerCounts,Density,Demography&Culling 9

LandUseInterests 10

TargetsandActions 11

PopulationModelling 12

AnnualCullTargets 13

TrainingPolicyandCompetence 14

VenisonMarketing 15

CommunicationsPolicy 16

PublicCirculation/ConsultationList 17

Review 18

APPENDICES

Appendix1 ConstitutiondocumentfortheEastLochShielDeerManagementGroup

Appendix2 MapshowingPropertyBoundarieswithintheELSDMG

Appendix3 Mapshowing"LandCoverScotland88"findingswithintheELSDMG

Appendix4 Mapshowing"NationalSurveyofScotlandForestryInventory"findingswithinthe

ELSDMG

Appendix5a MapshowingFES'srecordofWoodlandCreationSchemeswithintheELSDMG

Appendix5b CopyofConaglenEstateLTFPConceptPlan(Plan3fromLTFP)

Appendix5c CopyofConaglenEstateLTFPPotentialNewPlantingPlan(Plan9fromLTFP)

Appendix6 MapshowingtheboundariesofalldesignatedlandwithintheELSDMG

Appendix7 MapshowingtheconditionofallSSSI'swithintheELSDMG

Appendix8 CullInformationperProprietorfrom2003/04to2016/17

1 Introduction

1.1 The Deer Management Group (DMG) is called The East Loch Shiel DeerManagementGroup (ELSDMG); it has a formal constitution (Appendix 1) and itsmembersmeetaminimumoftwiceannuallytodiscussallmattersrelatingtothemanagementofdeerandtheirrange.

1.2ThepurposeofthisDeerManagementPlan(DMP)istodefinetheobjectivesofthe

owners of the farms and estates, together with owners of adjoining forestryinterests and to identify the preferred methods of achieving them. It is alsointended to summarise baseline information and to assist in developing atimetableforimplementingdecisionstakenbythemembers.

1.3TheLandOwnerswhosepropertiesarewithintheDMGareaare:

DeerForest/Property Owner/Tenant(s) AreaSize(ha)PrimaryObjective

DeerRange(ha)

Achaphubuil&CamusnagaulWoodlands

Treslaig&AchaphubuilCrofter'sWoodlandTrustSportingRightsOwnedby-BroadlandPropertiesLtd

64 AmenityForestry 0

ArdgourEstate

RobinMacleanofArdgour 5,265 Sporting 5,265

GlenGourSportingLeaseSportingTenant–BroadlandPropertiesLtd

IncAbove Sporting IncAbove

AriundleFarmWilliamMacPhersonRepresentedatDMGmeetingsbyBroadlandPropertiesLtd

1,220 Agricultural 1,220

ConaglenEstate BroadlandPropertiesLtd 15,265 Sporting 13,937

DrimnatorranFarm RonnieMacIntosh 815 Agricultural 815

ForestryEnterpriseScotland

AchnanellanWoodland&Hill

CLavinSportingTenant-JMacDonaldIncApprox260HaOpenHillinSouth

1,239 Forestry 1,239

ArderyWoodland(PartofSOWOG)

CLavin 320 Forestry 0

DrimnatorranWoodland CLavin 950 Forestry 0

Drumfern,Callop(DoireMhor)&NorthLochShielWoods

CLavinApprox161HaFencedinEast

SportingRightsHeldby-BroadlandPropertiesLtd

731 Forestry 570

GlenHurichCLavinIncCirca1,492HaOpenHillinWest&NorthSportingTenantofPartialArea-BroadlandPropertiesLtd

7,460 Forestry 2,984

StrontianVillage(PartofSOWOG) CLavin 100 Forestry 0

GlenscaddleEstateEwenMacleanofArdgourSportingTenant-BroadlandPropertiesLtd

4,730 Sporting 4,730

InversandaEstate(North) Mr&MrsColburne 1,690 Sporting 1,690

NorthCarnoch/DruimLaithEstate StephenFox 1,488 Sporting 1,488

ResipoleFarm(PartofSOWOG)

PeterSinclair 1,336 Sporting&Agriculture 1,336

ResipoleWoodland AgentMHarrisSportingTenant-JMacDonald 669 Forestry 0

ScottishNaturalHeritage

AriundleNNR SNH(Torlundy)-RKilpatrickCullingTenant-FES 70Environmental

/Amenity 0

ClaishMoss SNH(Torlundy)-RKilpatrickSportingTenant-JMacDonald 568Environmental

/Amenity 0

SouthGarvanWoodlandRNicholsonSportingRightsOwnedby-BroadlandPropertiesLtd

183 Forestry 183

SunartEstateIncluding:ArderyFarmRanachanHillAnaheiltTownshipScotstownTownship

SGRPID-EwenMacPhersonSportingTenant-JMacDonaldFarmTenant-JCampbellFarmTenant-DBerardelliCroftingTenureCroftingTenure

2,546

Sporting

AgriculturalAgriculturalAgriculturalAgricultural

2,546

SunartOakWoodlandOwnersGroup*LandbelowSGRPIDDeerFenceIncluding:RanachanFarm-DBerardelliArderyFarm-JCampbellArderyWoodland-FES

RepresentedatDMGmeetingsbyPSinclair

IncAbove Forestry 0

Total 46,709 38,003

*MostSOWOGMembersarealsoindependentDMGmembers.1.4 AplanhasbeenincludedatAppendix2whichshowsthePropertyBoundariesand

theextentoftheDMGarea.

2 Objectives

Theprincipalobjectivesofthegroupare:• Tomaintain andexpanduponahealthypopulationof reddeer inbalancewith the

natural heritage and other land use requirements; such as commercial or nativeforestryandagriculturallanduses.

• In certain locations to attempt to increase the number and quality of Red Stagsavailable for sporting culls and also to improve the deer range habitat available tosupportanincreasedwildherdsize.

• Tooptimiserevenuestreamsfromvenisonsales,stalkingandtourismforthebenefitofthelocalcommunityandbusinesses.

• To address land use interests in a collaborative way, unconstrained by propertyownershipboundaries.

• To manage the deer populations as a wildlife resource, to meet and increase thedemandforstalkingasasportandtoprovideemploymentandeconomicactivityinarurallocalitywherebotharefragile.

• To protect designated sites including woodlands and their associated habitats fromnegativedeer impactsandwherepossibletoenhancethequalityofdesignated landwiththeDMGarea.

• InadditiontoworkingwithbothFESandSNHwhoaregroupmembers,theELSDMGwill work and engage on request with any other Government Agencies and othergroups with a legitimate interest in the affairs of the group or the Group’s deermanagementrange.

3 Policy

ThemainpurposeofthisDMPpreparedbytheELSDMGis:• Toreviewtheprincipalobjectivesofthegroup• Todrawtogetherallknownrelevantstatistics• Toidentifytargetsandaction• Topromotecollaborativediscussionandactiononmattersrelatingtodeer

management

TheDMPwillbereviewedonanannualbasisormoreregularlyifreasonforearlyreviewisconsideredrelevantbytheELSDMG.

4 CodeofPracticeonDeerManagement

TheCodeofPracticeonDeerManagementisrecognisedbyELSDMGandthetermsoftheCodewillbedeliveredthroughtheDMGPlan.

5 BestPractice

ELSDMG recognise theWild Deer Best Practice (WDBP) Guidelines and confirm that alldeermanagementshouldbecarriedoutinaccordancewithbestpracticeprinciples.

6 ADMGPrinciplesofCollaboration

ThePrinciplesofCollaborationasdevisedbytheAssociationofDeerManagementGroups(ADMG) are recognised by the ELSDMG for reaching a consensus on deermanagementmatters and in working together in a neighbourly and collaborative manner whichrecognises and respects the equal legitimacy of all deer management objectives whichcomplywiththeCode.

ThePrinciplesofCollaborationare:

• Acknowledgewhatwehaveincommon–asharedcommitmenttoasustainableandeconomicallyviableScottishcountryside.

• Makeacommitmenttoworktogethertoachieveandmaintainthat.• Accept thatwehaveadiversityofmanagementobjectivesand respecteachother’s

objectives.• Undertaketocommunicateopenlywithallrelevantparties.• Committonegotiateand,wherenecessary,tocompromiseinordertoaccommodate

thereasonablelandmanagementrequirementsofneighbours.• Where there are areas of disagreement we undertake to work together to resolve

them.CollaborationisessentialtomeetthestandardssetbytheCodeofPracticeforDeerManagement.

7 ELSDeerRange--Type,Condition&OtherLandManagementConsiderations 7.1 Topography

In thepeninsulaarea coveredby theEast LochShielDeerManagementGroup,ArdgourandSunarthavedistinctiveidentitiescompromisingruggedinteriormountainscontrastingwiththewoodedandshelteredshorelinesofseaandfreshwaterLochs.Theglenscontainbothnativeandcommercialwoodlandsinbalancewithopenspace.Therearemanypartlyisolated peaks and ridges. The actions of glaciation and precipitation, togetherwith thepresence of geological faults, have combined to form deep valleys and steep-sidedmountains.

7.2 SoilTypes

Theparentmaterialisderivedfromschists,gneisses,granulitesandquartziteprincipallyoftheMoine Series on thewhole felpathic, but there is amass of intrusive gabbrodioriteabovethepinewoodinConaGlenextendingintoGlenScaddleandtherearethinbandsoflimestoneandotherultrabasicrocksalongtheperipheryofthisintrusion.

Peatisextensiveandthesoilstendtobewetandacidic.Thesoilsarepredominantlypeatypodzols,peatandpeatygleysasassociatedwithmoistborealandAtlanticHeathermoor,blanketanduplandbogandflyingbentgrassland.Therearepocketsofbrownforestsoilsnearertheshorelineswithinthecroftinglandscapeandalluviumalongtheglenbottoms.

Stevens&Carlisle (TheNative Pinewoodsof Scotland) noted thatwithin thepinewoodsthesoilsaresandy,butthedrainageispoorandshallowpeatcoverseventheknolls.

7.3 Climate The general climate of Ardgour and Sunart is oceanic with small temperature variation

throughout theyear.Amore indepthclimatedescriptioncanbegainedwith theuseofForestryCommissionESC(EcologicalSiteClassification)data,onlineguidanceandbulletin124.

7.4 Vegetation Thelandcapabilityforagricultureforthegreaterpartoftheareaisclassifiedas6.2andis

characterisedbymoderatequalityherbagesuchaswhiteandflyingbentgrasslands,rushpasturesandherbrichmoorlandsormosaicsofhighandlowgrazingvalues.Largeareasareclassifiedas6.3,which is landcapable foruseas roughgrazingand isdominatedbyplantcommunitieswith lowgrazingvalues,particularlyheathermoor,bogheathermoorandblanketmoor.Onthehighregions,landisofverylimitedagriculturalvalueduemainlytoseverewetness,extremelystonylandandverysteepgradients.Unvegetatedsoilsandscreesareextensive in thehigher regionsandvegetation is severely influencedby shortgrowingseasons.AplanhasbeenincludedatAppendix3whichshowstherecorded"LandCoverScotland88"findingsforalllandwithintheELSDMGarea.

7.4.1 Creation/RestorationofPeatlands

TheELSDMGhaveconsideredSNH’slongertermaspirationalgoaltodeliverrestorationorcreationofnewpeatlandswiththewiderScottishcontext.Asthereissignificantvolumesof Peatland within the ELSDMG in non-degraded condition the members of ELSDMGconsiderat this time thatno furtheraction is requiredon thismatter. ThemembersofELSDMGhavealsoconfirmedthattheyarewillingtoconsideranydirectlyrecommendedPeatlandRestorationorCreationSchemeswhichSNHmaywishtoraisewiththeminthefuture.

