Water Deer Interaction with Humans - Agricultural & Conservation Interests

---

British bother?

Water deer remain arguably our least-studied deer, with significant gaps in our understanding of their biology, behaviour, and impacts on farming, forestry, and conservation. In 2004, a team led by York University's Piran White reported to the Forestry Commission that water deer were "believed to have a negligible impact on agriculture in the East of England." Populations have increased considerably since then, however, both here and apparently across parts of their Korean range, and their impact has likely grown accordingly – though published data remain scarce. As Arnold Cooke noted in his 2019 book Muntjac and Water Deer, water deer must eat, and their biomass means the potential exists for real impacts on native flora and fauna. Compounding the difficulty is that water deer coexist with other species that feed in similar ways, making it hard -- sometimes impossible -- to attribute damage to one species without robust monitoring, which currently exists for only a handful of sites. Water deer also tend to range widely, producing blanket grazing rather than concentrated hotspots, which makes damage harder to detect and address. What follows is a summary of the available data on water deer impacts; I would be very glad to hear from others with experience of the subject.

Agriculture and Conservation

In common with all wild deer species in Britain, the water deer population appears to be both increasing and spreading -- albeit more slowly than some other introduced species -- and with this comes potential conflict with landowners. Water deer are known to feed on crops, including carrots, sweet potatoes, soybeans, bean sprouts, and cereals (see: Food and feeding behaviour), though the damage they cause seems less than that inflicted by other deer at low to moderate densities.

In 2020, I posed a question about water deer damage to a well-populated deer stalking Facebook group. The consensus was that, in England, they cause little if any damage in woodland and are likely only a minor pest in cereal crops under most circumstances – feedback broadly echoed by stalkers, farmers, and reserve managers I've spoken to since. That said, some respondents described more notable impacts: one watched the same deer repeatedly grazing spring maize early in the season; another reported maize damage on his beat and what he called a "decimation" of his oilseed rape crop, though this coincided with a very wet autumn that placed additional stress on the crop. The thread was perhaps best summed up by one respondent who observed that, while some grazing is noticeable along woodland edges and on cereals, it rarely affects yield, and water deer "don't do anywhere near as much damage as other deer species in both forestry and arable". Where populations of other deer are already high, however, the added pressure from water deer may still prove intolerable.

Damage can be both relative and subjective, of course, and in parts of central and eastern England where water deer are managed for sporting purposes, the deer themselves become part of the "crop" and higher levels of damage may be tolerated than where no such management exists. Activities in the broader landscape can also have a significant impact, as we shall see, because water deer seem to range much less than some other species.

Damage thresholds

There are several examples from England that illustrate how difficult it can be to determine the densities at which damage is likely to occur. Arnold Cooke told me that at Woodwalton Fen, Cambridgeshire, during the 1970s and 80s, unacceptable grazing impacts became more likely when densities reached around 80 per sq km (0.8 per ha); though in Muntjac and Water Deer he also notes that Callum Thomson, then deer manager at Woburn Estate, received reports of crop damage at nearby Potsgrove when densities were as low as eight or nine per sq km (0.08 per ha). Conversely, at the Claxton Estate near Norwich, where the population was approaching 25 per sq km (0.25 per ha) in 2016, there was no concern about crop damage – the deer doing no more harm than hares and considerably less than rabbits. When I spoke with estate manager John Heathcote in 2024, he confirmed the situation was unchanged despite densities having since risen to around 54 per sq km (0.54 per ha). In the December 2022 episode of his Deer Management with Chris Rogers series on YouTube, Rogers suggested that water deer can inflict significant grazing damage and become a general nuisance at higher densities, without specifying a threshold, while in March 2023, Adam Gage, head keeper on the Raveningham estate in Norfolk, explained that they cull until they see evidence of damage declining to a tolerable level rather than setting a specific density or number to maintain.

Crop impacts

In his 2009 International Urban Ecology Review paper on the species in Britain, Arnold Cooke noted that water deer were feeding on newly-sown farm grassland at Woodwalton Fen during the spring of 2009, and while this was of no consequence within the Great Fen conservation project, it could have been important had the intention been to graze the fields commercially with livestock. At the time, Cooke assessed the feeding impact of water deer on the reserve as "intermediate stage", showing slight impact. The only indicator that provided any grounds for concern was damage to the readily palatable comfrey (Symphytum officinale) during the autumn, with 35% of sample plots showing evidence of grazing, and Cooke noted:

"Although grazing on comfrey itself is not an issue for the reserve's managers, it could indicate that nationally rarer, but locally common, species might potentially be at risk."

