Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 20 February 2026

Introduction

This document provides a summary of consultee responses to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)’s 2022 public consultation on proposals for deer management strategy for England and government’s response.

At the right level, ‘browsing’ (foraging) by deer can help maintain a balance between open space, scrub and ground flora in our woodlands. This can benefit other woodland species but when browsing, or other activities, such as trampling, become excessive this causes damage, especially to young trees and ground flora. Over-browsing by deer is now threatening the sustainability of tree planting and natural regeneration of woodlands. This risks impacting on the government’s target to increase woodland and tree canopy cover in England to 16.5% by 2050, reducing timber value, causing crop damage and impacting woodland biodiversity.

From 4 August to 2 September 2022, Defra consulted on proposals under 6 main themes, covering:

• sustainable management
• improving the laws and regulations on deer
• minimising the spread and impacts of non-native deer species
• deer health, welfare and safety
• wild venison market
• developing and improving the evidence base

The consultation questions were made up of 5 demographic questions, 14 multiple choice questions (10 questions with responses on a 4-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and 4 yes or no questions) and 2 open text questions. All 14 multiple choice questions included free text boxes.

Analysis of consultation responses was carried out by Eunomia on behalf of Defra.

References to Defra in this document refer to Defra Group, inclusive of its arm’s length bodies (such as Forestry Commission and Natural England).

Responses received

Defra received 2,101 responses in total (2,064 responses to the survey questionnaire and 37 via email or post). Defra thanks all of those who considered these proposals and provided comments.

Survey respondents were asked in what capacity they were responding to the consultation by selecting from a list of categories, allowing respondents multiple categories to identify themselves by. The most common categories were:

• individuals (1,479 times)
• landowners (375 times)
• farmers (237 times)
• ecologists (70 times)
• ‘other’ (330 times)

Of the 330 respondents who identified themselves as ‘other’, the most common description was ‘deer manager’, followed by ‘deer stalker’.

Most of the emailed responses (30) came from organisations, associations and user groups. Some of the emailed responses did not answer every question.

Analysis methodology

Survey analysis

Where results refer to the whole sample, each respondent was counted once, regardless of how many capacities they identified as. Where the results are referred to by type of respondent these were counted in the following manner:

• all respondents who classified themselves in one category (1,674 respondents) were classified and counted as the category they selected. Note that 1,194 of these respondents classified themselves as ‘individual’
• all respondents who classified themselves as an individual and one other category, for example, farmer and individual (180 respondents) were classified and counted as the substantive category (in this case, farmer)
• respondents who classified themselves in 3 or more categories (119), or 2 categories (180) where neither was ‘individual’, were not included in the distribution analysis

Using the approach outlined above, we have only included data for landowners, farmers and ecologists.

Multiple choice questions

The summary of 10 multiple choice questions based on the whole sample includes the total number of all respondents who answered by their level of agreement on a 4-point scale without a neutral option (either strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree), and those who replied as ‘I don’t know’. The tables with quantitative data containing count and percentage for each of the 10 questions are presented in Annex A. The results for each of these multiple-choice questions are also presented and summarised by type of respondent.

Software was used to identify the most mentioned topics and their frequency (‘Qualtrics’ and natural language processing software). A set of codes was developed manually, based on key themes for each question, to ensure human interpretation and focus on relevant topics.

As the questionnaire did not restrict the length of open text responses, the survey received open text amounting to approximately 450,000 words. This meant that analysis focused on the open text responses of those who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the relevant multiple-choice questions.

Yes or no questions

The summary of responses to the 4 yes or no questions based on the whole sample shows the total number of respondents who answered with any of the 3 options (yes, no or do not know/unsure). It includes an overview of topics provided in free text explanations by those respondents who selected ‘yes’.

Free text questions

The 2 free text questions (questions 13 and 15) were analysed by human interpretation, using a set of codes developed for each question by reading all the responses. The summary of free text questions presents the number of responses in each code.

Emailed and postal responses

Those who emailed or posted their responses were analysed separately to the survey responses. These tended to be from organisations, associations and user groups.

Summary of responses and government response

Sustainable management

Question 6: To what extent do you support the introduction of incentives for reducing deer impacts to protect woodland?

Funding for measures such as fencing to exclude deer from woodlands has been made available by Defra under schemes such as the England Woodland Creation Offer. Defra wished to test its view that introduction of financial support for additional measures, principally lethal control, may increase focus on reducing deer impacts on woodlands.

Summary of responses

Of those who expressed a preference, an overwhelming majority of respondents were in support (80% either strongly agreed or agreed).

