A Case for Non-Lethal Deer Management in the UK
(January 2026)
By Francesca Cenci, Emma Doherty, Kate Fox, Elisa Gottardi,
Alexis Strang, Luke Swindell and Sally Westworth.
Abstract
Recent advances in scientific research and in the field of animal ethics support the application of compassionate conservation for wildlife management. Interest in alternatives to culling is growing, due to their significant ecological, ethical, and practical implications. This report reviews evidence-based, non-lethal methods for deer management and highlights their potential benefits for woodland ecosystems.
Although deer are often seen as problematic in UK agricultural landscapes, they play a crucial role in maintaining biodiversity and overall environmental health. Culling raises significant ethical and welfare concerns, as well as ecological consequences. Its long-term effectiveness is also uncertain, since compensatory reproduction can increase the reproductive output of the remaining individuals, and interventions frequently fail to meaningfully reduce populations over time. In contrast, in natural ecosystems, deer populations can stabilise naturally, maintaining numbers that their habitat can sustainably support. Evidence suggests that non-lethal methods such as fertility control, exclusion fencing, habitat management and the use of deterrents offer effective and humane alternatives that protect both deer welfare and the integrity of woodland ecosystems. In particular, deer repellents and immunocontraception have proven to be highly effective, and given this strong track record, we advocate for greater investment in their development and deployment as humane, non-lethal tools for wildlife management in the UK. We also recommend the development of a cruelty-free formulation for the repellents, using synthesised substances, rather than animal-derived ingredients.
The Role of Deer in Forest Ecosystems
Deer are an important part of forest ecosystems, playing a key role in maintaining biodiversity and the overall health of the environment. Through their actions, they significantly contribute to ecological processes that support both plant growth and the diversity of animal species.
One key role of deer is seed dispersal. By consuming a wide variety of seeds and later excreting them, deer help regenerate forests and promote diverse plant species. Their nomadic grazing also aids nutrient cycling, as their dung, urine, and carcasses redistribute vital nutrients across the forest floor. These nutrients create pockets of fertile soil that enhance plant growth, further promoting plant diversity within the ecosystem.
In addition to supporting plant life, deer help regulate vegetation composition. Their grazing and browsing behaviour prevents aggressive species, such as bramble, from dominating and outcompeting saplings and understory vegetation (Laurent et al., 2017). This patchwork of vegetation benefits not only plants but also numerous animals that depend on diverse plant structures for food and shelter.
Deer also influence broader animal communities. By shaping forest structure and promoting habitat mosaics, deer browsing contributes to the formation and maintenance of standing deadwood and fallen timber. Approximately 25% of forest-dwelling species depend on deadwood for shelter, breeding sites, and food (Oettel, 2020). This includes wood-decaying fungi, saproxylic arthropods, bryophytes, and lichens, which in turn support birds and bats. For example, around 650 beetle species in the UK are saproxylic (Piper, 2020), serving as prey for birds and bats. Standing dead trees and rot holes are used for nesting or roosting by species such as great and lesser spotted woodpeckers, tits, owls, and bats, including noctule and barbastelle bats. Fallen timber also provides shelter and feeding grounds for amphibians, reptiles, hedgehogs, and small mammals.
In conclusion, deer play an integral role in fostering healthy, diverse forest ecosystems. Their presence enhances biodiversity through seed dispersal, nutrient cycling, structural vegetation regulation, and indirect support for a wide range of animals. Rather than being viewed as ecological threats, deer should be recognised as key contributors to the vitality and balance of woodland landscapes.
The Case Against Culling
Ethical and Welfare Concerns
Culling raises significant ethical and welfare concerns. The process can result in injury, prolonged distress, and inhumane deaths, especially when carried out under less controlled conditions. The ethics of causing harm to animals for population control are increasingly scrutinised, particularly as non-lethal alternatives become more viable, effective and available.
Beyond the immediate harm to individual animals, culling can disrupt social structures and leave surviving animals vulnerable to disease, predation, and chronic stress. It may also unintentionally increase risks to both animals and humans. For example, a U.S. study suggested that deer movements triggered by hunting pressure could contribute to increased rates of deer-vehicle collisions in certain contexts (Etter, 2002), raising questions about the broader impacts of lethal control.