7.5 RiverBasinManagementPlans

SEPAdoesnot list any catchment in theELSDMGareaas apriority for competitionof aRiverBasinManagementPlanduringtheirnextworkingperiodof2015-2027.SEPAhavenotapproachedanyELSDMGmemberforinformationoraccessinrelationtoaRiverBasinManagement Plan for any part of the ELSDMG area, other than to ask permission tocompletebasicrivermonitoringwork.ThemembersoftheELSDMGconfirmedthattheyregularlygrantpermissiontoSEPAtocompleterequestedmonitoringworkandthattheyarequiteopentoconsideranycommunicationsreceivedfromSEPAinrelationtoissuesorwater quality. Currently the ELSDMG have considered this topic and deemed that nofurtheractionisrequiredonthismatter.

7.6 MigrationofDeertoorfromtheDMG

ItisbelievedthatrelativelyfewdeermoveintoorfromtheDMGarea,simplyduetothephysicalgeographyofthegroupbeingboundbyLochsandHillandwherenaturalphysicalbarriers tomovements do not exist there is the existence of considerable deer fencingbetweentheDMGandneighbours.

7.7 InternalDeerMigrationwithintheDMG

ItisdistinctlyunderstoodbytheDMGmembersthattheRedDeerpopulationmovesonaseasonalbasisfreelybetweenthepropertieswithintheDMG.TheProprietorsandStalkersarealsofullyawareoftheadditionalinducedpopulationmovementswhicharecausedbyparticularlyharshweatherpatterns.

Migration from Hill Grazings into non-securely fenced woodland blocks and resultantincreased culling is theprimary areaof concern for the Sporting Estatemembersof theDMGwhoutilisetheOpenHillRangeforSportingCulls.

The primary location for concern for all Sporting Groupmembers are the western andnorthern boundaries with FES, where FES have been undertaking considerable out ofseasoncullingduringthepast8years.

TheSportingmemberswouldsuggestthattheresultantincreasedcullinghashadthemostadverseimpactonmaintainingahealthyandsuitabledeerpopulationonthehillrangeofthe DMG area. Sportingmembers feel that this increased FES cull directly impacts ontheir ability to maintain the required deer numbers to allow Sporting Cull levels tocontinueathistoricallevelsandpreventstheirabilitytoincreasetheSportingCullsduetothenumbersofStagswhicharecurrentlyculledoutofseasonbyFES.FESsuggeststhattheevidencefromthedeercountssupportstheirdesiretoculldeeroutofseasonandtheysuggestthattheincreaseinFEScullshassimplycoincidedwiththeriseinthedeerpopulation.

7.8 JointAgencyFencingGuidance

Group members understand that where applicable the Joint Agency Fencing Guidanceshouldbeconsideredpriortoerectionofsignificantfencingwhichwouldhaveanimpactonthenaturallandscape.Ingeneralgroupmembershaveconfirmedthatthisguidanceisconsideredincombinationwithneworrestockingwoodlandproposals.

7.9 ImpactonHistoricalFeaturesorMonuments

TheHighlandCouncilhavenotcontactedanyELSDMGmemberinrelationtoreportingorrequestingactiontobetakenduetodeerdamagebeingcausedtoanybuiltenvironmenthistorical feature or monument. The DMG Chairman has also written to the HighlandCouncil in connectionwith thismatter and is currently awaiting a response. ThereforeELSDMGhaveconsideredthistopicanddeemedthatnoactionisrequiredonthismatter.

7.10 DeerVehicleCollisions(DVC)

TherearenotrunkroadswithintheELSDMGareaandtherehavebeennoDVCreportedtothe“NationalDeer-VehicleCollisionsProject”withintheELSDMGareasince2010.ThebelowplanhasbeencopiedfromtheNationalDVCReportanditshowsthatonly5DVCwerereportedintheELSDMGareasince2001.

The ELSDMGwill record anyDVCwhich are reported to groupmembers andwillwhennecessary,followingthereportofanysignificantnumberofDVCs,formulateastrategyinrelationtoDVCs.TheELSDMGishappytoworkwithLocalAuthoritiestoimprovepublicsafetyandwherepossiblemitigatetheimpactofpossibleDVCs.AsDVCareafairlyminormatter,occurringveryinfrequentlywithintheDMGarea,ithasbeenconsideredthatnofurtheractionisrequiredatthistimeonthismatter.

8 Monitoring

Deer management decision making for the DMG will be based on evidence which iscollatedintheDMPandupdatedregularly.DatagatheredbyDMGwillincludedeercountdata, culls and recruitment counts and the resultant information will be collated in aconsistent manner. Data will be provided to members as part of the annual reviewprocessoftheDMP.

8.1 TheCurrentSituation

Maintaininggoodenvironmentalhabitatcondition isasmuchofapublicconcernas it isalsoofprivateconcern inallowing theDMGarea tomaintaina strongandhealthydeerpopulation.ScottishNaturalHeritage (SNH) has a duty, under Section 3 of theNatureConservation(Scotland)Act2004,tonotifyandassessconditionsofSSSIareasoflandthatitconsiderstobeofnational importance for their faunaor floraor their geologyorgeomorphology(that is, theirplants,animals, rocksand landforms). Thisassessmentmonitoringwork iscarried out by SNH staff and by specialists contractors with the range of skills andexpertiseneededtomonitorthediversityoffeaturesinScotland.FeatureswithintheELSDMGareawhicharedesignatedasSACs,SPAsandSSSIsaremonitoredbySNHonarollingprogramusingastandardizedmethodofSiteConditionMonitoring(SCM)basedonthesensitivityandvulnerabilityofthefeaturesinquestion.ThisSCMcanvaryinoccurrencebetweenevery6yearsand24years,forexamplesomeearthsciencefeatureswillonlybemonitoredevery24years,whilstmoresensitivelowlandheathswillbemonitoredevery6years.ThepurposeofSCMistodeterminetheconditionofthedesignatednaturalfeaturewithinasite.Thisistoestablishwhetherthenaturalfeatureislikelytomaintainitselfinthemediumtolongertermunderthecurrentmanagementregimeandwiderenvironmentalorotherinfluences.Inadditioninordertohelpdetectanychangestothehabits,speciespopulationsorearthsciencefeaturesbetweenSCMassessments,anewSNHmonitoringmethodcalledSiteCheckhasbeenintroducedfrom2012.Theresultsofthismonitoringisthenbeusedtodeterminetheeffectivenessofcurrentmanagementactionsandwhetherfurtherremedialactionisrequiredonsites.At present the overwhelming majority of the designated SSSI’s, SAC’s, SPA’s land andhabitatswith the ELSDMG area are deemed to be in favourable condition by SNH (Seesection10.7forfurtherinformation).Naturalmortalityratesaremonitoredbythestalkersandlandmanagerseachspring.Atpresent the DMGmembers consider that the DMG area is not afflicted with unusuallyheavy deer mortality rates and the DMG members have no concerns with regard toovergrazingoftheopenhillrangeandobserveandmonitorahealthywilddeerpopulationwithintheELSDMGarea.

8.2 ActionsTakentoAchieveCurrentSituation

Thewelfareandconditionofthewilddeerpopulation intheDMGarea isdependentontheavailabilityoffoodandshelter,particularlyoverthewintermonthsandinthespring.The DMG members have over the years undertaken extensive agricultural livestockremoval which has increased the area of available grazings for wild deer; in particular13,170sheephavebeen removedsince the1960’s (Seesection10.4ofDMP for furtherdetails).Henceaquiteextensiveadditionalnon-competitivegrazingrangehasbeenmadeavailabletoallowexpansionofthewilddeerpopulation.It isquiteevidenton theground that removingsuchavastnumberof sheepallows thecurrent3,821populationofwilddeer(seesection9.1)asurplusofgrazinglandtoutilisewhere they are not competingwith agricultural livestock or adding towhat could havebeentheagriculturalgrazingpressureswithintherange.As improving grazing vegetation to support the wild deer herd is a major objective ofELSDMG’s habitat management strategy most members carry out annual muirburningwithin the applicable seasons and subsequently visualmonitoring of utilisation of theserejuvenatedgrazingareaswithinthewiderlandscape.

8.3 CurrentHabitatMonitoringwithinELSDMGarea

Tolerable levelsofgrazingwilldepend in largeonwhetherareasareprimarilymanagedfor conservation, for forestry, agriculture, or sporting or as mixed use properties.However inmanagerswill anticipate that in general recorded impacts fromdeer shouldnotexceedmoderatelevels,butthatinevitablytheremaybelocalisedareaswherehigherimpactsmayberecorded.Ifthereareclearhotspotsofheaviergrazing,particularlywherethese may occur within important habitats or within designated sites, further requiredactionswillbeconsideredanddiscussedbytheDMGmembersandifnecessaryanactionplanmaybeputinplacetoaddressanysucharea.

8.3.1 DesignatedSiteAreas

SNHassessthedesignatedfeatureswithintheELSDMGareasuchasSACs,SPAsandSSSIsintheirrollingprogram“SiteConditionMonitoring”and“SiteCheck”assessmentstodeterminetheconditionofthedesignatednaturalfeaturewithinasiteandtheeffectivenessofcurrentmanagementactionsandwhetherfurtherremedialactionisrequiredonsites.

8.3.2 OpenRange/HillAreas

Specific habitat impact assessment monitoring of herbivore impacts on vegetationconditioninaccordancewiththeSNHSCMmodeliscurrentlyundertakenonsomeofthepropertieswithinELSDMG.WhereasonthemajorityofthelandmassoftheDMGareaotherpropertiesarecontinuingto mutually manage both the land and deer population via applying on-going visualmonitoring of habitats and of the conditions of the animals which exist upon thosehabitats. This habitat and deer population monitoring is completed daily on all groupproperties based on a wealth of experience being utilised by all stalkers and deermanagersontheground.

8.3.3 WoodlandAreas

FESundercontractswithconsultants,undertakeaprocessreferredtoas“EffectiveDeerUtilisation”viaassessingpelletgroupcountsontheirproperties.TheresultsarethenmodelledtogetherwithFESwoodlandbrowsingimpactsurveys.TheFESwoodlandregenerationtargetistoachievelessthan10%leaderbrowsingdamageandtheycurrentlyreportthatbrowsingwithintheirwoodlandsisabovethisacrosstheELSDMGarea,withtheir2016surveyshowing18.6%damage.FEShavealsoconfirmedhoweverthatsecurityandmaintenanceofdeerfencingisamajorissueandinfluencingfactoronthisbrowsingdamagefigure.WithintheprivatelyownedwoodlandsintheELSDMGareaithasbeenagreedthatsecuredeer fencesmust be erected andmaintained throughout the vulnerable period of earlytree growth. Ardgour/Glenscaddle, Conaglen and North Carnoch Estates all undertakefrequentsurveysofleaderbrowsingdamageintheirnaturalregenerationandrestockingsitesthoughttheyeartoassessdeerimpacts.Ifimpactsarefoundthenanyanimalswhichhaveaccessedtheseenclosuresareeitherdrivenoutorculledassoonaspossible.

