Taxpayers have spent more than £134m on deer management across Scotland over the past decade, according to newly reported figures, but those working within the sector say the true cost to the wider shooting industry is significantly higher.
Data shows Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) spent £77.6m on deer management between April 2014 and April 2025, with annual costs rising from £5.3m to £10.4m. A further £56.4m has been distributed in woodland protection grants, largely for fencing.
While the figures underline the scale of the challenge, industry representatives argue they do not reflect the level of private investment required to sustain current cull levels — investment that underpins activity across the trade, from ammunition and rifle sales to venison supply chains.
A spokesman for the Scottish Gamekeepers Association told Shooting Times: “Rather than demonstrating a shocking level of public investment in deer management, this story actually provides an eye-opening indication of the vast private resource ploughed into deer management every year.
“Private interests are responsible for the vast majority of Scotland’s annual cull, considerably dwarfing that of FLS. If £135m seems a lot, imagine the private investment sunk in during the same period. Without the work of trained deer managers on private holdings, the public purse simply couldn’t cope. That is why the Scottish Government and its agencies must avoid tipping the scales so far that private interests walk away.”
Scotland’s deer population is estimated to exceed one million, with around 100,000 animals recorded as culled annually, although the true figure may be significantly higher. NatureScot has indicated that cull levels would need to increase further to meet biodiversity targets.
For the trade, the concern is not only the scale of the task, but the direction of policy. Recent measures, including compulsory training requirements for deer stalkers under the Natural Environment (Scotland) Act and changes to sporting rates relief, have introduced additional cost and uncertainty for those operating in the sector.
As regulatory pressure increases, stakeholders are warning that any reduction in private sector participation could have knock-on effects beyond land management, impacting both rural businesses and the wider trade ecosystem.