While general browsing damage might be low, there are circumstances where water deer may have a more significant impact, such as impairing or preventing the regrowth of sallow (Salix caprea) coppice. In 2010, browsing was considered the reason three of 15 coppiced sallow plots in the north of Woodwalton Fen had unacceptably poor growth. Many more water deer than Reeves' muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) were sighted in the area, suggesting they were responsible for most of the damage. In a related study on the reserve, water deer accounted for almost 61% of browsing events recorded on young sallow coppice regrowth, with muntjac accounting for the remaining 39% – while both species all but ignored ivy.

In the spring of 2014, Cooke undertook a small trial to test whether impact on regrowth was still occurring at the fen. A patch of sallow was selected in an area with a high deer density, and in May, leafing stems were cut at around 40 cm (16 inches) above ground, surrounding vegetation was cut and flattened, and remote cameras installed. Trail camera footage during June and July suggested water deer were more active in the area than muntjac and were responsible for 92% of the browsing. The level of browsing was judged to be unacceptable -- no regrowth exceeded a metre (3.3 ft.) -- and while several water deer were identified, a buck with a distinctive broken tusk was responsible for 74% of the damage, suggesting that some individuals may become habitual "problem" animals for sallow regrowth. In his 2012 report to Nature of Cambridgeshire, Cooke described how browsing altered the vegetation structure:

"The impact of the brief, but fairly frequent, episodes of browsing on the willow was often to create and maintain 'micro-lawns' of densely-packed new growth a few centimetres in height and perhaps 10 or more centimetres [4 in.] across. From a distance these resembled patches of moss. These fast growing young stems seemed very palatable to the deer."

Outside the reserve, deer were observed taking carrot (Daucus carota) and sugar beet (Beta vulgaris var. saccharifera) crops -- both in the ground and in storage -- particularly when forced onto farmland by flooding or snow, or during periods of high density. The damage was very limited nonetheless, as the deer tended to focus on the green tops rather than the root, and didn't aggregate.

Similarly, up until 1968, the 68-hectare (170-acre) farm at Whipsnade Zoo grew food for the collection, including barley, oats, wheat, potatoes, kale, and Russian comfrey (Symphytum × uplandicum). In their 1988 paper in the Journal of Zoology, Reinhold Hofmann and colleagues noted that, although water deer were recorded in the farm area throughout the crop-rearing period, no significant damage was recorded. Writing in the Norfolk Bird and Mammal Report for 2000, David Nobbs, then warden at Wheatfen reserve in the Yare Valley just south of Norwich, considered that water deer made "an attractive addition to the fauna of Wheatfen and cause little damage on the reserve".

Oilseed rape and game crops

A recurring theme across several sites is the impact of water deer on oilseed rape. Paul Childerley at the Beckerings Estate in Bedfordshire reported that water deer can adversely affect commercial flower crops through feeding on flower heads, though impacts appear limited provided population densities are kept at a "reasonable level" – a threshold he did not quantify. A recent article by Paula Lester in Country Life suggested densities on the estate may have reached as high as 154 per sq km (1.54 per ha). During a site visit in December 2025, I observed evidence of extensive browsing on young field bean (Vicia faba) plants in fields regularly frequented by water deer. Childerley also noted that a significant cull was necessary during the 2020/21 winter following what he described as "some considerable damage" to game crops. Crops on the estate include maize and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) grown as game cover, alongside oilseed rape (Brassica napus) widely cultivated on the tenant farms.

In the April 2025 episode of Fieldsports with Speed, Childerley explained that water deer will "punish" a rape crop while it's growing and when it's cold, noting how the crop sticks up through snow and becomes particularly accessible. He described the most significant concern, however, as occurring in late summer when desiccated rape is awaiting harvest (the so-called "popping stage") when deer sheltering in the crop will scatter as the combine moves in, knocking seed heads to the ground where the combine cannot reach them, with a direct loss of yield as a result. In March 2026, a farmer in east Norfolk told me that this was precisely why he culled water deer on his land: the deer caused significant damage to the crop during winter and spring, then knocked seed heads off during the summer. Arnold Cooke observed something similar at Woodwalton, where water deer apparently knocked ears off barley when running through the crop just prior to harvest – though in that case the farmer was largely unconcerned about the minimal losses. In his 2020 book From Wasp to Water Deer, Martin Guy notes a fondness for oilseed rape during the summer more broadly, commenting that animals feeding predominantly on the crop can have a distinctly yellowish hue to their fat come winter.