Ecological effects must also be considered, particularly when culling involves the removal of animal carcasses. In Scotland, deer are culled annually to reduce browsing pressure, but the routine removal of bodies has been shown to strip ecosystems of essential nutrients. A 2024 study found that between 2010 and 2021, culling led to the annual loss of approximately 195,652 kg of nitrogen, 152,834 kg of phosphorus, and 251,188 kg of calcium, with red deer culls accounting for around 70% of these losses (Ferraro & Hirst, 2024). These nutrients, typically returned to the environment through natural decomposition, are vital to soil fertility, plant regeneration, and food webs. Losses were especially high in agricultural areas, open ranges, and woodlands, threatening long-term habitat resilience and biodiversity.
Taken together, these ethical and ecological impacts challenge the idea that culling is a responsible or sustainable approach to wildlife management. A growing body of evidence, as well as public sentiment, now supports humane, non-lethal strategies that reduce harm and promote coexistence between people and wildlife.
Compensatory Reproduction and Social Disruption
Culling has long been used to reduce deer populations in response to human management objectives; however, evidence suggests that it is often ineffective and can have unintended ecological consequences. One major outcome is the phenomenon of compensatory reproduction. When individuals are removed from a population through culling, competition for food and other resources is reduced, which can improve the health of remaining individuals and increase their reproductive success. This "rebound effect" has been observed in multiple studies. For example, research on white-tailed deer in Florida showed that hunted populations had a 24 percentage points higher twinning rate compared to non-hunted populations (Richter & Labisky, 1985).
Culling also disrupts the social structure of deer populations. Many species have complex social hierarchies, and removing individuals—whether dominant or subordinate—can increase stress, destabilise group dynamics, and alter behaviour. These social disturbances can have ecological consequences, including increased movement, higher risk of disease transmission, and unexpected impacts on vegetation patterns.
Long-Term Effectiveness
Evidence supporting the limitations of culling is further reinforced by long-term studies showing that lethal interventions often fail to reduce populations meaningfully over time. Data released by the Irish Deer Commission (IDC), obtained via the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), show that 78,175 wild deer were culled in the 12 months leading up to February 2023, a 41% increase from the previous year. Despite this escalation, deer numbers continued to grow. The number of licensed hunters increased to 6,486 in 2023, yet the average number of deer culled per hunter remained largely stable (6–8, rising to 10). These figures demonstrate that even intensified culling does not provide meaningful long-term population control. While lethal control can temporarily lower numbers, maintaining artificially low populations like this requires constant intervention. This is costly, raises significant ethical concerns, and fails to address the ecological dynamics that regulate populations naturally.
In natural and semi-natural ecosystems, deer numbers can stabilise naturally. As populations approach carrying capacity, resources become limited, birth rates fall, and juvenile mortality increases (Clutton-Brock et al., 1982; Coulson et al., 2004). In other words, populations tend to find balance at levels their habitat can naturally support without ongoing lethal interference (Coulson et al., 2004).
A well-documented example of this pattern comes from the Isle of Rum, where red deer numbers increased steadily after the cessation of culling in 1973 (Clutton-Brock et al., 1982) and subsequently stabilised. Since the early 1980s, the population has fluctuated around ecological carrying capacity (Coulson et al., 2004), maintaining an approximately constant size.
Taken together, the ethical concerns, social disruption, compensatory reproduction, and limited long-term effectiveness make culling a potentially ineffective strategy for managing deer populations. Rather than achieving sustained population control, culling often leads to rapid population rebounds, altered age and social structures, and unintended ecological consequences. These outcomes indicate that lethal interventions do not address the underlying drivers of population growth and can even exacerbate the challenges they aim to resolve. This underscores the need for alternative, non-lethal management strategies that provide more sustainable, ethical, and ecologically sound solutions for deer population management.
Alternative Non-Lethal Management Strategies for Woodland Regeneration
Scientific evidence suggests that non-lethal methods, such as fertility control, exclusion fencing, habitat management, and the use of deterrents, can successfully stabilise populations, protect vulnerable vegetation and reduce conflict without the ethical and ecological drawbacks associated with culling. By allowing deer to self-regulate within the limits set by their habitat, these approaches promote coexistence while maintaining long-term ecosystem health.