8.4 PossibleFutureConsiderationforHabitatMonitoringwithinELSDMGarea

TheELSDMGmembersareawareofnowarningsignsinthewidergroupareacomingfromstatutoryauthoritiestosuggestthattheoveralldeerpopulationwithintheELSDMGistoohighandindeedthe2016deercountgroupaverageof10.1deer/km2(Seesection9.1fordetails) liestowardsthe lowerendofSNH’smediumratedcategoryof8-15deer/km2fordensitiesinScotland.TheDMGmembersconsider that theannualdatacollected in thecull returns,mortalityobservations and the deer count data all suggest that the deer population is beingmanagedsufficientlytoaddresstherequiredconcernsandtopreventextensivegrowthofthepopulationordamagetothenaturalhabitat.TheELSDMGmembershaveextensivelydiscussedandconsideredcompletingaHIAbasedon theSNHSCMtoassess thehabitat conditionsacross theDMGarea. However ithasbeen agreed at this time by the majority of the DMGmembers that this action is notcurrentlyrequired.Thejustificationforthisdecisionincludestheundernotedconsiderations:i) Themajority of thenon-fenceddesignatedwoodland habitatwhich existswithin the

DMGareaisdeemedtobeinfavourableconditionbySNHfollowingtheirSCMsystem.ii) The over population of deer is not evident as annual naturalmortality rates are not

significant.iii) Overgrazingoroverutilisationofthewideropenrangeclearlydoesnotrequiretobe

considered as a concern on what is extensively underutilised hill land; which in the1960’ssupportedanadditional13,170sheepwhenconsideringthatintheperiodsince1980to2016thewilddeernumbershaveonly increasedby683animals(Seesection9.7fordetails).

TheELSDMGwouldsuggestthattheeconomiccostsandmanagementtimerequirementsassociatedwithcorrectlyrollingoutanextensiveSNHSCMsystemwouldnotatthistimesupportthebettermentofeithertheDeerPopulationorHabitatManagementwithintheELSDMGarea.

9 DeerCounts,Density,Demography&Culling

AccuratedeercountingformsthebasisofpopulationmodellingandtheDMGagreesthatahelicoptercountonanapproximate5yearbasisisthemostsuitableoptionavailabletoproduceaccuratecounts.

9.1 March2016AerialDeerCount

Location/AreaDeerRange

PlanarArea(Ha)

Km2 Stags Hinds Calves Total Density(deer/km2)

Ardgour&Glenscaddle 9,995 99.95 424 647 177 1,248 12.5

Ariundle&DrimnatorranGlen 2,035 20.35 4 42 13 59 2.9

Conaglen&AdjacentOpenWoodlands

14,690 146.90 419 938 278 1,635 11.1

FESGlenHurich(DeerRange) 2,984 29.84 59 54 17 130 4.4

Inversanda(North) 1,690 16.90 10 108 41 159 9.4NorthCarnoch 1,488 14.88 111 78 23 212 14.3SouthWestSectionofGroupSunartEstate,(Ardery,Ranachan,Anaheilt&Scotstown)ResipoleFarm&AchnanellanWoodland

5,121 51.21 100 217 61 378 9.0

Total 38,003 380.03 1,127 2,084 610 3,821 10.19.2 GroupArea

ThetotalareaoftheGroupis46,709ha(467.09km2)Thetotaldeerrangeareais38,003ha(380.03km2)

9.3 OverallDensity

OnthebasisoftheMarch2016figurestheoveralldensitiesare: GroupArea 8.2deer/km² DeerRangeArea 10.1deer/km2

9.4 WoodlandDeerCountsandDensities

FESconfirmedfromtheirmostrecentdeerpopulationassessmentwhichwascompletedin 2009, that they calculated a winter population density of 7.5deer/km2 in the GlenHurichForest.ThisfigureimpliesaSpring2010populationof811animalswhenprojectedover the FES managed woodland area extending to 10,800ha (108.00km2) within theELSDMGarea.

Basedontheabovefigures;a1hindto1stagratioandanestimatedcalvingsuccessratefor the woodland region of 45%, FES also calculated that this would equate to a deerpopulationof992deer inSummer2010 (9.2/km2). This therefore suggests figuresof intheregionof405Stags,405Hindsand182Calves.SomeofFESwoodlandsarenotsecurely fencedatpresentand it isstronglybelievedbytheSportingMembersthattheFESculls,whichhaveincreasedconsiderablyoverthepast8years,are impactingontheremaininghilldeerpopulation. FESsuggeststhatthedeercount evidence contradicts this statement. However the FES cull numbers shows anevident increase which can only be explained when taking into account that a largenumberofhillrangedeerhavebeenabletomigratethroughnon-securewoodlandfencesand have subsequently been culled. The Sportingmembers have suggested that fencesshouldbemaintainedand replacedasnecessaryprior to culling commencingwithin theDMGarea,butFEShaveopenlyhighlightedbudgetaryconstraintsasbeingamajor issuewiththispolicyforthem.

9.5 March2010AerialDeerCount&March2009WestEndFootCount

Location/AreaDeerRange

PlanarArea(Ha)

Km2 Stags Hinds Calves Total Density(deer/km2)

Ardgour&Glenscaddle 9,257 92.57 370 585 246 1,201 13.0

Ariundle&DrimnatorranGlen 2,035 20.35 16 159 41 216 10.6

Conaglen&AdjacentOpenWoodlands

14,967 149.67 412 855 288 1,555 10.4

FESGlenHurich(DeerRange) 2,984 29.84 5 20 12 37 1.2

Inversanda(North) 1,690 16.90 94 173 74 341 20.2NorthCarnoch 1,488 14.88 51 8 5 64 4.3AriundleNNR*

5,809 50.89 56 22 34 112 2.2ClaishMossSSSI*Resipole*&AchnanellanSunartEstate*

Total 38,230 382.30 1,004 1,822 700 3,526 9.2 * Countedseparatelyon13thMarch2009

9.6 SexRatios&CalvingSuccess2010&2016Counts

TheMarch2010figuresshow1stagto1.81hindsTheMarch2016figuresshow1stagto1.85hinds

TheMarch2010figuresshowa38.4%calvingsuccessrateintheopenrange

TheMarch2016figuresshowa29.3%calvingsuccessrateintheopenrange9.7 PreviousGroupDeerCounts

Year DeerRangeKm2 Stags Hinds Calves Total

Density(deer/Km2)

Feb1980 402.50 900 1,622 616 3,138 7.8Feb1986 402.59 722 1,723 700 3,145 7.81995 394.90 818 1,685 661 3,163 8.02002 382.30 1,063 1,619 552 3,238 8.5

March2010* 382.30 1,004 1,822 700 3,526 9.2March2016 380.03 1,127 2,084 610 3,821 10.1

* IncMarch2009WestEndCount.9.8 PopulationTrends

Between the1980 count and the2016 therehasbeenan increaseof 683 animals from3,138to3,821;anincreaseof21.7%intheoverallopenrangepopulation.Between the2010 count and the2016 therehasbeenan increaseof 295animals from3,526to3,821;anincreaseof8.4%intheoverallopenrangepopulation.

9.9 36YearTotalandAverageDeerCountFigures

PeriodDeerRange

Km2 Stags Hinds Calves TotalDensity

(deer/Km2)

TotalofCounts 2,344.62 5,634 10,555 3,839 20,031 8.5Average 390.77 939 1,759 640 3,339 8.5

9.10 HistoricalCullInformation9.10.1 DMGTotalAnnualCullInformation

Season Stags Hinds Calves Others TotalCull PercentageChange+/-

2003/04 234 256 106 33 629 2004/05 225 219 96 34 574 -9%2005/06 217 181 57 33 488 -15%2006/07 222 209 79 24 534 9%2007/08 231 234 77 34 576 8%2008/09 251 225 103 58 637 11%2009/10 225 243 107 58 633 -1%2010/11 285 357 150 37 829 31%2011/12 269 305 131 48 754 -9%2012/13 318 302 131 31 782 4%2013/14 329 327 126 34 816 4%2014/15 305 358 147 35 845 4%2015/16 259 178 53 34 524 -38%2016/17 259 297 132 18 706 35%

TotalCull 3631 3690 1496 510 932814Year

AverageCull 259 264 107 36 666

MostRecent

5YearAverageCull 294 292 118 30 735

9.10.2 DMGAverageCullsfor5YearPeriods

9.10.3 Analysisof5YearAverageCullFiguresforPeriod2012/13to2016/17

• The5YearAverageCullfortheperiod2012/13to2016/17was10.3%higherthantheoverall14yearaverageELSDMGcull.

• The5YearAverageRedStagCullfortheperiod2012/13to2016/17was13.9%higherthanthe14yearaverageDMGRedStagcull.

• The5YearAverageRedHindCullfortheperiod2012/13to2016/17was10.6%higherthanthe14yearaverageDMGRedHindcull.

• The5YearAverageRedCalfCullfortheperiod2012/13to2016/17was10.3%higherthanthe14yearaverageDMGRedCalfcull.

AverageCullfor5YearPeriods

Stags Hinds Calves Others TotalCull PercentageChange+/-

CumulativePercentageChange+/-

2003/04to2007/08 226 220 83 32 560 2004/05to2008/09 230 215 82 37 564 1% 1%2005/06to2009/10 229 218 85 41 574 2% 2%2006/07to2010/11 243 254 103 42 642 12% 14%2007/08to2011/12 252 273 114 47 686 7% 20%2008/09to2012/13 270 286 124 46 727 6% 26%2009/10to2013/14 285 307 129 42 763 5% 31%2010/11to2014/15 301 330 137 37 805 6% 37%2011/12to2015/16 296 294 118 36 744 -8% 29%2012/13to2016/17 294 292 118 30 735 -1% 28%

9.11 2012/13to2014/15DeerCullsbyindividualProperty

S=RedStags,H=RedHinds,C=RedCalf&O=Others(Note:Anylinewithdecimalplaceisbasedonaveragefigures)

Year 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015Property/Member S H C O Total

S H C O Total

S H C O Total

Achnanellan(FC) 11 12 2 0 25 12 13 0 0 25 12.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 23Ardery(FC) 2 1 0 1 4 3 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0ArdgourEstate 2 17 7 0 26 1 20 9 0 30 1 23 8 0 32Ardgour/GlenGourLease(BPL) 12 0 0 0 12 10 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 10Ariundle(BMacPherson) 17 19 0 0 36 17 19 0 0 36 9 14 0 0 23ClaishMoss(SNH) 6 9 5 0 20 9 11 5 0 25 5 10 0 0 15Conaglen 52 78 37 0 167 40 100 40 1 181 45 111 38 1 195DrimnatorranWoods(FC) 8 17 8 7 40 17 12 5 3 37 18 20 7 13 58DrimnatorranFarm(R.MacIntosh) 11 12 0 1 24 7.5 6.2 0.7 1.7 16.0 7.4 6.0 0.5 1.6 15.4DrumfernandDoireMhor(FC) 14 5 4 0 23 2 0 0 2 4 3 1 0 0 4GlenscaddleEstate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GlenscaddleLease(BPL) 24 27 14 0 65 26 37 13 0 76 26 29 10 1 66GlenHurich(FC) 122 76 46 19 263 143 79 39 24 285 131 104 72 18 325Inversanda 7 8.6 3.2 0.0 18.9 4.0 7.0 2.0 0.0 13.0 8.0 6.0 2.0 0.0 16.0NorthCarnoch 10 2 0 1 13 8 4 3 1 16 7 1 1 0 9Ranachan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ResipoleFarm(PSinclair) 9 7 1 0 17 14 7 4 0 25 8 8 3 0 19ResipoleWoodlands(MHarrisContact) 3 1 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8 5 1 1 0 7StrontianVillage(FC) 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0SunartEstate(SGRPID)(JMacD) 8 10 4 0 22 8 12 5 0 25 10 13 5 0 28SunartOakwoods(OwnersGroup) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GroupTotals