For those who disagreed or strongly disagreed (17%), the main reasons were:

• concerns over poorer management and indiscriminate shooting
• not enough discussion of alternative approaches to culling such as deer fencing, birth control, vaccines or rural land management
• concerns over leading to an increase of less qualified and experienced shooters resulting in negative consequences for shooting competency
• deer being a localised issue rather than national
• views that existing incentives are sufficient

Analysis by type of respondent

Analysis by type of respondents shows that landowners (88%), farmers (90%) and ecologists (87%) largely agreed with this proposal. 

Government response

Defra notes the overwhelming support for this proposal. This commitment is included in the deer impacts policy statement.

Defra recognises the concerns expressed by those who disagreed with this proposal. However, the current approach to reducing impacts is insufficient as deer damage to woodlands has increased in recent decades. Fertility control is not a viable option at this time for wild deer and other methods of reducing impacts, such as fencing, have limited effects alone.

Grant support for lethal control is subject to confirmation that deer impacts warrant this, that it will be beneficial to manage these impacts (whether alone or alongside other measures), and that it will be conducted safely and in a manner that seeks to minimise suffering. 

Defra will continue to support deer management training and England and Wales best practice guidance, to help ensure lethal control is safe and humane. This is covered further in the response to question 14.

Improving the laws and regulations on deer

Question 7: We propose to review and amend existing legislation to allow shooting of male deer during the existing close season. To what extent do you support this proposal?

The Deer Act 1991 (as amended) specifies dates in the calendar year when male deer cannot be shot (‘close seasons’). The original intent included to protect males while growing antlers. Shooting of males in the close season can only be carried out by licence for specific reasons. Or, under section 7 of the Deer Act, which provides a defence for those who take or shoot deer without a licence, if this was done to protect against serious damage to crops or timber.

Male deer can be currently shot during the mating season without licence, with many dominant male deer being shot for their large antlers (“trophy hunting”).

Defra sought to test views on reviewing and amending existing legislation to allow shooting of male deer during the close season.

Summary of responses

Respondents’ views were strongly polarised, 51% either strongly agreed or agreed, and 47% either strongly disagreed or disagreed.

Reasons for disagreeing and strongly disagreeing with amending existing legislation to allow shooting of male deer during the existing close season were:

• the current season is sufficient for management of male deer
• management of females would be more effective
• management would be ineffective or not needed
• concerns over health, welfare and evolutionary implications for herds
• concerns over poaching
• concerns over mistakenly shooting females
• concerns over culling

Analysis by type of respondents

Landowners (67%) and farmers (69%) were the most likely groups to agree with the proposal whilst 59% of ecologists agreed.

Government response

Defra notes the polarised response to this proposal and as a result will not be pursuing changing male close seasons in the Deer Act.

Instead, Defra, the Forestry Commission and Natural England will work together on improvements to the existing licensing regime (that allows shooting of male deer during the close season, in specific circumstances). These will continue to include where this would prevent deer impacts to woodlands, crops, biodiversity or other natural heritage . The changes will seek to simplify the process of gaining a licence for management of male deer throughout the year for these purposes.

Protecting male deer during their period of antler growth will remain the default legal position and will still be possible where this is the objective of the land manager. Allowing some lethal control of male deer during the current close season, through licensing, is unlikely to affect the evolution of the deer herd.

Defra notes that the existing close seasons for female deer have an important function to protect the welfare of dependant young deer. We are not currently proposing changes to the close seasons for female deer.

If deer impacts on woodlands or other societal assets continue to increase (despite the deer impacts policy statement being implemented), Defra will revisit if there is a need to review and amend the male or female close seasons as specified in the Deer Act.

Question 8: We propose to review existing legislation to either reduce or remove the licensing process to permit shooting of deer at night to enable appropriate, proportionate, and effective control. To what extent do you support this proposal?

Under existing legislation (principally the Deer Act 1991) killing any deer at night is an offence unless carried out under a licence, for reasons including to prevent damage. As the close seasons broadly overlap with the winter months, and therefore shorter days, it can be difficult to achieve sufficient levels of control to avoid damage. Defra wished to test views on the proposals to either reduce or remove the existing licensing process, for the above purposes.

Summary of responses

Respondents’ views were strongly polarised, with 49% either agreed or strongly agreed while 48% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Reasons for disagreeing and strongly disagreeing with reducing or removing the licensing process to permit shooting of deer at night included:

• concerns for human safety and competency
• concerns over increases in poaching and landowner security
• concerns for deer welfare for example, lack of clean shots
• concerns over difficulty identifying sex and condition of deer and/or other species
• concerns on retrieving the carcase

Analysis by type of respondents

Analysis by type of respondents shows that:

• the views of landowners are divided
• farmers are generally in favour of the proposal, 67% agree or strongly agree
• views of ecologists are divided, with 54% either agreeing or strongly agreeing and 43% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the proposal.