At Raveningham, Adam Gage told me that water deer targeted maize grown as game cover during 2025, with damage concentrated mid-stem and apparently exacerbated by drought conditions; some strips required fencing as a result. Gage also noted that water deer show a strong preference for GS4 herbal leys -- legume and herb-rich swards established under the Countryside Stewardship scheme to improve soil structure, enhance biodiversity, and provide high-quality forage for livestock (formerly known as set-aside) -- drawn by the diverse plant assemblages these habitats provide.

By contrast, in December 2024, John Heathcote told me that water deer at his site caused few if any impacts on either marshland or arable crops, with deer more commonly observed foraging on ruderal vegetation within crops or in GS4 habitats rather than on the crops themselves.

The broader picture

In March 2025, Suffolk-based pest controller Jonathan Tunmore told me he had seen significant increases in water deer across the East Anglian grounds he manages, with farmers reporting damage in areas of high density, particularly in and around the Norfolk Broads. He noted that, unlike many deer species, water deer tend to be sedentary, occupying the same few fields throughout much of the year. While winter crops can tolerate moderate grazing through compensatory growth, he had observed water deer suppressing both oilseed rape and rye. More significantly, he described deer lying out on winter barley, flattening the crop and increasing combining costs. A further complication arises from defaecation in these couches: combine sieves cannot distinguish between cereal heads and deer droppings, resulting in batches being rejected at harvest – a problem I heard echoed by a farmer in east Norfolk sometime later.

In a conversation with Michael Anker, Project Lead for the Norfolk Deer and Wild Venison Strategy, in March 2026, he described similar impacts felt more broadly across Norfolk. Beyond eating, trampling, and lying in crops (and defecating on them) water deer create trackways -- well-worn paths between resting and feeding sites -- through fields, fill in ditches as they cross them (disrupting drainage), and expose potato tubers to sunlight, turning them green and unusable. Andrea Kelly, Environment Policy Adviser at the Broads Authority, added a further concern: trackways concentrate animal traffic, breaking the surface of peat-based sediment and churning the soil, which degrades the peat, triggers carbon oxidisation, and ultimately releases greenhouse gases. This structural deterioration can also make it impossible to get machinery onto Broadland reedbeds where trackways are dense, with unknown consequences for the species that depend on them.

Water deer may also pose a challenge for farmers and nature reserves working to expand woodland and wildflower cover under large-scale habitat restoration programmes. In November 2025, J. Gumble & Sons Hunting and Fishing published a Facebook post ("The Hidden Impact of Chinese Water Deer in Cambridgeshire") characterising the species as an escalating concern in the county, claiming that rapidly rising numbers within Fenland reserves are hampering conservation managers' efforts to protect plant communities. Describing water deer as "one of the fastest-growing wildlife problems in East Anglia", the post cited heavy grazing pressure on reedbeds, sedges, wetland flora, young willows, and regenerating growth in restored meadows, and suggested that impacts are increasingly felt across a broad range of stakeholders, including farmers, conservationists, land managers, motorists, and those engaged in habitat restoration. The post also alleged bark stripping on tender shoots, inhibiting woodland and scrub regeneration -- though empirical data supporting this in water deer are limited -- and implicated the species in rising road traffic collisions, attributing this partly to what it described as "shockingly high reproduction rates". The post generated considerable social media engagement, being shared more than 120 times and attracting over 400 comments, a significant proportion of which called for greater access for shooting and population control on private land.