Gradual Thinning over Clear Cutting
Clear-cutting, which involves the removal of large sections of forest in a single operation, can severely disrupt the ecological balance of woodland environments, particularly affecting natural regeneration and the diversity of ground flora. The abrupt removal of canopy cover drastically alters light and moisture conditions on the forest floor, encouraging a rapid flush of fast-growing, generalist herbaceous species. While this initial regrowth may appear beneficial, it often suppresses shade-tolerant seedlings and woodland specialist plants that depend on the stable, low-light conditions of mature forests.
For example, a study of ancient woodland restoration in the UK, which examined the impacts of both clear-felling and gradual removal of conifer plantations over 8 years, reported that “the loss of woodland specialist species is associated with higher levels of canopy opening during restoration” (Brown et al., 2015, p. 21).
In contrast, gradual thinning offers a more sustainable approach that preserves forest structure and supports long-term regeneration. By removing trees incrementally over an extended period, the forest canopy remains relatively intact, providing continuous cover and helping to maintain ecological stability. This method reduces stress on regenerating plant communities by allowing tree seedlings to establish under moderate light conditions, fostering understory growth without overwhelming the forest’s capacity to regenerate. Gradual thinning also supports wildlife by retaining canopy cover and distributing browsing pressure, giving saplings a better chance to establish.
From a biodiversity perspective, gradual thinning creates a mosaic of niches that benefits a wide range of species. Retained mature trees provide critical resources, while native trees re-establishing enhance habitat complexity, supporting multiple trophic levels. By prioritising ecological continuity and long-term forest health, gradual thinning provides a foundation for successful regeneration without large-scale disruption. A well-planned, gradual thinning strategy enables the shift towards native woodland restoration while allowing deer to remain part of a resilient ecosystem.
The key benefits of woodland regeneration without culling include sustained cover and shelter that prevent sudden deer displacement and associated ecological disruptions. Controlled browsing pressure from deer spreads impact over time, allowing seedlings to take hold. This enhances biodiversity through natural regeneration, supports understory growth and maintains habitat for various species. Soil and hydrological stability reduce erosion risks while preserving the woodland’s ability to retain moisture and nutrients. The long-term ecosystem balance facilitates a self-sustaining cycle where deer, flora and fauna coexist in a stable, diverse environment.
Physical Barriers
While fencing can protect regenerating woodlands and young saplings from deer browsing, it requires careful consideration due to potential negative impacts such as habitat fragmentation and disruption of wildlife corridors. Large-scale fencing can also shift overgrazing to adjacent areas. Non-plastic tree guards made from wood, metal mesh and cardboard offer a sustainable alternative, providing targeted protection for saplings while allowing deer to move freely.
Additionally, natural browse barriers, such as dead tree logs, could be used to physically obstruct access to saplings, creating refuges where seedlings can establish. Dense bramble can also act as a spiny understory that deters deer browsing, protecting saplings while persisting under heavy browsing (Gresham et al., 2025). Incorporating these natural features can help safeguard seed sources and support the establishment of deer-preferred species.
Natural population regulation further complements these non-lethal deer management methods. As deer numbers increase and food becomes scarce, the population stabilises naturally due to limited resources, lower body condition, and reduced reproductive success. Using physical barriers can protect key saplings while nudging deer toward natural regulation, aligning with a gradual thinning strategy.
Natural Repellents and Deterrents
Currently, new technologies are being developed and studied to promote affordable, flexible, and adaptive strategies for tree protection. Several deer repellents are on the market, including odour-based products and taste-based products. The literature on this topic is, however, fragmented and hard to interpret because there is no standard method to measure repellent effectiveness. The effectiveness and percentage of success in reducing browsing for the same product may differ depending on the plant species or on environmental conditions. Factors affecting repellent effectiveness include relative palatability of the plant to be protected, size of local deer populations, availability of alternative forage, weather, amount and concentration of repellent used, and test duration (El Hani and Conover, 1995). However, these methods are promising and can significantly reduce the impact of browsing.
As a vegan-based organisation, we view the following repellents as a temporary solution until a commercially viable plant-based alternative with the same proven efficacy on large-scale cultivated areas becomes available. Deer-Away Big Game Repellent® is an odour-based product made of putrescent whole egg solids. It appeared to be the most promising formulation in several field tests, reducing deer browsing by an average of 50% (El Hani and Conover, 1995; Curtis and Boulanger 2010), also proving to last longer than other repellents (Curtis and Boulanger 2010).