Government response

Defra notes the polarised response to this proposal and as a result will not be pursuing it. Instead, Defra will work with Forestry Commission and Natural England on amendments to the current licensing regime to make it more effective and the application process more straightforward.

The current licensing regime for night shooting already addresses many of the concerns raised. For example, it ensures it is conducted by individuals with the necessary experience, and any amendments to the process will retain these safeguards. The availability of high-quality affordable night vision technology has also increased its effectiveness and safety.

Question 9: We propose to review deer legislation to enable landowners and managers to reduce deer damage to woodlands or to other public interests, preventing the further spread of non-native species and preventing serious damage to any form of property as well as to the natural environment and public safety. To what extent do you support this proposal?

Defra wished to test views on whether provisions in the current legislation are sufficient to enable landowners and managers to manage deer impacts for the above reasons. For example, a deer may be shot in its close season, without a licence, to prevent specific types of damage (such as to crops) either under section 7 of the Deer Act 1991 (as described under question 7) or if done in pursuance of a Notice under the Agriculture Act 1947. However, use of such Notices is infrequent.

Summary of responses

Of those who expressed a preference, an overwhelming majority of respondents agreed (73% agreed or strongly agreed) with reviewing deer legislation to enable landowners and managers to reduce deer damage to woodlands or to other public interests.

Reasons for disagreeing and strongly disagreeing with reviewing legislation to enable landowners and managers to reduce deer damage to woodlands or to other public interests included:

• views that damage limitation already is covered in existing legislation
• opposition to management of deer generally
• concerns over poaching

Government response

Defra notes the significant support for this proposal and will take forward proposals for amending the licensing processes governed by existing legislation, as described above.

Muntjac are currently the only invasive non-native deer species listed under the assimilated Invasive Alien Species Regulation 1143/2014 (the ‘IAS Regulations’). Defra will commission updates of the risk assessments for both Sika and Chinese water deer. Updated risk assessments will allow us to better understand the current risk these species pose in Great Britain (GB), and where possible direct future action can be taken against these identified risks. Based on the outcome of the risk assessments, further action has the potential to include the consideration of listing these species under the IAS regulations as Species of Special Concern. This would potentially allow stronger controls on activities such as translocations, if warranted.

Defra recognises that many who disagreed view current legislation as sufficient. However, many responses raised concerns that existing provisions (such as under section 7 of the Deer Act 1991), are difficult to use and that this is a possible reason that sufficient management of impacts is not carried out. Combined with the strong support, this indicates scope for improvement to the existing provisions. Defra will review the case for this.

Analysis by type of respondents

Analysis by type of respondents shows that landowners (80%), farmers (89%) and ecologists (72%) agreed with this proposal.

Question 10: We propose to enable occupiers (tenants or owners) of land to control deer, where the deer rights are retained by the landlord or previous owner (and where serious damage is occurring to trees crops or property), particularly where these are publicly funded. To what extent do you support this proposal?

In England and Wales, rights to take or kill deer often sit with the landowner, but can be legally assigned to others. Occupiers of the land can therefore be refused permission to manage deer impacts through lethal control on land they occupy by the ‘deer rights’ holder. Defra wished to test views on changing this, so that occupiers can manage deer impacts, when needed.

Summary of responses

Of those who expressed a preference, an overwhelming majority of respondents agreed (71% agreed or strongly agreed) with the proposal.

Stakeholders who responded via email had mixed responses to this question. Some landowners who rent land for recreational deer stalking were concerned it would infringe on property rights while others thought this proposal would support tenant farmers claiming compensation for damages.

Reasons for disagreeing and strongly disagreeing with enabling occupiers of land to control deer, where the deer rights are retained by the landlord or previous owner included:

• fairness to landowner: rights of private ownership and economic losses to landowner (including deer rights and sporting tenancies)
• opposition to management of deer generally by tenants, which may include that landlords might have deer management strategy, tenants have shorter term management objectives, tenants may be unprofessional or unskilled
• some respondents noted compensation for tenant farmers could be improved
• concerns over damaging tenant and landowner relations
• landowners better placed to have responsibility for management/longer term objectives
• concerns over unintended consequences

Analysis by type of respondents

Analysis by type of respondents shows that landowners (71%), farmers (90%) and ecologists (79%) agreed with this proposal.

