RESULTADOS DE LA ENCUESTA

In addition to understanding how information is gathered and flows, it is important also to established how it is used in the decision-making process. Therefore, the interview participants (n=19) were asked about the process of decision making. The use of a deer ‘management plan’

would be expected if deer are being managed strategically and the strategy is being implemented on-the-ground. Although only four respondents explicitly used the phrase ‘management plans’ in answer to the basis for making specific management decisions, others used expressions that clearly suggested that there was a plan in place. For example, ‘deer numbers’ (4/19) or

‘land’/’environmental’ management (5/19), both indicate that there is an explicit target for deer population control with consideration of the wider ecosystem: this would be the basis of, and contained within, a management plan. Other elements named that would also be expected to be contained within a management plan included: science, habitat, weather, neighbours, deer counts, deer condition, estate needs, environmental issues, venison, fences, forestry, income, knowledge, and sporting interests.

However, apart from implementing a deer-management plan, some respondents raised other factors that impacted on day-to-day management decisions. One respondent wrote, ‘at present, we’re part of this Section 7 – so we’re compelled to implement things … politics is becoming an over- riding factor.’ As detailed in Chapter 5, Section 7 covers culling of deer, usually for ecological conservation concerns, under the Deer Act (Scotland) 1996, and later WANE 2011 (see Chapter 1), which is an exceptional measure out-with a routine deer-management plan. A second similar response suggested that the perception was that the main factors entering into decision-making were: finances; government policy; and the landowner’s objectives. This respondent went on to explain, that it is the landowners and/or estate employees who make the strategic decisions regarding red deer management, with the welfare of the deer being the responsibility of the individual culling the animals.

4.4 Discussion

Overall, the majority of the evidence from both the questionnaire and the interviews indicated that all parties involved in red deer management recognised the importance of sharing information and making evidence-based decisions. Nevertheless, what is clear is that there are

differences in the perception of different sources of evidence according to the respondents’

perspective, with the agencies suggesting that a top-down management strategy should be implement according to published guidelines. Estate practitioners, on the other hand, stressed the importance of other channels of information, in particular peers but also research findings, while expressing some lack of confidence that the agencies were listening or even open to information exchange. This fits with the work presented in the introduction to this chapter, supporting the view that communication with peers allows new information to be better understood and more

effectively disseminated throughout the industry (Boyd and Richerson, 1988; McMahon, 1997; Howe, 1998; Palincsar, 1998; Derry, 1999).

The evidence presented here indicated that individuals associated with governmental agencies believe that the primary information flows lie in one direction – from the top down. Even when it is acknowledged that site information is relevant, it is only so in the context of matching the current habitat condition to the desired habitat condition. This is based on legislative policy which aims to ensure the ‘Natural Heritage’ of Scotland, presumably meaning the viability and functional integrity of these ecosystems. The role of governmental agencies, from the perspective of those within, is to enact policy and to provide best practice guidelines to practitioners. Landowners are seen as making decisions based on the location and type of land which they own and their own management priorities, but in the context of generic guidance, unless the government intervenes with a Section 7 or there is a site designation (i.e. SSSIs, etc).

By contrast, estate-affiliated respondents had very different views of information flow in the red deer industry. Three individuals: a factor, a landowner, and a gamekeeper provide easily

comprehensible models of information flow. The factor suggested there are three pillars: experience, research, and development, which are consistently flowing between each other,

enhancing and informing the other pillars. The landowner and gamekeeper collaborated to generate their information model. They concluded that there are four main aspects (best practice guides; deer numbers; habitat monitoring; and practical considerations: weather, estate aims, clients, etc.) which always inform management decisions and these information sources are continually interacting with each other in a continuous multi-dimensional feedback loop, where each aspect influences the others and collectively informs decisions. This model seems to suggest that the aspects provide a real-time view such that decisions are made with the best information possible.

The different perceptions of the information flows illustrate the disconnect between the perception of people working for government agencies, who often have very little first-hand knowledge of estate workings and that of those responsible for the day-to-day decisions on the estates. Understanding this disconnect and its implications for communication is important in order to

maximizing information flow and dissemination (in particular, for example, sharing the findings of pertinent empirical research) to ensuring that both legislation and guidance for red deer management are informed by evidence. The management of wild animals in other contexts has been found to benefit from scientific evidence. In Scotland, Thirgood and Redpath (2008) studied the conflict between red grouse and hen harrier management aims. They found that evidence-based management that involved a dialogue between stakeholders, policy-makers, and scientists is necessary to guide management, especially in areas where human livelihoods are at stake and legal issues are involved (ibid, 2008). However, scientific evidence can also be used as a source of conflict in animal management. Regarding the elephant culls in South Africa, Dickson and Adams (2009) found differences between pro and anti-cull supporters, who both use science as a source of authority, albeit with different interpretations of the evidence. In addition, there was also a perception of political and economic motivations for elephant culls, which promotes more distrust between these two groups (Dickson and Adams, 2009). Although elephant culls resumed in South Africa, these challenges are still on-going (ibid, 2009). More broadly, perceptions of climate change, and specifically the science it is based on, has varying degrees of trust (Weber, 2010). Forsyth (2003) suggests that all environmental science is influenced by the society and political landscape in which it originates, while Clayton and Opotow (2003) indicate that community identity, both personal and collective, over any form of science, determines if values of sustainability, and thus sustainable behaviour are adopted. Rose (2010) concluded that for sustainable management of red deer in Scotland, there was a need to minimize governmental bureaucracy; increase available public funding; and use independent facilitators who were both trusted, and knowledgeable. This study emphasizes the need to develop monetary indicators to measure cultural and environmental benefits relating to ecosystem services. However, there are also the values of aesthetics and the emotional benefits to the public to

consider, neither of which are easily identifiable in monetary terms (Pullin, 2002). Rose (2010) also calls for better information, guidance, and advice as to the roles of individuals, so that they may take ownership of the information and thus perform actions. The importance of practitioner knowledge has been acknowledged in other areas of environmental management (see Chapter 1). Nevertheless, even while acknowledging the experience and knowledge of practitioners, there is a legal framework within which they operate.

A potential basis for the differences in perception between governments and practitioners in management conflicts may be a lack of clearly defined aims. For example, conservation aims might state habitat conservation, rather than specific goals of percentage of specific vegetation across a certain area. O’Leary and Bingham (2003) suggest that while governments approach environmental concerns in a ‘value for users’ manner, there is little evidence regarding what the value of

environment. or conservation, goals really are and how it might correspond to social desires (or public interest), and what management actions contribute to, or correlate with, real outcomes. While wildlife conflict mediation is the focus of their discussion, they do emphasize the need for stakeholder parties, including practitioners, researchers, and agencies, to have active discussions about desired outcomes and agreement on how measurements are to be determined (ibid, 2003).

Additional examples of animals having a socio-cultural value to segments of society that are not included in decision making include Kangaroo management for commercial meat production in Southern Australia (Thomsen, et al., 2006) and wild horse management in Western Canada

(Bhattacharyya and Larson, 2014). In these cases, it is indigenous communities, rather than

practitioners who are excluded from influencing management practices. These communities have a vested interest in the management of these species and their exclusion causes conflicts.