Britain's growing deer population is undeniably hampering conservation, forestry, and farming interests, but the water deer's specific contribution remains largely unquantified. Numbers can nonetheless build rapidly, and several landowners and stalkers have told me they are now seeing significant numbers where there were none five or ten years ago. Forestry Commission East and East Anglia Deer Manager David Hooton recently told me that the Commission is receiving increasing reports of water deer impacts in woodland and on crops where densities are high, including damage to set-aside/GS4 buffer strips planted for birds and butterflies:

"We have seen significant populations of [water deer] developing in East England over the last 10 years, based on the fact that there was thought to be little impacts from them. Having met a few owners in the Norfolk Broads recently we are seeing subtle changes in composition of floral interests in grazing marshes, and also impacts to reed beds, attributed to [water deer] and red deer, often difficult to tell the differing impacts apart in reed beds. Reed cutters are reporting significantly less growth on reeds than a few years ago, this has coincided with the increases in both [water deer] and red deer."

Conservation impacts

While awareness of the impacts of water deer at high densities appears to be growing, population management remains limited across many nature reserves, where damage frequently seems not to be considered significant enough to justify culling – a position perhaps reinforced by the reputational sensitivities that lethal control of deer can attract. In their report on fenland ecosystem services, published in 2011, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology ecologists Jerry Tallowin, Owen Mountford, and Joanna Savage wrote:

"The Chinese Water-deer (Hydropotes inermis) is locally frequent in wetlands in eastern England, but there is no suggestion that their grazing is having an unduly damaging impact on swamp communities."

In September 2024, Suffolk Wildlife Trust Deer Manager Matt Gooch told me that, while there are significant populations of water deer across their sites -- including more than 100 animals on the 486 ha (1,200-acre) Carlton Marshes reserve near Lowestoft -- observational surveys of the reserves in the north-east of the county showed no discernible impact. The Trust does not currently manage water deer on any of its reserves, though Matt noted that this decision would be reviewed if damage were reported or if local landowners struggled to manage deer on their land. David Hooton mentioned one landowner near Lowestoft who believes that an increase in water deer on his grazing marshes has resulted in fewer flowering plants and competition for grazing with his cattle.

Further west, in Bedfordshire, Senior Ranger at the Forest of Marston Vale Nicola Ceconi told me in June 2024 that the reserve did not survey the water deer population or carry out any culling, though this is currently under review as of April 2026 as browsing damage to bluebells and herb layers has become more evident. Nicola added:

"Generally speaking, we do find that the Chinese water deer do less damage than the muntjac, but we are seeing more of them in recent years, and they are definitely browsing the hedgerows in the wetlands."

In Muntjac and Water Deer, Arnold Cooke recounted discussions with Tim Strudwick, the RSPB warden at Strumpshaw Fen in Norfolk, who had not noticed any problems from water deer grazing or browsing in 2010, despite the local summer density being about 20 per sq km (0.2 per ha). The only issue raised was whether deer paths through the reedbeds might allow foxes easier access to bird nests, though Strudwick explained in 2016 that this concern had not been realised. Indeed, if deer paths through the reeds do benefit fox ingress, they might equally increase fawn mortality, given that foxes are likely a significant predator of fawns. Responding to a Broads Authority survey circulated to landowners and managers in late 2024, the RSPB suggested that deer trackways through reedbeds could actually serve as conduits for species dispersal, including fen orchid (Liparis loeselii), and may help circulate good quality water around the fen.

Orford Ness and the case for culling

At the time of writing, only one nature reserve has come to my attention where water deer damage has been considered significant enough to have employed culling. Orford Ness, a coastal shingle spit in Suffolk owned and managed by the National Trust, covers approximately 888 ha. In a 2022 note in Essex Naturalist, John Dobson referenced a conversation with the late naturalist Steve Piotrowski, who reported that water deer were causing considerable damage to the SSSI, particularly through winter grazing of rare lichens. In correspondence during January 2025, Area Manager Sam Cooper confirmed that a cull had become necessary after the population grew to the point where deer were damaging the shingle crust, which can take a decade or more to recover, and disturbing the wetland grazing marshes used by ground-nesting birds, resulting in nest abandonment and increased predation of eggs and chicks. Cooper emphasised that vegetated shingle of the type found at Orford Ness is both extremely rare and exceptionally fragile: trampling destroys the stone structure necessary for moisture retention and plant establishment, with impacts that can be long-lasting or permanent. Beyond trampling, deer were also grazing the ground flora -- including sea campion (Silene uniflora) and sea beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima) -- placing significant pressure on both the lichen heaths and the wider shingle plant community. Some egg trampling was also suspected, though no direct evidence had been recorded.