Government response

Defra notes the support for this proposal and will pursue an update to the Deer Act, where parliamentary time allows. Defra notes the concerns raised but considers the measure necessary, including to address situations where private landowners are benefiting from high deer densities to support sporting interests, at the expense of wider public and environmental interests. Defra considers that tenants should be able to address deer damage in instances where deer densities are kept high to maintain sporting values at the expense of damage to tenant’s assets.

Question 11: We propose to clarify the legal status of wild deer particularly in relation to enclosed deer in parks or private collections, thereby reducing the likelihood of negative deer welfare or public health issues. To what extent do you support this proposal?

With the exception of Section 2(3) of the Deer Act, the Act makes no distinction between ‘wild deer’ and other ‘kept’ deer. This can lead to issues such as:

• enclosed deer entering the food chain as wild deer
• deer being transported without pre-movement testing for diseases
• uncertainty over management of ‘park deer’ or other enclosed deer

Defra sought to check views on whether the legal status of wild deer should be clarified, to help address such matters.

Summary of responses

Of those who expressed a preference, an overwhelming majority of respondents agreed (75% agreed or strongly agreed), compared to 12% who either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Reasons for disagreeing and strongly disagreeing included:

• concerns it could be counterproductive and increase the risk of negative deer welfare and public health issues
• views that the current regulations are sufficient
• benefits would be minimal
• additional detail on the change was required

Some stakeholders in their consultation response outlined differences in opinion on park and wild deer between legislation such as The Tuberculosis in Animals (England) Order 2021, Animal Welfare Act 2006 and Game Meat Regulations Guidance 2022.

Analysis by type of respondents

Analysis by type of respondents shows that landowners (75%), farmers (87%) and ecologists (79%) agreed with this proposal.

Government response

Defra notes the support for this proposal to clarify the legal status of wild deer, particularly in relation to enclosed deer in parks or private collections. Defra, the Forestry Commission and Natural England will seek to work with relevant stakeholder groups to provide this clarity.

Defra recognises that many of those who disagreed had concerns that this proposal would be counterproductive. This proposal seeks not to classify enclosed wild deer as farmed, but to differentiate them from wild deer that are unenclosed. The 2015 Law Commission report on Wildlife Law made the recommendation that the current legislation be amended to remove ambiguity.

Question 12: We propose a more statutory approach to landowner responsibilities for deer where they are causing significant negative impacts to neighbouring land where these are impacting upon publicly funded woodlands, biodiversity and public interests. To what extent do you support this proposal?

Currently there is no expectation in government policy that landowners should have any responsibility to manage the impacts of deer utilising their land. Defra wished to test views on the proposal for a more statutory approach to landowner responsibilities for deer which are causing significant negative impacts to neighbouring land.

Summary of responses

Of those who expressed a preference, most respondents agreed (70% agreed or strongly agreed) with a more statutory approach to landowner responsibilities for deer where they are causing significant negative impacts to neighbouring land.

Reasons for disagreeing and strongly disagreeing include:

• prefer alternatives to legislation, for example, incentives and landowner collaboration
• concerns around infringement by government on personal land management
• concerns over the difficulty of managing a wild animal that freely roams
• preference for alternative management methods, for example, fencing or fertility control
• concerns about relationships between landowners and public bodies

Analysis by type of respondents

Analysis by type of respondents shows landowners (63%), farmers (74%) and ecologists (82%) agreed with the proposal.

Government response

Defra notes that most respondents agreed with this proposal for a stronger approach to landowner responsibilities for deer impacts and will proceed with it.

The concerns raised are noted. Defra will seek to take this proposal forward. The intent is to seek to ensure landowners who are unengaged in such management take action, where needed. Such disinterest can lead to negative impacts on neighbouring land and its interests

Fertility control is not a viable option at this time for wild deer and other methods of reducing impacts such as fencing have limited effectiveness alone.

Minimising the spread and impacts of non-native deer species

Question 13: Which actions would you consider to allow more effective means of controlling muntjac to prevent them damaging woodlands and biodiversity and expanding their range into areas they are not currently present?

Muntjac are currently the only invasive non-native deer species listed under the assimilated Invasive Alien Species Regulation 1143/2014. Defra wished to obtain views on actions to allow more effective means of controlling them, for the above purposes. 

Summary of responses

All relevant free text answers from this question were manually analysed (as opposed to using software) to understand which actions to control muntjac population were most popular among respondents.