318

301.6

131.2

31

781.9

329.5

327.2

125.7

33.7

816

305.4

358.0

147.5

34.6

845.4

9.11.1 2015/16to2016/17DeerCullsbyindividualPropertyS=RedStags,H=RedHinds,C=RedCalf&O=Others(Note:Anylinewithdecimalplaceisbasedonaveragefigures)

Year 2015/2016 2016/2017 Property/Member S H C O Total

S H C O Total

S H C O Total

Achnanellan(FC) 11 15 1 0 25 8 2 2 0 12 Ardery(FC) 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 ArdgourEstate 2 8 6 0 26 2 23 9 0 34 Ardgour/GlenGourLease(BPL) 10 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 12 Ariundle(BMacPherson) 14.8 17.0 0.0 0.0 36 15.0 17.4 0.0 0.0 32 ClaishMoss(SNH) 5 5 1 0 20 6 9 4 0 19 Conaglen 34 33 7 1 167 41 103 59 0 203 DrimnatorranWoods(FC) 15 8 2 10 40 17 7 4 6 34 DrimnatorranFarm(R.MacIntosh) 8.9 7.2 0.6 1.9 24 8.4 7.4 0.5 1.5 18 DrumfernandDoireMhor(FC) 5 4 1 3 23 14 6 4 2 26 GlenscaddleEstate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GlenscaddleLease(BPL) 22 9 1 2 65 25 38 18 0 81 GlenHurich(FC) 97 50 24 16 263 71 51 19 7 148 Inversanda 6 4 2 0 18.9 4 4 2 0 10 NorthCarnoch 5 1 2 0 13 8 3 3 0 14 Ranachan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ResipoleFarm(PSinclair) 9 6 2 0 17 13 13 4 0 30 ResipoleWoodlands(MHarrisContact) 4.4 1.6 0.8 0.0 4 3 3 2 1 9 StrontianVillage(FC) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 SunartEstate(SGRPID)(JMacD) 10 9 3 0 22 10 10 2 0 22 SunartOakwoods(OwnersGroup) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GroupTotals

259

178

53

34

524

259

297

132

18

706

10 LandUseInterests10.1 PublicAccess

TheNationalForestEstateinScotlandreceivesmorethan9millionvisitorsperyear.Many parts of the ELSDMG area experience high levels of public access. All memberssubscribe to the Access Code and DMG Notices are in use throughout the area at theentrance to the primary Glens advising of deer management activities within the area.There are no core paths as highlighted on the ScottishGovernment Core PathNetworkwithintheDMGarea.

DuringtheconsultationperiodforthisDMP,nogroupmembersuggestedthattheyincuranysignificantnegativeimpactfrompublicaccess.• TherearesignificantnumbersofaccessrequestsforDukeofEdinburghAwardSchemes

andotherplannedhikingandtraining/racingevents.• There is a significant volumeof access requests involvingwalkers completing various

longdistanceroutes.• AnnualMilitaryTrainingExercisesareheldinGlenCona,GlenScaddleandGlenGour.

Somearesimplyonfootandothersareauthorisedtoproceedwith4x4vehicles,boats,hovercrafts and air support. The members affected by these training events do sowillinglyandfreeofanycommercialcharges.

• Ponyandhorse trekkingaccess through themainglenswithin theELSDMG isusuallylimited,althoughtherewasacrosscountryponyeventinJune2016.

• DuringMayannuallytheSixDayMotorBikeTrailseventtakesplacewithintheELSDMGarea.Althoughmotorisedaccessmostmembersarehappytosupportthisevent.

MembersoftheGroupwillbeencouragedtocontributetotheSGinitiative“HeadingfortheScottishHills”andtocompletetheassociatedquestionnaires.

10.2 NationalandLocalEconomyandExpenditure10.2.1 NationalEconomy

The ADMG, the Lowland Deer Network Scotland and the Scottish GamekeepersAssociation commissioned a consultancy study by "Public and Corporate EconomicConsultants" (PACEC) entitled "The Contribution of Deer Management to the ScottishEconomy"; to assess the current contribution of deer management to the Scottisheconomy.ThekeyfindingsforScotlandin2013/14wereasfollows:• £140.8mofexpenditureinScotlandwasreliantondeermanagementofwhich£43.1m

isdirectlyduetodeermanagementactivities.• The expenditure on deer management, of £43.1m equated to £7.7m capital

expenditure, £15.2m on staff, and £20.2m other operational expenditure. This waspartiallyoffsetby£12.5minincomefromdeermanagement.

• Thestudyalsofoundthatthereare2,532jobsindeermanagementwhichequatedtoanestimatedat845FTEs.

ThenationalforestryindustryinScotlandisworthalmost£1bn/yeartotheScottisheconomy(£771mfromtimberand£183mfromrecreationandtourism).Thenationalforestryindustryemploys25,000FTEjobs(19,555inforestryandtimber;6,312inrecreationandtourism).OfthesenationalindustryfiguresFESgenerates£395meachyearfortheScottisheconomyfromtimberforestryand£110mfromvisitors.FESprovidesmorethan11,000jobsinforestry,timberprocessingandthetourismindustries.

10.2.2 LocalEconomy

ManyofthepropertiesintheELSDMGarerunasbusinesses,towhichnormalcommercialconsiderationsapply; this inevitablyhasaneffectonmanagementpoliciesanddecisionseffectingdeerstalking,forestryandagriculturalenterprisesonthevariousproperties.SomemembersoftheELSDMGexpendsignificantfinancialsumsonanannualbasiswithinthe local economy to manage and improve the sporting potential of their properties.Sporting staff areemployed to complete culls andmanage thehabitat for thewilddeerherd,lardersandotherbuildingsincludingresidentialaccommodationandholidaylettingproperties are maintained in suitable conditions, capital expenditure occurs on fencingprojectsandpurchaseofequipmente.g.4X4s,Argos&ATVsetcannually.The members of ELSDMG jointly expend more financially on an annually basis on themanagement of their properties associated with sporting deer management than theyachieve income from the resultant stalking, the sale of venison and the letting ofassociatedaccommodation.TheannualadditionalmanagementexpenditurewithintheELSDMGareavariesonayeartoyearbasisbutwouldbeintheregionofatleast£300k-£350kperannummorethananyincomegeneratedinrelationtodeermanagement(e.g.stalkingorvenisonsalesetc).Inaddition toannualoperation,maintenanceandmanagementexpenditure incurredbyELSDMGmembersaverysignificantsumofmoneyhasbeenspentinthelocaleconomyinthepast10yearsandalsohistorically.Focusingonthepast10yearperiodmembersoftheELSDMGhavedirectly funded largecapital projects such as Hydro Electric Scheme Installation, Biomass System InstallationandResidentialBuildstonamebutafewprojecttypes.Thisexpenditurehasbeenmadetoensurethatthepropertiesbecomeselfsufficientbusinessesintheirownrights.Itisverydifficulttoexactlyquantitythefullextentofthisexpenditure;butthefigurewillbeinexcessof£13,000,000inthepast10years.The majority of this expenditure has been directly with locally based or other ScottishbasedcontractorsandisaprimeexampleofhowthewiderethosofDeerManagementonSportingEstateshelps to support a strong vibrant local community andeconomywithintheELSDMGarea.

10.2.3 NegativeEconomicImpactsofDeerManagementTheSportingMembersoftheELSDMGdonotconsiderthatnegativeeconomicimpactsofdeermanagementexist.From a Sporting Estate perspective deer management is simply one of manyconsiderationswhichthevariousproprietorsconsiderwhendecidinghowtomanagetheirpropertiesandbasedontheseconsiderationscertaincostsareinevitablyincurred.ThereforeanydeermanagementcostsincurredbytheSportEstatememberssubsequenttomaking a decision onmanagement activities are not considered negative, but rathersimplyconsideredaspartandparcelofthemanagementcostsoftheirbusinesses.

10.3 LocalDeerStalking,ForestryandLandManagement

DeerstalkingoperatedonaSportingbasisisthemostwidelypractisedformoflandusebythemembersoftheGroup;itprovides:

4full-timejobs1full-timeHNC/HNDtraineejob7seasonalorpart-timejobs

These staff are largely committed to deer management and stalking for at least sevenmonthsoftheyear(midJulytomidFebruary).The Sporting Deer Stalking activity on the member's properties in turn supportsemployment in secondary roles such as tourism and hospitality. This secondaryemploymentisveryreliantinmanycasesontheDMGmembersbeingabletooperateonasportingcullbasis.WithintheDMGthissecondaryemploymentextendsto:

6full-timejobs18seasonalorpart-timejobs,partiallydependantonsportingactivities

Deer management operated by Forestry Enterprise Scotland within their Estate locallyprovides:

1.6full-timeequivalentjobs+othersecondaryemploymentinrecreation,visitorservicesandthetimberindustry.

Thepotentialannual incomeforDMGmembers from local salesofvenison, stalking letsandassociatedaccommodationletsisintheregionof:

£210,000to£230,000paDeer Stalking on both open hill and within forestry blocks and what this activitycontributestowardstheon-goingmanagementofpropertiesisconsideredbytheELSDMGtobeofsignificanteconomicimportanceinthelocalruralareaandeconomy.Thereforethe ongoing management of deer to continue to provide suitable Sporting Deer Cull isconsidered by ELSDMG as an essential part of the required wildlife and habitatmanagementoftheELSDMGarea.

10.3.1 SharingInfrastructureConsiderations

TheELSDMGhavehistoricallyconsidered ifthereareanyopportunitiesforthemembersto sharegame lardersanddeermanagement infrastructure to improvecarcasshandlingandtoensuremaximumbenefitfromvenisonproductionwhilstminimisingcarboncosts.It was considered that group members are unable to share larders due to therequirementsofBestpractice,theSQWVAssuranceSchemeandthegeographicaldistancebetweeneachoftheproperties.Themajority of the groupmembers however currently use the sameGameDealerwhocollectsvenisonfromthelardersonaregularrouteduringtheyear,henceminimisingthecarboncostsviaincreasedefficiency.

10.3.2 NeighbouringConsiderations

The Sporting Members of the ELSDMG also consider neighbouring managementimplications and in very many cases are willing to incur considerable maintenance andcapital expenditure to ensure that deer impact on other neighbouring land uses isminimised.Primaryexamplesoftheseconsiderationandexpenditurerelateto:i) Fenceswhicharemaintainedbylandlordstopreventdeermovementontoin-bye

crofting/agriculturalorforestryland.ii) The consideration by sporting members that all new or restocked forestry

schemes should be deer fenced to allow the tree crops to get away beyondbrowsingdamageheightandthusavoidtheneedforlargescaledeerculls,whichwouldberequiredifwoodlandschemeswereleftunfenced.

iii) The loss of substantial access to ‘deer range’ by fencing should be assessed bymembers and mitigated where necessary by a compensatory cull, to avoidunwanteddisplacementofdeerontoneighbouringgroundifthisislikelytobeanunintendedconsequence.

iv) FESwouldlikeittoberecognisedintheiropinionthatwhiledeerfencingplaysanimportantroleinprotectingforestryandagriculturefromnegativedeerimpactsitonly slowsdown the immigrationofdeer. They suggest that cullingbothwithinandoutsideofdeerfencesisbothnecessaryandimportant.