Orford Ness may be the first reserve to have culled water deer, but others seem likely to follow. In December 2025, Michael Anker told me that his team had been asked to look at reducing water deer numbers at WWT Welney in Cambridgeshire, where overabundance appears to be disturbing nesting black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa). Management of water deer, alongside red deer (Cervus elaphus), on the Norfolk Broads also appears inevitable. A February 2025 Broads Authority report on deer impacts noted that thermal drone surveys identified Hydropotes as the most abundant deer in the area, particularly in the fens and marshes of the southern catchments, where densities may exceed one per hectare – above the threshold reported to trigger damage in this and other deer species. Increased movement of red and water deer through reedbeds appears to be reducing reed height, dominance, and flowering, with knock-on effects for habitat specialists including bittern (Botaurus stellaris), which has declined within the National Park in recent years. Browsing damage has also been reported on milk parsley (Peucedanum palustre), a critical larval foodplant for the endangered swallowtail butterfly (Papilio machaon). Further survey work is underway to better characterise these relationships.

Invasion status and culling

Predicting how water deer impacts might develop in England is not straightforward. In a 2010 assessment of 34 alien mammal species introduced to Europe, University of Bern researchers led by Sven Bacher assigned water deer a "total impact score" of five -- an aggregate of a potential impact score of two for environmental damage and three for economic damage -- with "actual impact" scores of just 0.01 and 0.014 respectively. For context, Reeves' muntjac and fallow deer (Dama dama) both scored 25. A 2011 analysis by Kumschick and colleagues, assessing "invasiveness strength" across a range of mammals and birds, similarly rated water deer as weak invaders, with an average economic score of -0.7 and an average overall score of -0.2; muntjac, by comparison, scored 2.3 and 2.5 respectively. While water deer are indeed less exploratory than muntjac or fallow, lending credence to their classification as weak invaders, this does not account for how rapidly populations can build in areas of favourable habitat once established.

The number of water deer taken annually under deer management plans in England also remains poorly documented. A 1996 survey of 10,000 BASC members by Alan McCormick and Jamie Cordery -- drawing on just over 6,700 responses -- found water deer accounted for just 0.2% of animals culled that year, compared with 49% roe (Capreolus capreolus) and 24% red deer. No more recent national data are available at the time of writing, though conversations with stalkers and the Forestry Commission strongly suggest culling has increased considerably over the past three decades. A current Forestry Commission project may shed new light on both the distribution of culling effort and total deer killed in Britain in the near future.

Native nuisance?

Robert Swinhoe, in his original 1870 description of the species, noted that the deer ate mostly rush sprouts and coarse grasses but "they doubtless often finish off with a dessert from the sweet-potatoes, cabbages, &c. which the villagers cultivate on the islands during the winter". He nonetheless points out that the fact the deer are permitted to persist in such abundance suggests that they do very little damage to crops. Writing in Shooting in China, published during 1908, however, US consul in Kobe Thomas Jernigan recounted the experience of Jersey-born adventurer and writer Major-General William Mesny during his first campaign in Kwei-chow (modern day Guizhou, a mountainous province in southwest China), between 1867 and 1874. Mesny had described to him by natives a large and ferocious animal referred to locally as Ma-hswing ("house bear"). (I think this might've been a phonetic misspelling of Jiā xióng, 家熊.) It was larger than the biggest bear, with a mane like a horse, brown as an ox and ferocious as a panther; its roar was heard miles away. The farmers were well disposed to the Ma-hswing, though, because it kept away predators that took livestock and its favourite food was the deer and wild pig, two of the greatest and most persistent depredators known to the farmer. This suggests that farmers were in well-established competition with deer by the mid-19th century, and Jernigan goes on to say "... there can be no shadow of doubt that [river] deer play havoc with the grain crops ...".

We know little about the present impact of water deer on agriculture in China, although the drastic reduction in the species' range and population in recent years likely means damage is concomitantly lower than when Swinhoe and Jernigan were travelling. In his thesis on water deer ecology at Whipsnade, Endi Zhang notes that in China they're fond of crops including soybean, peanuts, and sweet potatoes. Additionally, in their Chinese paper to the Sichuan Journal of Zoology in 2002, Endi and Xiao-long Zhang report the results of a survey of local people living and working around the Defang Milu Reserve in Jiangsu Province during February and March of the previous year. The results indicate that water deer commute through cotton fields at night en route to forage in wheat and rape fields when food is limited in the winter, suggesting potential conflict with farmers.

In Korea, the picture seems very different and, in the south at least where the Korean water deer has been designated a "harmful wild animal" since 1994, owing to the damage they inflict on crops and the number of traffic accidents they cause. In their opinion piece to the journal Restoration Ecology in September 2015, Yeong-Seok Jo and John T. Baccus noted:

"The demise of the wolf and dhole and other apex predators (tiger, Panthera tigris, and leopard, Panthera pardus) caused a substantial increase in populations of water deer (Hydropotes inermis) and wild boar (Sus scrofa), which are only now controlled by 'pest management' and hunting."

Indeed, in their 2018 Mammals of Korea, Yeong-Seok Jo, John Baccus and John Koprowski state that some 11,000 deer are eradicated as vermin each year in the South, and that the meat has little, if any, economic value, which aligns with discussions I've had with Korean naturalist Junha Kim. Jihyang Jung and colleagues, in their 2016 paper to Animal Cells and Systems, suggest that the agricultural sector in the South want the government to take action to manage water deer numbers:

"Farmers have been appealing to the [Korean] government for actions to reduce the deer population; however, the government has not yet responded …"

In a paper to the Korean Journal of Environmental Biology published during 2007, Seong-il Yoon at Hanyang University in Seoul presented the results of crop loss survey by wildlife in 11 of South Korea's national parks. The data, which took the form of interviews of farmers, suggest damage by deer both in terms of trampling the crop and eating tender leaves of cabbages, sweet potato, and beans. Indeed, while the survey data do not differentiate damage caused by water deer from that by roe (Capreolus capreolus), it does suggest that the two species caused significant damage to cabbage and bean crops in particular.

An article by Eun-kyung Ko in The Hankook Ilbo -- a well-respected Seoul newspaper -- published in November 2023, reported that between 150,000 and 200,000 water deer are killed each year under a government bounty scheme designed to reduce crop damage. Drawing on statistics released by the Ministry of the Environment, which administers the scheme, the article noted that in 2022 just over 153,000 water deer were shot, having been estimated to cause nearly 1.2 billion won (approximately £640,000 / US$822,000 / €750,000) worth of crop damage. This represents a substantial reduction from the peak of just over 3 billion won (£1.6m / US$2m / €1.9m) recorded in 2012, when only around 30,000 deer were killed under the scheme – suggesting that culling pressure has increased considerably while the economic damage has fallen. The article also noted a striking anomaly: in 2018, one water deer was shot on suspicion of having caused around 15,000 won (£8 / US$10 / €9) worth of crop damage – roughly half the bounty paid per animal.

More recently, an article by Lee In-ae in the Seoul Economic Daily in January 2026 reported the results of a large-scale culling operation targeting harmful wildlife in Seosan, South Chungcheong Province, during 2025. The 40 stalkers comprising Seosan City's Harmful Wildlife Damage Prevention Unit killed 3,738 water deer over the course of the year, with each stalker receiving a bounty of 40,000 ₩ (£20 / US$26 / €23) per animal. Interestingly, the same article notes that the bounty for wild boar was significantly higher at 300,000 ₩ (£150 / US$200 / €170) each.

Ko, The Hankook Ilbo's animal welfare reporter, explains that a contentious element of deer management in South Korea is that while hunters are paid per deer shot, farmers who suffer losses tend not to be compensated because the critical threshold for reimbursement is 100,000 ₩ (£53 / US$69 / €63) is difficult to demonstrate because water deer damage tends to be small scale but repetitive. The article goes on to point out that water deer are a resource worthy of protection in South Korea and more effort should be directed to keeping deer off important crops, either by installing fences or planting species that the deer prefer elsewhere on the farms to distract them from the main crops, and where this isn't possible government funds should be used to compensate farmers appropriately rather than on bounties. The public comments left against the article are mostly people agreeing that water deer are a problem for farmers but criticising the author for underestimating the level of damage they inflict, with several mentioning that the deer trampling/flattening crops is just as important as feeding damage. Hunting licenses in South Korea are issued by the government under the Wildlife Protection and Management Act (2011).

Regrettably, the on-going political and military situation in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea) means that we know nothing about either the current population status of water deer there, nor if they impact agricultural or conservation projects.