The most frequently proposed actions were to:

• permit the shooting of muntjac during the night (as they are active at night and new technology such as thermal or infra-red imaging is widely available) - however, many responses caveated the risks involved with night shooting, and this method of control should be carried out by qualified individuals subject to certain parameters
• measures to place greater responsibility on landowners to manage populations of non-native deer on their land, either through encouragement (education or support) or legal obligation
• supporting measures to promote the consumption of muntjac venison and/or develop a national market for muntjac venison
• non-fatal methods such as fertility control through contraceptive treatments, use of fencing to prevent damage and limit muntjac expansion
• specific incentives for deer managers to control muntjac, for example, bounty paid for each carcase
• large-scale culling programmes

Government response

Defra notes the responses to this question. As covered in question 8, Defra will amend the current application process for night shooting licences. This will make licences for the control of muntjac more straightforward to obtain.

As covered under question 6, incentives (grants) to reduce deer impacts on woodlands are available. Defra will seek to improve these to increase uptake. Defra does not consider bounties an appropriate way forward for this species. Reasons include: that grant support already exists, it would be costly and difficult to administer, and incentivising profit from invasive non-native species as a means to control them can lead to their spread. Regarding the increased use of fences to manage muntjac impacts, muntjac have been seen to be the most effective species at breaching fences.

Deer health, welfare and safety

Question 14: We propose that everyone who culls deer in England has to reach the same standard. To what extent do you support this proposal?

It is important to ensure that where lethal control is necessary, those conducting it have the right ability and skills. This is in the interests of humaneness, public safety, food standards and animal disease control. Defra wished to understand views on introducing minimum training standards to carry out lethal control.

Summary of responses

The analysis showed that whilst most survey respondents agreed (64%), there was a substantial minority who disagreed (33%). Stakeholder email responses also had mixed responses to this question. Reasons for disagreeing and strongly disagreeing included:

• concerns it would involve too much bureaucracy and costs and act as a disincentive to new or young stalkers entering the sport or trade
• failure to value experience over qualifications
• concerns over loss of experienced deer stalkers and managers who would be unable to continue due to a lack of qualifications
• more details needed on the standard
• views that the current standards and self-regulation are sufficient
• support for a minimum standard, not the same standard

Analysis by type of respondents

Analysis by type of respondent shows that landowners (65%), farmers (66%) and ecologists (73%) agreed with this proposal.

Government response

Defra notes the concerns raised by those who disagreed with this proposal. Defra values experience but also believes that demonstration of a minimum level of competence can ensure the safe, humane and effective management of deer, especially by new entrants to the sector. This includes the ability to identify deer species, understand their biology, and ensure that shots are correctly placed, benefiting deer welfare and quality wild venison production. Public safety must also be considered, particularly at a time when we are seeking to increase access to woodlands, improve food standards and hygiene, and respond to animal disease control.

It is for these reasons that Defra seeks engagement with the Home Office and National Police Chiefs’ Council, to explore whether and how existing guidance might be strengthened, including to encourage police forces to request evidence of competence from those applying to use relevant firearms for the purposes of shooting deer in England. Defra will also continue to support the England and Wales Best Practice Guidance and make funding available for appropriate training, particularly in the case of those seeking grant support for lethal control of deer. 

Question 15: What would you consider the most effective means of developing a consistent national approach to responding to deer collisions and deer welfare incidents?

Currently, some constabularies require that only firearms police dispatch injured deer following collisions, while some operate a network of trained civilian volunteers to do this, and so relieve pressure on police forces. Defra wished to gain views on the most effective means of developing a consistent approach across England to responding to incidents such as deer vehicle collisions.

Summary of responses

All relevant free text answers from this question were manually analysed to find which actions were considered by respondents to be most effective.

The following actions were the most frequently proposed:

1. Implement a register of approved civilian personnel that could respond to incidents. Many of these responses specifically discussed how civilians should be a part of the local police response register, for example, the Humane Animal Dispatch volunteer service run by Hampshire Constabulary, with training in partnership with the British Animal Rescue Trauma Care Association and the British Deer Society.
2. Introduce a requirement for all humane animal dispatchers to be trained to an agreed standard or qualification.
3. Improve measures to prevent accidents or collisions with deer in the first place, for example, improved signage and driver training, plus measures designed to keep deer away from roads such as more deer fencing, natural barriers like hedging and animal crossing infrastructure.
4. Reduce the deer population.
5. Improve data around incidents. This included responses that mentioned it being mandatory to report a deer collision or incident on the road, or the implementation of a centralised database to record incidents.

Government response

Defra notes the suggestions on the most effective means of developing a consistent national approach to responding to deer collisions and deer welfare incidents. Several constabularies in England are in the process of setting up Humane Animal Dispatch (HAD) schemes that are supported by trained volunteers (as described in point 1), and proactively aiding others to do the same. Defra will continue to support relevant training in safe and humane lethal control of wild deer. This will help increase the number of suitably trained individuals who may be able to assist in the expansion of HAD schemes. 

Wild venison market

Question 16: Do you consider there are presently barriers to the development of a commercially successful wild venison market?

Defra sought to obtain views on whether respondents considered there to be barriers to the development of commercially successful markets for domestic wild venison, given its value can help deer managers offset costs of managing deer impacts.

Summary of responses

Analysis showed most respondents think that there are presently barriers to the development of a commercially successful wild venison market (62%) compared to 23% who were unsure and 15% who thought there were not barriers.

Barriers to the wild venison market that were identified included:

• lack of social or societal acceptance and/or awareness of the environmental and health benefits of wild venison
• prices seen to be unfairly fixed - game dealers do not pay enough for the product
• competing with venison imports from other countries, notably New Zealand
• food and hygiene costs and standards too high - for example, larder costs
• inconsistency in the supply or quality, making it difficult to find retailers
• specific ammunition requirements
• lack of places to market wild venison, unwillingness of supermarkets

Analysis by type of respondents

Analysis by type of respondent shows most landowners (55%) farmers (51%) and ecologists (62%) stated there are presently barriers to the market development of wild venison. It is notable that in all categories there is a sizeable minority who were not sure.

Government response

Defra notes that most respondents considered there to be barriers to the development of commercially successful markets for domestic wild venison. Defra will continue to work with the collaborative government and industry group, the Great Britain Wild Venison Working Group, on appropriate ways to aid in addressing such barriers, including on communications around wild venison and the British Quality Wild Venison Standard quality assurance scheme, launched in 2023. This will help promote wild venison and improve market confidence. Grant support for processing equipment, facilities and wild venison projects has been made available. Defra will keep its actions under review, to ensure the level of support provided is effective, appropriate and avoids unintended consequences, such as over-incentivisation of lethal control. This could occur, for example, if funding or markets became so favourable that levels of lethal control drove declines in the favourable conservation status of native deer species, or in practices such as poaching (which is an offence under section 10 of the Deer Act).

Question 17: To what extent do you agree that the government should support development of the wild venison sector?

Defra wished to obtain views on whether the government should support development of the wild venison sector given wild venison sales can be a key part of managing deer impacts, where impacts are such that lethal control is warranted.

Summary of responses

Analysis shows that most respondents agreed (88%) that the government should support development of the wild venison sector, compared to 9% who disagreed.

Those who disagreed gave the following reasons:

• market approach more appropriate, views that the private market should be capable of sustaining itself, or that government intervention would skew the market
• concerns it would contradict moves towards reducing meat consumption
• concerns it would promote the killing of deer
• the government should focus attention and investment elsewhere such as the cost-of-living crisis and energy crisis

Analysis by type of respondents

Analysis by type of respondent shows most landowners (90%), farmers (90%) and ecologists (92%) agreed with the proposal.

Government response

Defra notes that most respondents agreed with this proposal and is proceeding with relevant actions, as described under question 16.

Defra notes the concerns raised by the minority who disagreed. On concerns of potential unintended consequences such as over-incentivisation or negatively impacting markets. Defra will ensure uptake and effectiveness of relevant support is reviewed, through established processes and ensuring such support is based on appropriate evidence. Defra will also ensure advice from the GB Wild Venison Working Group informs its approach, including on avoiding unintended outcomes.

Developing and improving the evidence base

Question 18: To what extent do you support the development of a National Deer Data Dashboard?

As noted in the consultation document, limited deer impact, distribution, density and management data currently exists to inform local and national strategies and approaches. Defra wished to obtain views on means to improve collation and availability of information on deer density, their impacts and management of these.

Summary of responses

Analysis showed most respondents agreed with the development of a dashboard with 77% who agreed compared to 13% who disagreed.

Those who disagreed gave the following reasons:

• more information needed on the dashboard and how it would be used
• concerns over bureaucracy and cost
• concerns it would be replicating existing work
• concerns around enforcement of completion
• concerns on the accuracy of the data
• concerns it would be used to disincentivise deer management
• concerns around usefulness

Analysis by type of respondents

Analysis by type of respondent shows most landowners (74%), farmers (77%) and ecologists (78%) agreed with this proposal.

Government response

Defra notes that most respondents agreed with this proposal and as a result will work with relevant stakeholders to ensure data can be readily shared on deer distribution, abundance, management and impacts on woodlands. This will include Forestry Commission and Defra continuing to invite landowners to submit returns and data on deer management activity on their land as part of agri-environment schemes, and ensuring its use for monitoring effectiveness of the relevant options within these schemes. 

Financial implications

Question 19: Do you believe any of the proposed actions will have any positive or negative financial implications for the woodland and land management sector?