10.4 Agriculture

10.4.1 HistoricalLivestockNumbers

AsinotherpartsoftheHighlands,theimportanceofagriculturetotheruraleconomyhasdeclinedsignificantlyinrecentyears.Tableshowing:EstimatedhistoricalsummerlivestocknumberswithintheELSDMGarea

Property/Member Ewes/

HoggsBreedingCows

Period

ArdgourEstate(in-hand)AryhoulanSallachanArdgourCrofts&FarmsClovullinKeilFarm

2,6701,0030800

00356

196419641960’s1960’s

AriundleGlen–(MacPherson) 620 5 1960’sConaglen(in-hand)Conaglen(crofting&letland)TreslaigAchaphubuilBlaichDuisky/Garvan

2,400116100640336

200298028

1950’s–1970's1960’s–2000’s1960’s–1970’s1960’s–1980’s1960’s–1970’s

Drimnatorran 540 0 1960'sInversanda 625 0 1960’sNorthCarnoch 360 10 1960’s–1980’sPolloch-ThreeFarms 3,600 60 1950’s–1970’sResipole 600 40 1960’s–1970’sStrontian,MonumentPark-CWright 240 0 1960’sSunartEstateAnaheiltTownshipScotstownTownship

00

7559

1960’s

Total 14,650 627 1960’s–1970’sLivestockunits 2,197.5 627

Thefiguresabovedonottakeaccountofthepracticesofholdingnon-breedingstockforfatteningnordotheytakeaccountofotherfollowersandyoungstockwhichwouldhavebeen held on the properties in the 1960’s. So in effect the numbers detailed will besignificantlyunderstated.

10.4.2 CurrentLivestockNumbers

Tableshowing:Estimatedsummer2016livestocknumberswithintheELSDMGarea

Property/Member Ewes/

HoggsBreedingCows

ArdgourEstate(in-hand)SallachanArdgourCrofts&FarmsClovullinKeilFarm

1500700

03525

AriundleGlen–(MacPherson) 0 40Conaglen(in-hand)Conaglen(crofting&letland)TreslaigAchaphubuilBlaichDuisky/Garvan

07575200100

62032515

Drimnatorran 0 0Inversanda 180 0NorthCarnoch 0 0Polloch-ThreeFarms 0 0Resipole 0 12SunartEstateAnaheiltTownshipScotstownTownship

00

4020

Total 1,480 277LivestockUnits 222 277

10.4.3 CalculationofReductionbetweenHistoricalandCurrentLivestockNumbers

TheapproximatereductioninAgriculturalLivestocknumbersintheDMGareafromtheirpeaknumbersinthe1960's/1970'stotoday'snumbersareintheregionof:

13,170LessEwesandHoggs350LessBreedingCows

This considerable reductionof livestocknow results inmanyareasof previously formedhillbeingsignificantlyundergrazedandtheseareasrevertingtopoorernutritionalqualitygrazings.

However in turn agricultural under grazing has significantly increased the quantity ofavailablegrazings for theRedDeerpopulationwithin theDMGareaandprotected largeareasofthegroupfromanythreatofovergrazing.

BaseduponSGRPID'sLivestockUnits(LU's)calculationmethodologyofapplying0.15LUsper Ewe/Hogg and 1.0 LU per cow, it can be calculated that reductions in agriculturallivestockequatestoareductionof2,325.50LivestockUnits(LU's)sincethe1960's/70's.

10.4.4 ConsiderationofSGRPIDFarmedDeerPolicyinRelationtoLivestockNumbers

SGRPID'spolicyforassessingfarmeddeernumbersapplytheundernotedLUs:

AStag(+27Months)-0.4LU'sAbreedinghind(+27Months)-0.30LU'sAjuvenile(6to27months)-0.20LU's

HencethemostrecentdeercountinformationfromMarch2016wouldsuggesttheentirecounteddeerpopulationoftheELSDMGequatesto:

1,127StagsX0.4=450.8LU's2,084HindsX0.30=625.2LU's610CalvesX0.20=122.0LU'sThisisatotalWildDeerpopulationof1,198.00LU'satMarch2016.

TheaverageWildDeercount figures forthe36yearperiodbetweenthe1980and2016countswere:

939StagsX0.4=375.60LU's1,759HindsX0.30=527.70LU's640CalvesX0.20=128.00LU's

Thisequatestoa36yearaveragetotalWildDeerpopulationof1,031.30LU's.

10.4.5 ComparisonofHistoricalLivestockNumbersversesCurrentDeerNumbers

TheMarch2016countresultsthereforeconfirmedanincreaseof482beasts(14.4%oftheaveragepopulationcount)or166.7LU's(16.2%oftheaverageLU's)incomparisontotheprevious36yearperiod'sdata.This increase is more than offset by the reduction in agricultural livestock since the1960's/70's which has seen sheep and cattle numbers drop in the DMG area by circa2,325.50LU'sduringthisperiod;i.e.13,170ewesand350cows.Basedontheabove informationandtheScottishGovernment’sregulationsfortheBasicPaymentSchemeitcanbeassessedthattheoveralldeerrangeoftheELSDMGiscurrentlyunder-stockedandthereforethereispotentialforundergrazing.

Currently itwouldappear fromthe2016DeerCountandthe2016 livestock informationprovidedbymembersthatthetotallivestockandwilddeerunitsontheentiredeerrangeis1,697LUs.ThiscompareswiththerequiredBPSminimumrequirementof1,825.55LUs.AssuchtheDeerRangeoftheELSDMGiscurrentlyunder-stockedby128.55LUs.

ItshouldalsobeconsideredthattheSGRPIDrequirementfor0.05LU’sperHecateshouldbeinterruptedtobeanadditional0.05LU’sperha,i.e.inadditiontoallwilddeerwhicharealreadyonthehabitat,aswilddeerwereconsideredpresentwhenSGRPIDset theirrequirements. Therefore if calculated on this basis the ELSDMG could potentiallyintroduce8,844EwesonthehillgroundtomeetSGRPID’s2106BPSlivestockandgrazingdensityrequirements.

10.5 NativeWoodlandsandCommercialForestry

A plan has been included at Appendix 4which shows the "National Survey of ScotlandForestryInventory"findingsforalllandwithintheELSDMGarea.

The area of enclosed woodland and commercial forestry within the DMG is relativelylarge, extending to 12,107 hectares. There are extensive plantations on the Northern,WesternandSouthernboundariesof theDMGareaand their interactionwith theopenhilldeerrangeisofconsiderableimportance.Largepocketsofnativewoodlands,inparticularassociatedwithwatercourses,existwithinmostofthesecommercialwoodlands.Theexistingcommercialplantings intheDMGarecomprisedofSitkaSpruce,LodgepolePine,DouglasFir,Larchesandotherminorconifers.TheonceextensivepostglacialCaledonianpineforestshavereducedtothepresentdayfragments of the Ardgour Pinewoods SAC at Glen Gour, Glen Cona, Stronchreggan,Corrlarich,ConaRiver,ChamaidhLeithandtheLochShielSSSI. Further enhancing the management and expanding the biodiversity of the NativePinewoodsandOakwoodsofArdgourandMorvernisanimportantconsiderationforthemembersoftheDMG.TableBelowDetailing: ELSDMG'swoodlandareacomposition:

Hectares

Property/Member CommercialWoodland

NativeWoodland

OpenGroundwith

Woodland

WoodlandExpanded/Improvedwithinlast20Years

ConsideredWoodlandExpansioninnext20Years

WoodlandOpened

Since2003

Achaphubuil&CamusnagaulWoods

0 64 0 0 0 0

AchnanellanWoodland(FC)

720 412

ArderyWoodland(FC)

504 104 200 6

ArdgourEstate 144 70 209 0 0 0AriundleNNR 70 70 ClaishMoss(SNH) 0 0 0 0 0 0ConaglenEstate 941 973 250 369 500 390DrimnatorranWoodland(FC)

479 365

Drumfern,DoireMhor&NorthLochShielWoodland(FC)

466 573 173

GlenscaddleEstate 0 327 411 327 200 738GlenHurich(FC) 1,638 2,353 NorthCarnoch/DruimLaithEstate

68 448 0 448 0 0

ResipoleWoodlands 669 0 0 0 0 0SouthGarvanWoodlands

183 0 0 0 0 0

StrontianVillage(FC) 504 200 SunartOakWoodlandsOwnersGroup

100 100

TotalWoodlandArea 6,316 2,729 4,573 1,314 700 1,128

10.5.1 ThefollowingmembersofELSDMGareUKWASaccredited:ConaglenEstate(NativeandCommercialWoodlands)ForestEnterpriseScotlandNorthCarnoch/DruimLaith(GlenTarbertCommercialWoodlands)

10.5.2 ThefollowingmembersofELSDMGhaveLongTermForestorLandManagementPlans:ArdgourEstate(CommercialWoodlands)ConaglenEstate(NativeandCommercialWoodlands)ForestryEnterpriseScotland--Drumfern,DoireMhor&NorthLochShielWoodsNorthCarnoch/DruimLaith(GlenTarbertCommercialWoodlands)ResipoleFarmSouthGarvan(CommercialWoodlands)

Each individual member of the ELSDMG who have independently approved LTFP’s willhave their own Long Term Aims and Management Objectives for their woodlands; forsomemembersthesewillincludetheundernotedconsiderations:

• Consolidationofareasofcommercialforestry.• IncreasebiodiversitywithinCommercialandNativeWoodlandsituations.• ExpansionofNativeWoodlandCover.• Enhancesportingvalueofwoodlands.

Theseaimswillbeachievedthroughintegrationofthefollowingmanagementobjectives:

• Toincreasethequalityandextentofnativewoodlandhabitatthroughnewwoodland

creation and through encouraging natural regeneration and riparian plantingwithinexistingwoodlands; therebyproviding foresthabitatnetworkswithin thewoodlandsandbeyond.

• To protect the integrity of the existing native woodland habitat through wherepossible, grant aided, removal of non-natives species, in particular Rhododendronponticum.

• Toenhance landscape features through the restructuringofexistingplantationsandthroughthecarefuldesignofnewwoodlands.

• To maintain a healthy sporting deer population, ensuring that adequate shelterremainsavailablethroughouttheprogrammeofrestructuringandtoensurethattheresulting restructuring will provide tangible benefits for sporting interests over themediumandlongterm.

• Tomanagethecommercialwoodlandsareasascommercialforeststoprovidea longtermsustainablelocalforestrysectorintheregion.

• To improve the internal and external boundaries and age classes of commercialwoodlandsthroughappropriateredesignandfellingphasing,inbalancewithsporting,practicalfencing,stabilityandotherobjectives.

A plan has been included at Appendix 5a which shows the FES's record of WoodlandCreationSchemesforalllandwithintheELSDMGarea.AcopyoftheConaglenEstateLTFP“ConceptPlan”(Plan3)hasbeenaddedasAppendix5bandacopyofthe“PotentialNewPlantingPlan”(Plan9)hasbeenaddedasAppendix5c.

10.6 FCSWoodlandandDeerManagement

WithinFESmanagedwoodlandsinsidetheELSDMGarea,deeraremanagedinanattemptto reduce negative impacts on their habitat. FES deems that this will require a deerdensityof5/km2orless.Perimeter fences are important to separate FESmanagedwoodlands and other privaterestock,regenerationornewplantingsitesfromthehigherdeerpopulationsmaintainedon neighbouring sporting estate land. Internal fencing may be used where particularvulnerablesitesandspeciesrequireextraprotection.CullshaveincreasedconsiderablyonFESmanagedlandinrecentyearsandthiscullingislikelytobemaintainedwhilstrestockplantingcontinues.FEShasalsoreportedveryhighreproductiveratesinthewoodlanddeerpopulationthroughoutthearea,estimatedat45%.Thisthereforerequiresthatahigherproportionofthepopulationisculledthanisthecaseonopenrange.Toaidthishigherculling,cullsaretakenbothinandoutofseasonandnightshootingisutilisedunderSNHauthorisation.Maledeerofallspeciesareshotthroughouttheentireyear,whilefemalesarenotshotbetweenthe1stAprilandthe30thSeptember.EffectiveDeerUtilisation(EDU)isassessedusingpelletgroupcounts.ThisworkiscompletedforFESundercontractsbyconsultants.ThelastassessmentfortheGlenHurichwoodlandwasconductedin2009/10.Theresultsarethenmodelledandtogetherwithimpactsurveyshelptoinformcullsetting.

The FES target is for less than 10% leader browsing and they currently report thatbrowsingisabovethisacrosstheareawiththeir2016surveyshowing18.6%damage.

10.7 NaturalHeritage

ConsiderableareaswithintheDMGareaareofspecialimportancetothenaturalheritage.TheDMGrecognisesthatanincreasedunderstandingofthebalancebetweendeerpopulationsandthenaturalheritageisanobjectiveofconsiderableimportance.Scottish Natural Heritage has a duty, under section 3 of the Nature Conservation(Scotland)Act2004,tonotifyandassessconditionsofSSSIareasoflandthatitconsiderstobeofnational importance for their faunaor floraor their geologyorgeomorphology(thatis,theirplants,animals,rocksandlandforms).ASpecialAreaofConservation(orSAC)isasitedesignatedundertheHabitatsDirective.Thesesites,togetherwithSpecialProtectionAreas(orSPAs),arecalledNaturasitesandtheyareinternationallyimportantforthreatenedhabitatsandspecies.AplanhasbeenincludedatAppendix6whichshowstheboundariesofalldesignatedlandwithintheELSDMGarea.AplanhasbeenincludedatAppendix7whichshowstheconditionofallSSSI'swithintheELSDMGarea.

10.7.1 ArdgourPinewoodsSAC Area:1,486.66ha

QualifyingInterests: Alderwoodlandonfloodplains CaledonianforestFavourableConditionallDesignatedSpecies

10.7.2 ArdgourPinewoodsSSSI Area:1,486.66ha

QualifyingInterests: Woodlands: Nativepinewood Butterflies: Chequeredskipper Otherinvertebrates:Beetles Reptiles: ReptileassemblageFavourableConditionallDesignatedSpecies

10.7.3 AriundleOakwoodNNR Area:70ha QualifyingInterests: PartofSunartSSSIandSunartSAC PreviouslydesignatedasAriundle OakwoodSSSI

SeeSunartSAC&SSSIREConditionInformation

10.7.4 ClaishMossSAC/SSSI/RamsarSite Area:568.29ha QualifyingInterests: Bogs: Blanketbog Birds: Breedingbirdassemblage Dragonflies: Dragonflyassemblage

FavourableConditionallDesignatedSpecies

10.7.5 DoireDonnSSSI Area:167.43ha

QualifyingInterests: Woodland: Uplandoakwoodland Butterflies: Chequeredskipper Otherinvertebrates:Beetles

FavourableConditionButterflies&Invertebrates

UnfavourableDecliningConditionforUplandOak*

* TheLandownerremainsoftheopinionthat:I. There are conflicting designations & species requirements between the

OakandChequeredSkippers.II. AllotherwoodlandspeciesapartfromOakareregeneratingwelli.e.Birch,

Alderetc.III. Thewoodland is not anaturalOakwoodlandbut insteadwaspreviously

plantedandmanagedforcharcoalburning.IV. Various proposed planting& regeneration schemes have been tabled to

addressthesiteconditionsbuttodatethesehavenotbeensuccessful ingettingthroughthesupportsystem.

V. ThesiteishometoaresidentjuvenileSeaEaglewhichfurthercomplicatesplanting,asthenestsitelocationhasmovedthreetimesinthreeyears.

VI. Theowner is once again innegotiationswith SNHand FCS in relation toprogressingaplantingproposalforhopefully2017/2018planting.

10.7.6 LochShielSPA Area:2,291ha

Qualifyinginterests: Bysupportinganaverageof3pairsof black-throateddivers,representing2%of theBritishpopulation.Recorded breedingonLochShielsince1974.FavourableConditionallDesignatedSpecies

10.7.7 LochShielSSSI Area:3,355.686ha

QualifyingInterests: Freshwaterhabitats:Oligotrophicloch Woodlands: Nativepinewood Woodlands: Uplandoakwoodland Non-vascularplants:Bryophyteassemblage Birds(breeding):Black-throateddiver Butterflies: Chequeredskipper

UnfavourablebutStableConditionforUplandOak

FavourableConditionallotherDesignatedSpecies

10.7.8 Moidart&ArdgourSPA Area:41,428.29ha

Qualifyinginterests: Regularlysupportingapopulationof GoldenEagle(11activeterritoriesin 2003,morethan2.4%oftheGBpop).FavourableConditionallDesignatedSpecies

10.7.9 SunartSAC Area:10,230.22ha QualifyingInterests: Woodland: Richestcomplexof

Atlanticbryophyte-richsessileoakwoodsintheUK.

UnfavourableDecliningConditionforWetHeath,DryHeath&OakWoodland

FavourableConditionforOtters&MarineReefs 10.7.10SunartSSSI Area:5,540.16ha QualifyingInterests: Woodland: Richestcomplexof

Atlanticbryophyte-richsessileoakwoodsintheUK.

UnfavourablebutStableConditionforUplandOak,LichenandBryophytes

FavourableConditionfor13furtherDesignatedSpeciesandHabitats

10.8 CarbonCaptureandRenewableEnergyLandUses

The ELSDMG achieves considerable tonnes of carbon capture per annum, due to thevolumeofwoodlands,undisturbedpeat-landandrenewableenergyproductionwithintheELSDMGarea.

10.8.1 A number of DMG members are involved with Renewable Energy production,particularly Hydro Electric, and have various installations on their properties within theDMGarea.

WithintheELSDMGareathere isanapproximate installedcapacityof4.74MW'shydro scheme which equates to in the region of 13,702 MWhrs of electricityproductionp.a.13,702x0.523 tonnes/MWh=7,166 tonnesp.a.ofCo2avoided from fossil fuelrelated electric production, which equates to 1,433 tonnes of Carbon releasebeingavoidedp.a.(Conaglen,SunartComm.&NorthCarnoch).

10.8.2 AnumberofDMGmembershavealsoinstalledcarbonneutralwoodfuelheatingsystemsintheirpropertieswhichsignificantly reducetheneedforenergyproductionviaburningfossilfuels.

Within the ELSDMGarea these systems extend to 280kW (Conaglen&Ardgour)whichprovidescarbonneutralheatingwhichresultsinanequivalentavoidanceof56 Tonnes of Carbon release per annum, which would traditionally have beenincurredviatheburningoffossilfuels.

10.8.3 Taking intoaccounttheexistingvegetationcoverwithELSDMGarea, itcanbeestimated

thatcarboncapturebyexistingvegetationisquitesignificant. Approximatelytheundernotedvolumeisachievedannually:

2,168HaNativewoodlands+(3,952OpenGroundx50%)=4,144Hax0.7tonnesperHap.a.=2,901tonnescarboncapturep.a.5,503HaCommercial coniferwoodland x 1.4 tonnes perHa p.a. = 7,704 tonnescarboncapturep.a.20,000HaXaminimumof50%=10,000Haofundisturbedpeatbogsx0.5tonnesperHap.a.=5,000tonnesp.a.

Takingtheaboveintoaccountafigureintheregionof1,489TonnesPerAnnumofCarbonRelease is avoided via the Renewable Energy Production & Carbon Neutral HeatingSystemswithin theESLDMGarea. Furthermorea figure in the regionof15,605TonnesPerAnnumofCarboniscapturedinexistingvegetationcoverwithintheDMGarea.

11 TargetsandActions ThemembersofTheEastLochShielDeerManagementGrouphavesetthefollowingdeer

managementtargets.

Theinitialactionsrequiredtoachievethesetargetshasbeenidentifiedandhasbeensetout below each target. Members agree to progress actions in relation to each targetduringthenext2-3stalkingseasonstoachieveaprocessofdeliveryforeachtarget.

Target1 MembersofTheELSDMGaimto integratethemanagementofdeerandtheirrangewithotherlanduseinterests.

ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action1.1 The ELSDMG will continue to hold two annual meetings forownersandstalkersataconvenienttimeandlocation.

Chairman Yes

Action1.2 At meetings, members will report, consider and resolve anydifferences in deermanagement objectives within the ELSDMGarea.

Members Yes

Action1.3 Representatives from relevant organisations will be invited toattendELSDMGmeetings.

Chairman Yes

Target2 Membersaimtoincreaseawarenessandunderstandingofdeer

managementissueswithintheDMGareaandaimtoco-operateonthedecision-makingprocess.

ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action2.1 The ELSDMG will collect count, cull and HIA range assessmentinformationwhereitisavailablefrommembersandwillcalculaterecruitmentandrequiredcullnumbers.

Members Yes

Action2.2 The information will be collated by the ELSDMG and madeavailabletomembersfordiscussion.

Secretary Yes

Action2.3 Members will identify and plan the development or training ofstaffinvolvedindeermanagement.

Members Ongoing

Target3 Members aim to set appropriate cull targets before culling

begins; and then to achieve the set targets but if necessaryreviewing targets for the purpose of natural mortality andweatherconditionsinanyseason

ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action3.1 Decidecullnumbersbasedontheundernoted:a) theinformationsetoutinthisplanb) thefindingsofthemostrecentdeercensusc) countresultsandculltargetsfromneighbouringDMGsd) theresultsofanyrangeassessmentse) theseasonalweatherandmortalityimplications

Members Yes

Action3.2 Discussandagreeculltargetsforeachestate. Members YesAction3.3 Stalkers will continue culling, using selective and discriminate

methods,untilculltargetsaremet.Members Yes

Target4 MembersaimtodeliverdesignatedfeaturesinFavourableCondition.

ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action4.1 Identify designated features and the reported condition ofdesignatedsitesintheDMGarea.

Members Yes

Action4.2 If relevant identify and agree actions to manage herbivoreimpacts affecting the favourable condition of designatedfeatures.

Members Ongoing

Action4.3 Monitor progress and review actions to manage herbivoreimpactsofdesignatedfeatures.

Members Ongoing

Target5 Members aim to complete at least one co-ordinated and

systematic census of the whole ELSDMG area approximatelyeveryfiveyears.

ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action5.1 Discussandagreeonthecountmethodandtiming. SubGroup YesAction5.2 Nominateandselectmemberswhowillco-ordinatecounting. SubGroup YesAction5.3 Carryoutthecountwhenweatherconditionsaresuitable. SubGroup YesAction5.4 CollateandcirculatecountinformationtoELSDMGmembers,

ideallyintheformofacountmap.D.Mosgrove Yes

Target6 Membersaimtoimproveknowledgeofdeerlivingin,ormaking

useofwoodlandswithintheELSDMGarea.ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action6.1 MemberswillinspectandreportontheconditionofdeerfenceswithintheELSDMGarea,particularlymarchfences.

Members Yes

Action6.2

Ongoingrepairsandreplacementofmarchandotherpriorityfencewillbecompletedassoonaspossiblebyresponsiblemembersforsaidfences.

Members Ongoing

Target7 Members’ aim, as far as is practical to reduce out of season

agriculturalandforestprotectioncullsandnightculling,butwillrecognise the value of these methods where they areappropriate.

ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action7.1 Culleffortswillbeconcentratedduringin-seasonperiods. Members YesAction7.2 Culltargetswillbesettakingagriculturalandwoodlandinterests

intoaccount.Members Yes

Action7.3 Fullconsiderationwillbegiventowaysofpreventingdeermigratingontoagriculturalorforestland.

Members Yes

WithreferencetoTarget7,FESwillcontinuetoreservetherighttoemploybothSection(6)andSection18(2)authorisedcullastheydeemnecessary.Target8 The ELSDMG aims to collate all cull data and present it for

discussionatELSDMGmeetings.ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action8.1 Stalkerswillrecorddatafromallanimalsculled. Members YesAction8.2

CulldatainformationwillbecollatedanddiscussedatELSDMGmeetings.

D.Mosgrove Yes

Action8.3 Memberswillanalyseculldatainorderto:a) objectivelyassessdeerrecruitmentperformanceb) identifychangesindeernumbersovertimec) assesstheeffectivenessofthecullselectionpolicy

Members Yes

Target9 The DMG aims to identify and promote opportunitiescontributingtopublichealthandwellbeing.

ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action9.1 IdentifypublicsafetyissuesassociatedwithdeerwithintheDMGareae.g.VehicleCollisionsetc.

Members Yes

Action9.2 IdentifyandtakeactionsasnecessarytoreducetheincidenceofE-coli0157contaminationinrelationtothesaleofwildvenison.

Members Yes

Action9.3 IdentifymainaccessandrecreationalactivitywithintheDMGarea.

Members Yes

11.1 EconomicConsiderationsTarget10 Memberstotakeactionstomaximiseeconomicbenefits

associatedwithdeer.ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action10.1 Identifyandquantifydeerrelatedemployment. Members YesAction10.2 Identifyopportunitiestoimproveeconomicprospects

throughouttheDMG.Members Ongoing

11.2 DeerPerformanceandWelfare Target11 Membersaimtomaintainorimprovedeerperformance

whereverpossibleandtoreduceormitigatetheriskofestablishmentofinvasivenon-nativespecies.

ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action11.1 Controlinvasivenon-nativespecies(i.e.muntjac,sikaorfallow)topreventtheirestablishmentandspread.

Members Yes

Action11.2 Agreeonlocalmanagementofotherspecieswhichmaybeutilisedasaresourcee.g.goatsandwildboartoreducetheirspreadandimpacts.

Members Yes

Action11.3 Agree,collateandreviewdataavailablewithintheDMGwhichmightbeusedasaproxyfordeerhealth/welfarei.e.recruitment,wintermortalityetc.

Members Yes

Action11.4 FollowBPGandtakereasonableactionstoensurethatdeercullingoperationssafeguardwelfare;forculledandsurvivinganimals.

Members Yes

Action11.5 Takereasonableactionstoensurethatthewelfareofsurvivingpopulationsissafeguardede.g.provision/accesstofoodandshelterandmaintaininganappropriatedeerdensity.

Members Yes

Action11.6 Periodicallyreviewinformationonactionstosafeguardwelfare,identifyandimplementchangesasrequired.

Members Yes

Target12 Membersaimtokeepnaturalmortalitylevelsbelow2.5%of

thetotalpopulation.ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action12.1 Stalkerswillrecordallobservedcasesofnaturalmortality,makingnoteofsex,approximateageandpossiblecauseofdeath.

Members Yes

Action12.2 NaturalmortalityinformationwillbecollatedandpresentedfordiscussionattheELSDMGmeeting.

Members Yes

11.3 RangeAssessmentandManagementTarget13 Membersaimtomonitorandmanagedeerimpactsinthewider

countryside andmaintain deer range in a stable or improvingcondition.

ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action13.1 Identifyhabitatresourcebybroadtypes. Members YesAction13.2 Identifyasustainablelevelofgrazingforeachofthesehabitat

types.Members Ongoing

Action13.3 Regularlyreviewandadaptmanagementwhennecessary. Members OngoingAction13.4 Deercarcasseswillbeextractedusingmethodswhichminimise

orpreventdamagetothenaturalheritage.Members Yes

Action13.5 Muirburningwillbecarriedoutinaccordancewiththe“MuirburnCode”.

Members Yes

Target14 Members aim to manage deer to retain existing native

woodland cover and improve woodland condition in themediumtolongterm.

ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action14.1 Establishoverallextentofwoodlandanddeterminewhatproportionisexistingnativewoodland.

Members Yes

Action14.2 Determinecurrentconditionofnativewoodland. Members YesAction14.3 Identifyactionstoretainandimprovenativewoodlandcondition. Members OngoingAction14.4 Monitorprogressandreview. Members OngoingTarget15 Members toconsidercontribution to theScottishGovernment

woodlandexpansiontargetof25%woodlandcover.ActionBy

ActionAchieved

Action15.1 IdentifyandquantifyextentofrecentwoodlandestablishmentthroughSRDP(last20years)andthroughotherschemes.

DMP Yes

Action15.2 Identifyandquantifyopportunitiesandprioritiesforwoodlandexpansionoverthenext5-10years.

DMP Yes

Action15.3 ConsideratapopulationleveltheimplicationofincreasedwoodlandondeerdensitiesanddistributionacrosstheDMG.

Members Yes

Action15.4 Implementactionstodeliveranyagreedproposalsandreviewprogress.

Members Ongoing

12 PopulationModelling

TheSportingmembersoftheDMG,asstatedpreviouslyinthisplan,wouldliketocontinueto increase theRedDeerpopulation toprovideagreater sportingcullofhigheraverageagestags.Theaveragedeerdensity/km2forthe36yearperiodbetweenthe1986and2016countsis8.5deer/km2andthedensityfortheMarch2016countwas10.1deer/km2.The DMG's agreed targeted Red deer density on hill ground is to be keptwithin SNH’smediumratedcategoryof8to15deer/km2density.

It is evident in recent years that the FES woodland culls within the Group area haveincreased considerably. This increase can be seen from examining the cull informationprovidedfortheprevious14yearperiod(Appendix8),whichshowstheFEScombinedcullfromtheirpropertiesincreased:

From---186animalsperannumduringtheperiodfrom2003/04to2007/08To---339animalsperannumduringtheperiodfrom2011/12to2015/16

Thisrepresentsan82.3%increaseduringthisperiod.

ItisalsoofparticularconcerntotheSportingmembersoftheDMGthattheFEScombinedRedStagcullfortheirpropertiesincreased:

From---66Stagsperannumduringtheperiodfrom2003/04to2007/08To---150animalsperannumduringtheperiodfrom2011/12to2015/16

Thisrepresentsa127.3%increaseduringthisperiod.

TheSportingEstatemembers consider that this increase isnot justifiedor sustainable ifFEScannotverifythattheirwoodlandboundariesfencesaresecurefromdeermovementsfromtheopenhillground.FESsuggestedthatthecullinFESmanagedforestryareashadincreasedatthesametimeastheobservedincreaseintheoveralldeerpopulationintheELSDMGarea.FESsuggestthatcombinedwiththeobservedhighfecundityratesof45%inwoodlanddeer,that25%higherpercentagecullsarerequiredthanonOpenRange.FESsuggeststhattheirculltakenis justifiedbecauseifthecullwasreducedthelevelsofdamage to their property would increase and the cost would be enormous. FESconfirmedthatit is likelythattheirculltakenhasincreasedduetoimmigrationfromthesurroundingpropertiesandthatthemajorityofthese‘immigrants’arestags.FCSsuggest thatdeer fencingwillonlyslowdownthe rateof immigrationormaraudingbutwillnotstopitentirely.

FES confirmed that they spend around £100K each year on fence maintenance andreplacementandtheLochaberForestDistricthasaround248kmofstrategicdeerfencingwithareplacementvalueofaround£3million.FESconfirmedthat their2016/17cullhas fallen to209reddeer including112stagsandthatdamage levels torestockingacrosstheareahavefallenduringthepasttwowintersandtheamountofnaturalregenerationofnativetreespecies,alongLochShielsidefromScammodaletoPolloch,isencouraging.FES has suggested that theymayhave reached a pointwhere the effectiveness of theirdeer fences and the cull arenowmoving them towards a sustainableposition. FESwillmonitorthesefindingsoveraperiodofafewyearstoensurethatthepublic investmentandconsiderableeconomicbenefitstheforestbringsbothnationallyandlocally,continuetobesafeguarded.

12.1 PopulationModelling

The FESWoodland Population Estimate was calculated at Summer 2010, therefore thefollowing PopulationModel can be used to reviewactual effects on thewoodlanddeerpopulationbasedonactualcullfiguresduringtheperiod2010–2016;ontheassumptionthattherewasnoimmigrationintoormigrationfromthewoodlandblocksinquestion.TheELSDMGPopulationModelhasbeencompletedwith:

I. ThelatestinformationfromtheELSDMG2016PeriodDeerManagementCount.II. Theaveragecullfiguresfromthepast6years.III. The FES population assessment information from their 2009 Assessment which

indicated at that time a summer woodland population in 2010 of 992 animals(estimatedas405Stags,405Hindsand182Calves)over10,800hamanagedbyFES(9.2deer/km2).

12.1.1 PopulationModel

PopulationmodellingbasedonthebasicmodellingspreadsheetprovidedbySNH

12.2 OutcomesfromPopulationModel

The population model shows that unless an assumption e.g. Mortality is considerablyhigherthanestimatedormigrationisoccurringfromtheDMGarea;thatboththeSportingandWoodlandCullsarebeinginfluencedbyotherfactors.Themodelsuggeststhatbasedon the cull since 2010 that deer population in the woodland areas should have beeneradicated and the deer population on the open hillwould increase by in the region of1,037animals(822stags).Neitheroftheseoutcomeshasoccurredandthesportingmembersarequitecertainthatsucha large increaseonthehill rangewillnotoccur inthefuture if thewoodlandcull ismaintainedathistoriclevels.ItshouldbenotedthatthemodelsuggeststhattomaintainanaverageSportingstagcullof135OpenRangeStagsthattheELSDMGareawouldrequiretocarryapopulationofintheregionof1,890stags,1,890hindsand640calves.ItisclearlyevidentthatbasedontheFESinitialestimateofdeernumbersinSummer2010that significant migration into the woodland culling area has occurred throughout theperiod. The figures suggest that if migration could not occur, due to all fences beingsecure, that FES would have culled all enclosed stags based on their actual cull figureswithin a 4 year period (i.e. 2013) and that by year 6 they would have eradicated allencloseddeerwithinthewoodlands(i.e.2016).ThisisclearlynotthecaseonthegroundasdeerarestillpresentwithinFES’smanagedarea.

12.3 TheCurrentPositionandPossibleMeanstoAddressSituationDue to the currentlyporous fences theopen range cullingofhindsand calveshasbeenconstrained by sporting members to compensate for the over culling of stags withinwoodlandblocks;inanattempttoincreasethestagnumbersthroughnaturalrecruitment.It is thereforeevidentthatensuringrestrictionsofmovement fromthehill land intothewoodland areas must be considered of fundamental importance when considering theELSDMGpopulationmodellingandculltargets.Unlesssignificantprogressismadeandfencingre-establishedinareasofconflictitwouldappear from the model that regardless of the large FES culls, which could continue inperpetuity,thatoveralldeernumbers,inparticularhindsandcalves,willincreasefurtheronanannualbasis.

12.4 MeasurestoAddressSituationFES has been working towards repairing and replacing the strategic fences within theESLDMGarea.FESdoesnotcurrentlyculldeer inthepoorlyfencedareasatDrumfernandCallop. TheGlenHurichfencefromScammodaletotheStrontiantoPollochpublicroadfromhashadlargesectionsrenewedandaprogrammeisinplacetorenew/maintainothersectionsasandwhenfundingallows.FEShasregularlysuggestedthatneighbouringlandownersshouldcontributetowardsthecost of fencing FES’s boundaries to accelerate the FES maintenance and renewalprogramme.However it must be understood that FES have no legal right to ask private third partylandowners, who do not share march boundaries with FCS/FES, to contribute towardswhatwouldbe internalFES fence replacementcosts;as themajorityof theproblematicfencesarewhollylocatedonFCS/FESland.The Sporting members would suggest that if FES are unable to maintain and reinstatecontroversial fences in areas of largely unproductive land, which lies out with the FESstrategic boundary fences for their commercially viable woodlands, then perhaps FESshouldactivelyseektosell thissurplus landto theadjoiningneighbourse.g. suchas thenorthendofGlenHurichatGlasfernandalongtheexistingwesternFCSboundaryasfarasAchnanellan.Ifarrangementscouldbeestablishedthensubsequentmarch fenceboundariescouldberenewedwithsharedresponsibilityfencelines,asopposedtohavingfencesinsomecase500-1,000m inside the actual legal march boundaries and thus separated from theadjacentproprietor’spropertieswithalargeareaofunderutilisedandunproductiveland.UnderthesecircumstancestheprivateELSDMGmemberscouldconsideracceptingsomeliabilityfornewfencesbetweenthevariousproperties.

13 AnnualCullTargets13.1 SikaDeerCullTargets&Policy

ThereareonlyaverysmallnumberofSikaDeerwithintheDMGarea,andprimarilytheseanimalsareonlyeverseenduringtherut. Allmembershaveagreedtoa"cullonsight",withinthelegallimits,policyforanySikaDeerwhichareobservedwithinthegrouparea.

13.2 RoeDeerCullTargets&Policy

TheDMGhavenoagreedRoedeercullingtargetsorobjectives;asthemajorityoftheRoeculled by group members are found within woodland blocks and members should bepermitted to reduce this population as they independently assess necessary on eachproperty.

13.3 AnnualCullTargetsforForestryLand/NonOpenRange

Theannualcull tobecompletedbyForestry/NonOpenRangemembers,withinsecurelyfencedwoodlandsshouldnotberestricted;however theSportingMembersof theDMGwouldlikeanymembercompletingthistypeofnon-restrictedForestryCulltoconfirmthatthe woodland in question is securely fenced. The Sporting Members would like theForestryOwner/Manager to vouch prior to culling taking place that as far as practicallypossible that no significantmovement in deer population is possible from the open hillrangetotheirenclosedwoodland.If this confirmation is not provided by the woodland members it is quite evident thatSportingMember will not be able to increase their sporting culls or indeed reduce theaverage deer density/km2 on the hill ground. The effect of over culling stags withinwoodlandareasisthereforelikelytoencourageSportingmemberstoconstraintheircullsand to hold higher hinds and calf numbers than ideal in effect to compensate withadditionalrecruitmenttomaintainfuturestagnumbers.

The2017/18SeasonspecificculltargetsforDMGForestryMembersaretobeasperthebelowtable,whicharebasedonthe5-yearaveragecullsfrom2012/13to2016/17:

ForestryProperty/Member

SuggestedStagCullIdeallylessthanbelownumber

SuggestedHindCull+/-10%of

belownumber

SuggestedCalfCull+/-10%of

belownumberAchnanellanFESLease(MacDonald) 11 11 4Ardery(FC) 1 1 1ClaishMoss(SNH) 6 9 2DrimnatorranWoods(FC) 15 12 5DrumfernandDoireMhor(FC) 8 3 1GlenHurich(FC) 112 72 38ResipoleWoodlands(MHarris) 5 1 1StrontianVillage(FC) 0 0 0SunartOakwoods(OwnersGroup) 0 0 0

Total 158 109 52

13.4 AnnualCullTargetsforSportingEstateLand/OpenRangeThe2017/18SeasonspecificculltargetsforDMGSportingMembersaretobeasperthebelowtable,whicharebasedonthe5-yearaveragecullsfrom2012/13to2016/17:

13.5 FeralPigsandGoats

TherearenopopulationsofFeralPigsorGoatswithintheELSDMGarea.Ifthissituationchanges thegroupwill consider the impactof suchanimalsandwilldiscussandagreeapolicyinrelationtomanagementofsuchanimals.

13.6 CullTargetReview’sTheDMG'sculltargetwillbereviewedand,ifnecessary,adjustedannually.

SportingProperty/Member

SuggestedStagCull+/-10%of

belownumber

SuggestedHindCull+/-10%of

belownumber

SuggestedCalfCull+/-10%of

belownumberArdgourEstate 2 18 8Ardgour/GlenGourLease(BPL) 11 0 0AriundleFarm 14 12 4Conaglen 45 92 33DrimnatorranFarm 6 6 2GlenscaddleLease(BPL) 25 30 10InversandaEstate 6 6 2NorthCarnoch/DruimLaithEstate 7 2 1ResipoleFarm 11 6 2SunartEstate(SGRPID)Lease(JMacDonald) 9 11 4

Total 136 183 66

14 TrainingPolicyandCompetence

Where applicable individual members of the DMGmay undertake a skills and trainingassessment to establish current skill levels applicable to deer management within theDMG.TheDMGmemberswillwork towardsallDMGMembersor thoseactingon theirbehalfundergoingthenecessarytrainingtodemonstrateCompetence.TrainingwillbeusedtopromoteandrecordcontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentthroughtheBestPracticeGuidance(BPG).

• TheDMGrecognisethat ‘Competence’hasbeendefinedasmembersachievingDeerStalkingCertificate(DSC)1orequivalentqualification.

• The DMG also recognise that members or their employees completing deermanagementworkshouldattainDSC2status.

The DMG recognise that Deer managers supplying venison for public consumption arerequired to certify carcasses as fit for human consumption and to demonstrate duediligence and therefore the “TrainedHunter” status is required for carcass certification.The Group is committed to promoting “Trained Hunter” status and encouraging thosehandlingcarcasestoobtainsuitabletraining.Members will also promote and facilitate the uptake of formal and CPD trainingopportunitiesforthoseparticipatingindeermanagement.TheDMGmembersall recognise the requirement foreach individualproperty/owner tooperate (where applicable) under awritten health and safety policywhichwould coverdetailson first aidand loneworkingarrangementsaswell as relevant specialist trainingrelatingtouseoffirearms,ATVsandotherequipment,vehiclesandmachineryetc.The DMGwill ensure that deermanagers aremade aware that they should be familiarwithnotifiablediseasesandthatareportingsystemforrecordingsuchissuesisinplace.The DMG members will ensure individually that appropriate bio-security measures areenacted when stalking clients from locations where Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) ispresent, e.g. North America or Scandinavia. Where people from these regions takestalkingwith the ELSDMG areasmembers are to ensure that the visitors are presentedwithacopyoftheCDWinformationleaflet.TheDMGmemberswillensure individually thattherisksassociatedwithLyme’sDiseaseandothertick-bornediseasesareunderstood,amongststalkingstaffandguests/visitors.

The undernoted members are Level 1 DSC accredited and working towardsDSCLevel2: NorthCarnoch(SFox&DFox) GlenScaddle(EMaclean)TheundernotedmembersareLevel2DSCaccredited:

Ardgour(SCorrigan) ConaglenEstate(RMaclean,ILaing&DMackenzie) FES(JJackson,CLavin&JMacDonald) Inversanda(HPhilips)

ResipoleFarm(PSinclair,JJackson) SunartEstate(JMacDonald)

TheundernotedmembersareDMQApprovedWitnesses

FES(JJackson,CLavin)ResipoleFarm(PSinclair)

TheundernotedmemberisaDMQAssessor

FES(CLavin)

15 VenisonMarketing

ThesupplyofvenisonofthehigheststandardintothefoodchainisaprerequisitefortheELSDMGanditsmembers.MembershipoftheScottishQualityAssuranceSchemeforVenisonProduction,namelytheScottishQualityWildVenison(SQWV)SchemeisrecommendedandwillbeencouragedbytheELSDMG;asiscollaborativemarketingwhereappropriate.TheDMGmemberswillcontinuallyidentifymeansofensuringfoodsafetyismaintainedincarcasshandlingandvenisonprocessingandwillbecompliantwiththeBPGinrelationtomeathygieneandwillcomplywithanyguidanceissuedbythe“FoodStandardsAgency”inrelationtoE-coli0157.

TheundernotedmembersareSQWVschemeaccredited:

ConaglenEstate ForestEnterpriseScotland

16 CommunicationsPolicyThe ELSDMG holds regular meetings which are well-attended by members. Thesemeetingsofferaforumforregularexchangeofinformationoncountsandcullsandotherroutine monitoring information. Members are fully committed to attendance at suchmeetingsorwhereunabletoattend,tosendrepresentatives.

The DMG also agrees that it shall send a representative to all public meetings held todiscussLongTermForestPlans (orotherplansopentopublicconsultation)wheretheseconcernanestatewithintheGroup.WheneverpossibleaDMGmembershallalsoattendCommunityCouncilmeetingswithintheELSDMGtorepresenttheGroupandansweranyquestionsarisingaboutdeermanagementwithinthearea.

TheELSDMGwilloperateinanopenandtransparentmanner.TheGroupwillundertakeregularupdatesoftheELSDMGsectionofthewebsiteoftheADMG.Thisdeerplanwillbeuploaded to that site and an Annual Report of activities carried out in the precedingperiod.Whereapplicableexternalcommunicationwillbedirectedbothatmembersandatpartiesnot directly involved in the DMG but whom have a significant interest in deermanagement including individuals, local bodies such as crofting clerks, communitycouncils,localauthorities,localmediaandotherspecialistinterests.

17 PublicCirculation/ConsultationListIt is proposed that the DMP and all appendices will be published on the ELSDMG’swebpageoftheADMGwebsite.Thiswillallowpublicaccesstothedocuments.Itisalsoproposedthatinfuturethebelowstakeholderswillbeformallycontactedonanannual basis in writing with a request for them to confirm if they have any views orcommentstomakeontheDMPandtheroleandactivitiesoftheELSDMG.NeighbouringDMGs

ArdnamurchanDMGMoidartDMGMorvernDMGWestLochaberDMG

CommunityCouncilsArdgourCCGlenfinnanCCStrontianCC

CroftingTownships/ClerksAnaheilt&ScotstownBlaichClovullinGarvan&DuiskyTreslaig

SNH–(GroupMember)FES–(GroupMember)ADMGs

The DMGwill identify and implement actions to address community issues on deer, ordeermanagement activity and to support and promotewider opportunities for furthereducationondeer.

The ELSDMGwill consider all responses provided to the DMP or activities of the DMG.Where responses are deemed appropaorate by ELSDMG they may lead to earlyamendment(s)orrevisionoftheDMP.

18 ReviewTheDeerManagementPlanwillbe reviewedonanannualbasisby themembersof theELSDMG.Itislikelythatsomepartsoftheplan,suchastheauditandtargets,willrequireannual updating, while parts such as the Policy Statement may remain unchanged forlonger.AnynecessarychangestotheplanwillbemadebyamembernominatedbytheELSDMG.Whenchangeshavebeenmade, revisedcopiesof theplanwill bemadeavailable toallmembers of the ELSDMG and circulated for public comment if deemed necessary byELSDMG.