Seòmar agus comataidhean

Actually, minister, I hate to say that you are wrong, but you are wrong. The reason for close deer seasons was not to allow for antler growth—that is fundamentally untrue. The reason for close seasons is that the deer were in very poor shape, in most cases, after they had completed the rut—certainly the red deer were. By harrying them all year round, you are increasing the pressures on them.

As a deer manager, I can give you an example. I picked up 60 young stags that were dead on the edge of a plantation after a very cold and wet spring—and that was without their being harried and being given a fair chance to recover after the rut. What you are going to do will increase that sort of occurrence. If you are basing this legislation on the idea that it is all about growing antlers, I am afraid that that is wrong.

Minister, are you happy that, when a deer is at its weakest, most challenged point, before it goes into the most challenging season of the year—winter in Scotland—you are going to be harrying it and shooting it at every possible opportunity?

I am happy to ask no further questions and to allow the committee to continue. I will take my time up during the time when I—

Yes—thank you, convener. Before I go any further, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I have a small farming partnership that has roe deer on its land, which are given protection because my neighbours kill an awful lot of them.

Minister, I am less concerned about the use of night sights. I am disappointed that you are unable to say that there will be a difference between using image-intensifying, infrared and TI sights, and which sights will be acceptable under the legislation. I think that that is an admission—it is an admission on training as well, and the extra requirements in that regard.

As the convener said, you can see the backdrop with lights at night but you cannot see the backdrop with thermal imaging. You can to a certain extent with II and IR, but not with TI, because it will just blend in with the backdrop. That concerns me if there is to be no extra training.

I would like to ask you about non-lead ammunition and the use of copper bullets. The point of lead and expanding bullets is to cause catastrophic shock to the animal, which causes it to die instantaneously. There is some tolerance, when you are using lead bullets, on the exact bullet placement; if you are slightly further back on where you should be shooting at, it will still pick up the lungs and the liver and cause the animal to die almost instantaneously.

That is not so with lighter bullets and copper. What investigations have you done regarding the use of copper bullets and bullet placement where you are going to shoot the animal, especially at night, using a TI, an II or an IR sight? How are you are going to achieve that with lighter bullets that require more accurate bullet placement?

Did NatureScot carry out its experiments on whether it is possible to achieve what is sought with night sights at night? If it did not do so at night, I would question those results. I am asking from a welfare point of view, because the welfare of animals is really important. I will come on to that in the second part of my questioning.

I am afraid that it does not address my concern. It is very difficult to follow up on animals that have been shot at night, to minimise any welfare issue. You cannot do that unless you have a dog with you.

I want to pick up on your comments that using night sights would allow more extensive deer culling to go on over a bigger period and that Forestry and Land Scotland spent £10 million a year on deer control. I have here some figures that I know are correct. Forestry and Land Scotland asks its rangers to kill more than two deer every day of the year that they work. That amounts to a huge number, which is probably not achievable. If some of that £10 million was spent on putting people on the ground, more deer culls would probably be achieved and the proposed measures would not be necessary.

Are you comfortable that harrying an animal from dawn to dusk, irrespective of its sex, is the right way to do it? To me, it sounds like a form of warfare, which is something that I used to do when I was in the army.

I thank the committee for allowing me to question the minister first. Minister, what concerns me more than anything else is that, under this legislation, we are going to allow a target to be painted on a male deer’s back from the very day that it is born to the very day that it dies. It can be shot literally as it appears out of its mother until the day it dies. Do you think that that is reasonable, fair and right for proper deer management?

I would love to have a long discussion about ballistics with the minister. Muzzle velocity is one thing, but it is nothing to do with delivering a certain number of kilojoules of energy directly at the point of aim. The problem with lighter copper bullets is that, unless you hit a bone, there will be deflection. There is no doubt that, if you hit an animal slightly further forward on the shoulder blade, the bullet can travel over the shoulder blade and out the other side. If you hit it too far back, in the guts, it might pass directly through the animal because there is no expansion.

Using copper bullets is fine during the day, because you can aim specifically for a bone at the top of the leg and, one would hope, hit it. Are you confident that that can be achieved with thermal imaging, infrared illuminators and IR sights? I am a practitioner with 40 years’ experience, and I am not sure that I would be able to do it, and I have used some very good thermal imaging sights.

They were probably done during daylight, which is the equivalent of using a lamp at night. It works fine in those circumstances. Has it been explained how difficult it is to achieve that with a TI sight, an II and an IR sight?

I am sure that the committee has heard enough from me today, so I will keep my comments brief.

I have to respond to Ariane Burgess’s comment about the administrative burden. Let me be absolutely clear that the general authorisation for the culling of deer, which was issued by NatureScot in 2023-24, allows occupiers who are suffering from damage to improved agricultural land and enclosed woodland to control the deer in the close season. No further paperwork is required. That was signed off by NatureScot. There is no administrative burden and occupiers have that right. They do not have the right to kill female deer that are more than one year old or those that have dependent calves or that are pregnant. There is, therefore, no administrative burden.

I stress that the welfare of deer is extremely important. I cannot emphasise enough that, if we are going to control wild animals, we have a responsibility to do so as humanely as possible, and that does not mean chasing them all day and all night.

I remain concerned about the consultation that the Government has carried out. I lodged the motion to annul to give the minister a chance to carry that out and see whether there is a way that those who would like to see more control of male deer during the close season and those who do not can find a way to work together. I remain concerned about the Government’s consultation.

I propose the motion to annul because it would give the minister a chance to carry out a consultation and see whether there is a way that those who would like there be more control of deer, and of male deer during the close season, and those who would not can work together. With the legislation, there will be those who want more control and those who do not, and there will be a split between people who manage land. When we are trying to control deer, that is deeply unhelpful.

I press the motion.