Defra wished to obtain views on whether the proposed actions would have any positive or negative financial implications for the woodland/land management sector.

Summary of responses

Analysis showed that 49% of respondents believed the proposals would have either a positive or negative financial implication for the woodland and land management sector, compared to 17% who thought there would be no implications and 34% who were unsure.

The software analysis of free text answers from respondents who replied ‘yes’ to the consultation question and gave examples of financial implications (either positive or negative) shows that overall positive implications were mentioned more often than negative.

Positive financial implications named:

• timber productivity
• reduced woodland management costs
• improved forestry and agriculture yields and less environmental damage
• improvement to wild venison price and market
• benefits to disease control

Negative financial implications named:

• bureaucratic costs
• increase in staff required
• reduction in stalking rights
• deer fencing costs

Government response

Defra notes the implications raised and has taken these into consideration when developing an economic and equalities impact assessment for policy statement. The financial implications have been considered and where possible monetised in the impact assessment.

As it is currently impossible to determine the scale of many of the financial implications, those that are positive have been framed as a likely reduction in baseline costs and otherwise qualitatively stated. Whilst the negative implications have been monetised as new costs or included qualitatively also.

Question 20: Do you believe any of the proposed actions will have any positive or negative financial implications for those involved in deer management?

Defra wished to obtain views on whether the proposed actions would have any positive or negative financial implications for those involved in deer management.

Summary of responses

Analysis showed that 55% of respondents believed the proposals would have either positive or negative financial implications for those involved in deer management, compared to 16% who thought there would be no implications and 29% who were unsure.

Analysis of the free text answers (using software) from respondents who replied ‘yes’ to the consultation question gave examples of financial implications (either positive or negative) and shows that overall negative implications were mentioned more often than positive.

Positive financial implications named included:

• benefits for stalkers, contractors and deer managers through improved employment opportunities or a potential increase in income for those involved in deer management.
• improvements to the wild venison market

Negative financial implications named included:

• concerns over more requirements for training and certification
• increased bureaucracy and concerns of government hiring contractors
• loss of deer stocks for estates and stalking businesses
• costs of night vision technology
• concerns over increased poaching

Government response

Defra notes the implications raised and has taken these into consideration when developing an economic and equalities impact assessment for the policy statement. Within this, the financial implications have been considered and, where possible, monetised. For many of these implications the scale of the financial impact is currently unknown, so implications cannot be monetised and have been included qualitatively within the impact assessment.

Question 21: Do you believe any of the proposed actions will have any positive or negative financial implications for wild venison production?

Defra wished to obtain views on whether the proposed actions would have any positive or negative financial implications for wild venison production.

Summary of responses

Analysis showed that 48% of respondents believed the proposals would have either positive or negative financial implications for wild venison production, compared to 18% who thought there would be no implications and 34% who were unsure.

Analysis of the free text answers (using software) from respondents who replied ‘yes’ to the consultation question gave examples of financial implications (either positive or negative) and shows that overall, positive implications were mentioned more often than negative.

Positive financial implications named:

• venison market providing a platform for sustainable deer management
• affordable meat option for retailers and consumers

Negative financial implications named:

• concerns that proposals could lead to depressed prices, concerns over impact on the existing market
• concerns over excess meat produced and demand not high enough
• concerns night shooting would reduce the quality of venison
• concerns cost burden could be pushed onto individuals.

Government response

Defra notes the implications raised and has taken these into consideration when developing a light-touch impact assessment for the policy statement. Within this, the financial implications have been considered and, where possible, monetised. It is currently difficult to estimate the scale of impact that the proposals will have on the wild venison market, however market impacts have been considered qualitatively as part of the impact assessment. Mitigations for avoiding unintended consequences such as market impacts are outlined under question 17.

Next steps

The next step following publication of the deer impacts policy statement will be to progress to its implementation.

Annex A: Quantitative analysis outputs

Question 3: What capacity are you responding to the consultation in?

Overall sample demographics

This data was provided in response to Question 3: What capacity are you responding to the consultation in? The total sample was n=2,064. However, participants were permitted to select more than one category so choice count exceeds 2,064.

Table 1: Responses to consultation question 3: What capacity are you responding to the consultation in?

Answer	Count
Individual	1,479
Landowner	375
Other (please state)	330
Farmer	237
Ecologist	70
Non-governmental organisation	38
Sector trade body or membership organisation	29
Academic	24
Public body	14
Research organisation	10
Local authority	5

Question 6: To what extent do you support the introduction of incentives for reducing deer impacts to protect woodland?

Table 2: Responses to consultation question 6

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage
Strongly agree	857	41.52%
Agree	800	38.76%
Disagree	156	7.56%
Strongly disagree	197	9.54%
Do not know	54	2.62%
Total	2,064	100%

Question 7: We propose to review and amend existing legislation to allow shooting of male deer during the existing close season. To what extent do you support this proposal?

Table 3: Responses to consultation question 7

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage
Strongly agree	521	25.24%
Agree	539	26.11%
Disagree	377	18.27%
Strongly disagree	597	28.92%
Do not know	30	1.45%
Total	2,064	100%

Question 8: We propose to review existing legislation to either reduce or remove the licencing process to permit shooting of deer at night to enable appropriate, proportionate, and effective control. To what extent do you support this proposal?

Table 4: Responses to consultation question 8

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage
Strongly agree	507	24.56%
Agree	508	24.61%
Disagree	360	17.44%
Strongly disagree	636	30.81%
Do not know	53	2.57%
Total	2,064	100%

Question 9: We propose to review deer legislation to enable landowners and managers to reduce deer damage to woodlands or to other public interests, preventing the further spread of non-native species and preventing serious damage to any form of property as well as to the natural environment and public safety. To what extent do you support this proposal?

Table 5: Responses to consultation question 9

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage
Strongly agree	672	32.56%
Agree	835	40.46%
Disagree	224	10.85%
Strongly disagree	218	10.56%
Do not know	115	5.57%
Total	2,064	100%

Question 10: We propose to enable occupiers (tenants or owners) of land to control deer, where the deer rights are retained by the landlord or previous owner (and where serious damage is occurring to trees crops or property), particularly where these are publicly funded. To what extent do you support this proposal?

Table 6: Responses to consultation question 10

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage
Strongly agree	608	29.46%
Agree	849	41.13%
Disagree	216	10.47%
Strongly disagree	292	14.15%
Do not know	99	4.8%
Total	2,064	100%

Question 11: We propose to clarify the legal status of wild deer particularly in relation to enclosed deer in parks or private collections, thereby reducing the likelihood of negative deer welfare or public health issues. To what extent do you support this proposal?

Table 7: Responses to consultation question 11

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage
Strongly agree	563	27.28%
Agree	989	47.92%
Disagree	123	5.96%
Strongly disagree	130	6.3%
Do not know	259	12.55%
Total	2,064	100%

Question 12: We propose a more statutory approach to landowner responsibilities for deer where they are causing significant negative impacts to neighbouring land where these are impacting upon publicly funded woodlands, biodiversity and public interests. To what extent do you support this proposal?

Table 8: Responses to consultation question 12

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage
Strongly agree	607	29.41%
Agree	835	40.46%
Disagree	256	12.4%
Strongly disagree	244	11.82%
Do not know	122	5.91%
Total	2,064	100%

Question 14: We propose that everyone who culls deer in England has to reach the same standard. To what extent do you support this proposal?

Table 9: Responses to consultation question 14

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage
Strongly agree	691	33.48%
Agree	629	30.47%
Disagree	383	18.56%
Strongly disagree	299	14.49%
Do not know	62	3%
Total	2,064	100%

Question 16: Do you consider there are presently barriers to the development of a commercially successful wild venison market?

Table 10: Responses to consultation question 16

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	1,287	62.35%
No	304	14.73%
Unsure	473	22.92%
Total	2,064	100%

Question 17: To what extent do you agree that the government should support development of the wild venison sector?

Table 11: Responses to consultation question 17

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage
Strongly agree	1,246	60.37%
Agree	565	27.37%
Disagree	86	4.17%
Strongly disagree	99	4.8%
Do not know	68	3.29%
Total	2,064	100%

Question 18: To what extent do you support the development of a National Deer Data Dashboard?

Table 12: Responses to consultation question 18

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage
Strongly agree	687	33.28%
Agree	900	43.6%
Disagree	188	9.11%
Strongly disagree	83	4.02%
Do not know	206	9.98%
Total	2,064	100%

Question 19: Do you believe any of the proposed actions will have any positive or negative financial implications for the woodland/land management sector?

Table 13: Responses to consultation question 19

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	1,011	48.98%
No	350	16.96%
Unsure	700	33.91%
Total	2,064	100%

Question 20: Do you believe any of the proposed actions will have any positive or negative financial implications for those involved in deer management?

Table 14: Responses to consultation question 20

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	1,140	55.23%
No	320	15.5%
Unsure	604	29.26%
Total	2,064	100%

Question 21: Do you believe any of the proposed actions will have any positive or negative financial implications for wild venison production?

Table 15: Responses to consultation question 21

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	987	47.82%
No	379	18.36%
Unsure	698	33.82%
Total	2,064	100%