Yesterday the former conservation director of the RSPB, Mark Avery remarked on his blog that the he felt the GWCT is being "dragged to the right". As ever, no real examples were offered. On a later post he suggested that our joint working with Songbird Survival supported his view. This is remarkably similar to some of our members feeling our join initiatives with the RSPB and other organisations that they, personally, have less time for, are dragged us to the left. All complete nonsense.
I feel that the GWCT has not switched at all, but for those that find it easier to focus on building conservation stockades, dig entrenched views and use provocative language will continue to use left/right analogies. Clearly it is the conservation outcomes and achievements that need to be judged. Solutions suggested and tested are infinitely more helpful to wildlife than those trying and seeking division.
I feel the following example illustrates my point. The RSPB are currently running their farmer of the year awards and Mark Avery (who is sure we are all heading in differed directions) has suggested on his blog today that followers vote for Nicholas Watts. Good choice; only two weeks ago Nicholas was the candidate the GWCT suggested members support. We are in agreement that his achievement have been truly remarkable. So have other candidates; vote here.
So in the spirit of this blog - if we keep the end in mind; I suggest we should focus on what can be achieved for wildlife, not where organisations sit in some theoretical conservation spectrum.
Andrew, if we can agree that the focus should be on what can be achieved for ALL wildlife and not just those species cherry-picked for their quarry species status or lack of predatory impact on quarry species we may find some common ground.
ReplyDeleteWith respect whilst you talk here about 'those that seek division',clearly aimed at those of us fighting to stop the illegal persecution of birds of prey, there has been as much divisive rhetoric coming from yourself and others in recent weeks.
Take for example the criticism of the RSPB for highlighting a target population of Hen Harriers. Several individuals associated with CA (and I think yourself) have flagged this asking why HH are the only species that has a 'target'. I note that no such criticism has been forthcoming of SGA when they refer to the over-population of Buzzards, continually quoting the current population as if it was somehow wrong that they should have reached that level.
When you step back and understand that on the one hand the target HH population referred to by RSPB was derived from an independent, peer-reviewed report and the other seems derived from little more than a survey of gamekeeper's perceptions, it's hard not to question the motives that drive this.
I have no doubt GWCT produce some good work, Langholm will be seen as 'ground-breaking' when viewed by those looking back in the future. If GWCT wants to be judged on what it has achieved then perhaps putting its collective efforts into stemming the tide of raptor persecution would bring about the most significant achievement possible.
Alan, thank you for taking the time to read this. Good points. On Q division; I feel there are examples of division on both sides of the HH recovery debate - there are organisations, groups and individuals that I feel seek advantage from continuing the (unacceptable) status quo. GWCT is just as vocal to those on both sides.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that my view that we should engage with keepers (and stop positioning them as villains for reasons in this blog) is a positive way forward and certainly not divisive. I do accept that some will find that uncomfortable; but it is an attempt to close rather than open division.
On the HH carrying capacity; a useful number - but I see citing this as the target number has simply causing unhelpful further division. It is as number that is not used for conservation management of other species. I can't find any other example the carrying capacity number being used in this way - do you or anyone else have an example? Either way the HH carrying capacity would fall if keepers left the moors.
Personally, I consider the HH carrying capacity figure a distraction. There are too many other variables involved for it have much substance - weather, prey availability, isolation of population fragments, vegetative cover for nesting, intra-guild competition/predation, persecution, population recruitment potential and so on.
ReplyDeleteAs we know, populations of predators (and their prey) often come and go on a cyclical basis so the figure is sort of meaningless. What we do know is that for a variety of factors, HH numbers are far lower than they should be, all other things being equal.
We also know that the Research Council-led forum had identified several complementary strategies that were designed to break the current impasse, but this has since been dissolved following the unilateral withdrawal of a couple of stakeholders. A Defra-led multi-party group has now taken up the poisoned chalice.
The only chance of making any meaningful progress is for all parties to continue talking and to evaluate, seriously, all and any proposals that are tabled. There needs to be flexibility and the will to accept compromise on both sides. Novel and innovative approaches can work – diversionary feeding, quota systems, brood management and translocation are all options that should be trialled and given a proper chance to prove their worth.
Withdrawing to the parapets will do no earthly good and the situation will continue to fester and divide rural communities, conservationists, land managers etc further polarising society. There is no place for zealotry and dogmatism in this issue, just pragmatic conflict resolution and the genuine desire to achieve a negotiated settlement acceptable to all parties.
Raymondo, wise words. Sounds like you should be chairing the new working group!
ReplyDeleteI am available......for a suitable fee......
ReplyDeleteNicholas Aebischer speaks highly of you. I guess you are probably one of only a few with enough conservation experience and passion to see a swift, constructive, outcome.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
DeleteThink you have got the wrong bloke - don't personally know Nicholas - but I'm sure the chap he has in mind is just the man for the job.
Raymundo I can't disagree too much with anything you've said but along with Andrew you continue to miss or gloss over, an absolutely key element in any HH recovery solution - compliance with the law. Unless the few remaining Hen Harriers attempting to breed in England and those choosing locations in East and South Scotland are allowed to produce young that can form the basis of a recovery, none of the other elements that you suggest can be tested.
ReplyDeleteSurely if any quota system is to work we need to look towards a minimum density in England based on available habitat? We are currently a long way short of that and probably 10-15 years from such a minimum being achieved assuming a total sea-change in the behaviour of grouse moors towards breeding HH.
Alan,
DeleteNot glossing over compliance with the law. I have no truck or sympathy with those who calculatedly or misguidedly kill BoP. The law should be enforced and miscreants punished. The police, CPS, procurator fiscal, judges, sheriffs and magistrates have the authority and suitable tariffs to do both. Modern technology allows better monitoring and no doubt VL will rapidly improve the situation in East and South Scotland.
However, in order to resolve fully the issue, there must also be meaningful dialogue. Sadly, from what I read, there is a tendency in both camps simply to denigrate the other and not listen to real or perceived concerns. Equally, there appears to be too much rigidity and condition setting involved. An evolutionary and flexible approach is required and without some measure of compromise, in both camps, no progress is likely. Although not personally involved, the NERC process seemed to be on the right track with their conflict resolution approach. I am unsighted on the Defra initiative.
What is needed in my opinion is for a group of reasonable folk (from both sides of the divide and faciltated by an impartial body/organisation) prepared and authorised by their respective organisations to give and to take, to lock themselves in a (smoke-filled?) room, in order to thrash out a suitable way ahead. Hot heads and zealots should not be invited, nor given a voice. HH truth and reconciliation commission can follow in slower time.
As an endstate, I envisage a suitable quota of HH nesting on grouse moors (under the watchful eye of land managers, game keepers and NE/SNH representatives), with diversionary feeding helping minimise predation of grouse chicks. Meanwhile, a brood management/translocation programme of surplus young from such grouse moors to other suitable areas, nationwide, could restock UK’s HH population in former haunts. This would help provide local, traditional employment, maintain our internationally important moorland habitat and its associated rare ecosystem and species (upland waders etc), enable HH watching opportunities as a sideline, while sustaining the economic viability of the uplands/shooting concerns in question.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete