BY CALUM CAMPBELL
A recent article by Jamie Mann in The Ferret—titled “Deer are damaging hundreds of protected areas across Scotland. Experts can’t agree how to stop them”—has sparked controversy among those familiar with Scotland’s deer management and conservation landscape. While the piece presents a dire picture of “rampant deer” causing widespread ecological harm, a closer examination of available data and official assessments reveals a narrative that appears selectively constructed, misleading, and, in parts, factually questionable.
Questionable Claims and Cherry-Picked Evidence
Mann’s article claims that “nearly 300 protected areas are being damaged or put at risk by Scotland’s rampant deer population,” citing species like capercaillie, golden eagles, and greenshank as victims of deer pressure. The tone is alarmist, and the implication is clear: deer are a primary driver of ecological decline.
However, when we scrutinise specific examples—some of which are highlighted in the article itself—the story unravels.
Take the greenshank breeding at Badanloch Bogs SSSI. A 2023 NatureScot report states clearly:
Four pairs of greenshank were recorded in 2023… The population target has been met in 2023, so the feature has been assessed as being in favourable, recovered condition.”
The same report notes deer are present—“ground within the site is heavily used by red deer”—yet the birds are thriving. This directly contradicts the notion that deer presence equates to damage.
Similarly, the golden eagle breeding in the Cairngorms National Park SSSI is officially recorded as in “favourable maintained” condition, with “recreation/disturbance” listed as a pressure—not overgrazing. The eagle population in the Cairngorms remains stable, with territory size dictated by prey availability and disturbance, not deer numbers.
The Capercaillie Case: A Multifactorial Decline
Mann singles out capercaillie at Loch Lomond as being in “unfavourable” and “declining” condition due to deer. Yet, when I contacted NatureScot for clarification, they provided a more nuanced explanation:
The site is in unfavourable condition because of multiple reasons… a small isolated population, poor breeding performance (weather and predation related) and recreational disturbance all played a part, not just deer.”
This aligns with the article’s own caveat—that deer are “unlikely to have been solely responsible”—but that nuance is buried beneath a headline blaming “rampant deer.”
Misleading Anecdotes and Unverified Claims
Mann asserts that NatureScot confirmed deer “trampling over and eating their [ground-nesting birds’] nests.” When I challenged him to provide evidence, he did not respond. NatureScot later clarified in an article update that while sheep and cattle are known to eat nests, they have no record of deer doing so. This is a significant retraction that undermines a key sensational claim.
Outdated Data and Ignored Context
Many of the site condition assessments referenced are years old—some from 2005 or 2009. Deer management in Scotland has evolved significantly since then, with coordinated culls and habitat projects actively reducing impacts in priority areas. To use outdated assessments to claim a current “crisis” is misleading.
A Balanced View: Deer Management Is Complex
No one denies that overpopulation of deer in certain areas can cause ecological pressure—overgrazing, trampling, and browsing are real issues. However, portraying deer as the chief villain oversimplifies a complex ecological and management picture.
As the attached report from Badanloch Bogs shows, deer and protected species can coexist. Effective deer management is already happening through voluntary schemes and, where necessary, statutory intervention. The focus should be on sustainable, evidence-based management—not demonisation.
Conclusion: Journalism or Agenda?
Jamie Mann’s article reads less like investigative journalism and more like advocacy wrapped in sensationalism. By cherry-picking data, using outdated assessments, and emphasising worst-case scenarios without proportional context, the piece misleads the public and fuels polarised debate. The piece reached its lowest point with the claim—later grudgingly retracted—that deer “eat” the nests of capercaillie. This was corrected to state this behaviour is observed in sheep and cattle, an irrelevant distinction in an article solely blaming deer. Such a fundamental error, requiring a stealth edit after publication, exposes the article’s shaky foundation and disregard for basic fact-checking.
The real story is that deer management in Scotland is a challenging balancing act—one that requires collaboration, science, and sometimes compromise. Scare headlines do nothing to advance that work. They only spread what appears to be, in this case, sensational misinformation.
Share this if you believe conservation discourse should be rooted in evidence, not exaggeration.
Calum Campbell is a commentator on rural and environmental issues in Scotland.