Also, Trico®, a spray repellent derived from emulsified sheep fat, appeared to be very effective in field tests. As reported by the UK Forestry Commission, it has indeed proved effective in a recent study carried out at Holnicote Estate in Exmoor National Park in West Somerset. Trico® was manually sprayed twice a year to trees in an area where deer fencing and tree guards would have been costly and impractical. Initial results indicate a reduction of roe deer browsing damage to below 20% within the first year of application. This success may also be partially due to the deliberate overstocking of trees in the woodland area; the use of Trico® has indeed been combined with overplanting of certain tree species in the estate (Forestry Commission, 2025). However, other studies support the effectiveness of this product to protect trees from deer browsing (Curtis and Eshenaur 2022, Williams 2025).
In the meantime, we encourage the use of vegan products that are already on the market. Birch bark extract, for example, has been shown to deter deer both through unpalatability and digestive inhibition (Bergvall et al., 2013). Its high tannin content makes the bark unappealing while also interfering with ruminal digestion, discouraging deer from returning to it as a food source. This means birch functions across multiple deterrent “categories” simultaneously, acting through both taste aversion and conditioned avoidance.
Recent studies in Scotland add another layer of evidence, showing that red deer actively avoid birch trees. Ireland and Ruxton (2022) suggest that the conspicuous white colouration of birch bark may act as an aposematic visual signal, warning off bark-stripping mammals. Combined with the tree’s chemical defences, birch thus offers both visual and biochemical deterrence, making it particularly effective as a natural browsing barrier.
If planted strategically, for instance, alongside vulnerable regenerating saplings, birch trees could help protect against herbivory while maintaining the ecological integrity of native woodlands. Unlike fencing, which can fragment habitats and displace wildlife, the integration of birch provides a sustainable, low-impact approach and low-intervention method of safeguarding young trees. At the same time, it contributes to broader biodiversity goals by supporting the structure and function of natural vegetation communities.
Contraception
Immunocontraception, particularly porcine zona pellucida (PZP) vaccines, has proven highly effective at controlling fertility in wildlife. Field trials on Assateague Island successfully reduced fertility in wild horses (Kirkpatrick et al., 2011), and similar remote vaccination led to an 85% drop in fertility among white-tailed deer. In South Africa, African elephants treated with PZP vaccines achieved efficacy rates exceeding 95% over decades (Bertschinger et al., 2018). New delivery systems, such as SpayVac®, use tiny fat-based particles (liposomes) to extend the vaccine’s effect for multiple years, reducing the need for repeated handling.
Given this strong track record, we advocate for greater investment in the development and deployment of immunocontraceptives as a humane, non-lethal tool for wildlife management in the UK. Priorities should include expanding remote delivery systems, enhancing vaccine stability, and accelerating regulatory approval to enable wider use in the field. Support for ongoing research into recombinant and synthetic alternatives is also vital, as these could remove reliance on animal-derived components. By advancing and adopting these methods, wildlife management can move toward approaches that are both ecologically sustainable and aligned with ethical, animal-friendly principles. With the proviso that any resulting immunocontraception is used sparingly. In the wrong hands, it could be a tool to sterilise a species out of existence.
Conclusion
Based on the evidence, culling is neither a sustainable nor ethical approach for managing deer populations. Non-lethal strategies such as immunocontraception, physical barriers, natural deterrents, and habitat management offer effective and humane alternatives that protect both the welfare of deer and the integrity of woodland ecosystems.
Culling carries significant ethical and ecological risks, including disruption of social structures, loss of essential nutrients, and unintended consequences for biodiversity. Public perception increasingly favours compassionate approaches, highlighting the importance of management strategies that minimise harm.
Verify Humanity advocates for an approach that prioritises coexistence, compassionate conservation, and humane population control. By investing in non-lethal methods, managers can support woodland regeneration while maintaining long-term ecological balance and ethical stewardship of wildlife.
References
Bergvall, U. A., Co, M., Bergström, R., Sjöberg, P. J., Waldebäck, M., & Turner, C. (2013). Anti-browsing effects of birch bark extract on fallow deer. European Journal of Forest Research, 132, 717-725. Article and Copyright (Public Full Text).
Bertschinger, H. J., Delsink, A., Van Altena, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, J. F. (2018). Porcine zona pellucida vaccine immunocontraception of African elephant (Loxodonta africana) cows: A review of 22 years of research. Bothalia-African Biodiversity & Conservation, 48(2), 1-8. Article Link. Copyright License.
Brown, N. D., Curtis, T., & Adams, E. C. (2015). Effects of clear-felling versus gradual removal of conifer trees on the survival of understorey plants during the restoration of ancient woodlands. Forest Ecology and Management, 348, 15-22. Article Link Copyright License.
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Guinness, F. E., & Albon, S. D. (1982). Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. p,259 University of Chicago Press. Copyright License
Coulson, T, Guinness, F, Pemberton, J & Clutton-Brock, T 2004, 'The demographic consequences of releasing a population of red deer from culling', Ecology, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 411-422. Article link - open access
Curtis, P. D. & Boulanger, J. R. (2010). Relative Effectiveness of Repellents for Preventing Deer Damage to Japanese Yews. HortTechnology, 20(4), 730–734. Article Link - Free Access
Curtis, P. D., & Eshenaur, B. C. (2022). Trico: a novel repellent for preventing deer damage to ornamental shrubs. Human-Wildlife Interactions, 16(1), 22–28. Article Copyright License
El Hani, A., & Conover, M. R. (1995). Comparative analysis of deer repellents. National Wildlife Research Center Repellents Conference 1995. 14. Article Link - open access
Etter et al (2002) Survival and Movement of White-Tailed Deer in Suburban Chicago, Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management. Article and Public Full Text
Ferraro, K. M., & Hirst, C. (2024). Missing carcasses, lost nutrients: Quantifying nutrient losses from deer culling practices in Scotland. Ecological Solutions and Evidence, 5(3), e12356. Article Link. Copyright License
Forestry Commission. (2025, September 4). Holnicote Estate combines management strategies to control local deer and grey squirrel populations. GOV.UK. Accessed 22 September 2025. Article Link Copyright License
Gresham, A., Pillay, K., Healey, J. R., Eichhorn, M. P., Ellison, A., Lowe, A., ... & Shannon, G. (2025). A continuous feast of bramble: Rubus fruticosus agg. is a key cross‐seasonal dietary resource for a fallow deer population. Ecological Solutions and Evidence, 6(1), e70008. Article Link. Copyright License.
Ireland, H. M., & Ruxton, G. D. (2022). White bark in birch species as a warning signal for bark-stripping mammals. Plant Ecology & Diversity, 15(3-4), 93-109. Article Link. Copyright License
Irish Deer Commission (IDC). Email correspondence on 3.6.25.
Kirkpatrick, J. F., Lyda, R. O., & Frank, K. M. (2011). Contraceptive Vaccines for Wildlife: A Review. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 66(1), 40-50. Article Link - Free Access
Laurent, L., Mårell, A., Balandier, P., Holveck, H., & Saïd, S. (2017). Understory vegetation dynamics and tree regeneration as affected by deer herbivory in temperate hardwood forests. iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 10(5), 837 Article Link Copyright License
Oettel, J. et al. (2020) ‘Patterns and drivers of Deadwood Volume and composition in different forest types of the Austrian Natural Forest Reserves.’ Forest Ecology and Management, 463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118016. Copyright License.
Ross Piper (2020) Saproxylic Beetles of the UK https://www.rosspiper.net/2020/01/10/saproxylic-beetles/
Richter, Andreas R., and Ronald F. Labisky. “Reproductive Dynamics among Disjunct White-Tailed Deer Herds in Florida.” The Journal of Wildlife Management, vol. 49, no. 4, 1985, pp. 964–71. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/3801380 . Accessed 23 July 2025.
Science and Conservation Center, Capability Statement. https://www.sccpzp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/The-Science-and-Conservation-Center-Capability-Statement.pdf With kind permission on 22.7.25
Williams, S. S. (2025). A trial of deer repellent spray for reducing deer browsing damage to coppiced hazel in an ancient woodland in Cambridgeshire. Conservation Evidence, 22, 16. Article Link and Copyright License
Disclaimer: Verify Humanity is not an expert on deer management. Our role is to provide access to articles, scientific papers and other resources that present perspectives against deer culling. The materials we share are for informational purposes only and do not constitute professional advice. Verify Humanity assumes no responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or applicability of the information provided.