Social media - are smaller conservation charities getting it right?

Trying to identify meaningful social media statistics is hard. I feel evaluation by counts alone are unhelpful. Below I have tried to look at the number of twitter followers, for a range of conservation charities, relative to the number of members. Whilst we might expect the percentages to be similar, they are not at all.


The crude analysis suggests the social media strategy of smaller charities is more effective. Certainly those at the top are not those with biggest budgets. It's going to be interesting to see how this one evolves. 

1st - Bat Conservation Trust - 5,600 members; @_BCT_ (13,324) = 237%
2nd- Marine Conservation Society  - 7,000 members; @mcsuk (11,952) = 170%
3rd - Butterfly Conservation - 12,000 members; @savebutterflies (14,392) = 119%
4th - British Trust Ornithology - 17,000** members; @_BTO_ (19,650) = 115%
5th - Plant Life - 10,500 members; @loveplants (8,194; 15) = 78%
6th - Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust - 20,000; @gameandwildlife (2,524) 12.62%
7th - World Wildlife Fund - 300,000* members; @wwf_uk (36,064) = 12.02%
8th - Woodland Trust - 500,000 members; @woodlandtrust 41,409 = 8.28%
9th - Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust - 200,000; @WWTworldwide (14,867) = 7.43%
10th - Royal Society Protection Birds - 1,100,000; @natures_voice (76,309) = 6.94%
11th - National Trust - 3,700,000 members; @national trust 190,935 = 5.16%
12th - Wildlife Trusts - 800,000 members; @wildlifetrusts (19,722) = 2.46%


Apologies for any incorrect numbers and those charities not included.

* extracted from 2010 review "people now give us a regular gift"

Beautiful RSPCA pheasant card

Well it is October and pheasants are in many peoples minds. Delighted to see this beautiful card in our local stationers shelves.

If you would like one it is produced for the RSPCA. A good cause and a good buy.

How did we survive last time the climate changed? - start farming

The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust has, in the course of its research, seen the impacts on wildlife of current changes in our climate. Whilst there are plenty of column inches devoted to these impacts, it is interesting to think about what happened last time man was faced dramatic climate change.

Common sense suggests that humans probably didn't take up farming because they wanted to. After all, who would have wanted to be a farmer? These days it's comparatively easy thanks to modern technology such as: tractors, ploughs, machines for milking, threshing, bailing and harvesting. But that was not the case 12,000 years ago, when people began to sow wild seeds hoping for a half decent crop from which they could make their first loaves of bread.

Compared to the easy life of the hunter, with plenty of game around, the lot of a crop farmer was painful and arduous. For a start, crops could only be harvested at certain times of year, so arable farming was certainly no substitute for traditional fast-food culture of meat on demand.

Unpredictable, unpleasant and just plain hard work - that's what farming crops was like 12,000 years ago. Persuading wild animals to do what you wanted them to wasn't much easier. Thousands of years of genetic modification have led to sweet, easy-to-harvest crops and obedient, compliant domestic animals; but back then it was uphill all the way.

A two words can explain the reason for the rise in agriculture: climate change

There was a 'big melt' of ice which started 14,000 years ago as temperatures rose. This change was nothing to do with man but it had profound consequences for him. The oceans rose by a massive 25 metres in just 500 years. For mankind it meant that many traditional hunting grounds simply sank beneath the oceans. Regions of the world that were once rich forests, ideal for hunting and gathering, were reduced to barren deserts as patterns of rainfall and weather systems rapidly changed.

In many parts of the world people were forced to move upwards into hills, or closer to freshwater lakes and rivers. In some areas the traditional lifestyle of moving from place to place became just too risky. There was either too little good hunting available, or the land was too dry to sustain sufficient vegetation. This warming episode suddenly switched in just 50 years to another Ice Age which would last 1,300 years.

It sounds perfectly sensible that experimenting with sowing seeds themselves and deliberately clearing the land to make it suitable for cultivation grasses such as wheat, barley and rye was undertaken in the face of starvation. Skeletons of early farmers tell us how hard it was: twisted toes, buckled, arthritic knees and in some cases lower backs that are completely deformed due to the exhausting task of grinding grain into flour between slabs of stone.

The legacy of these early farming are dramatic. When the Ice Age suddenly finished, the effect on people living in Europe and the Mediterranean was profound. As the climate recovered to its previous balminess these people were equipped with a raft of potent new technologies, in the form of breeds and seeds that gave them the opportunity of living a radically different way of life.

Pheasants and potatoes - How can numbers alone inform us about impact?

Invasive species are a real threat to our countryside. The distinction between which introduced species are causing a problem and which are not is often blurred. The pursuit of headlines and, more often than not, fundraising, adds to the confusion.

When the pheasant shooting season opens at the beginning of October pheasants are propelled to the front of this discussion. Despite the fact that the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) has researched the net gain to nature, when best practice is followed (I have blogged about why this should be celebrated before) some involved in this non-indigenous discussion then manage to ignore this and just lob around statistics on the number of pheasants released 35 million (PACEC) as though that, in itself, is clear evidence of 'harm'.

Well, if high numbers of a non-indigenous species alone is supposed to demonstrate harm - let's think about that. Most farm crops are non-indigenous.

Potatoes were first domesticated in Peru and Chile and introduced to the British Isles around 1600AD, possibly from the wrecks of the Spanish Armada. Very quickly they became an important part of our diet. Initially they were grown in gardens and on smallholdings but it was not until the latter part of the eighteenth century that potatoes became popular as a field crop. Tubers were used for human consumption and for fattening pigs while the crop provided a good break in the cereal rotation.

If we take the UK's annual production of potatoes each year and divide it by the average weight of a potatoes per tonne we could estimate that we grow...

16,115,970,000 non-indigenous potatoes in the UK every year.

16 billion non-indigenous potatoes will keep us well fed. Do they do harm? No impact at all? Not even 16 billion? Well, just like the 35 million pheasants, there are impacts. Our farmers recognise, as do game keepers, that there are issues and strive to address or reduce them. For example, potato production regularly requires the control of slugs, for pheasants that might be foxes. As ever in conservation, the issues are complex; foxes eat slugs etc.

So it is not necessarily the act of growing a potato, or releasing a pheasant, that is the issue - it is the impacts on the environment. Both have impacts but the number of potatoes grown or pheasants released does not, on its own, tell us that they are causing 'harm'. Headlines about high numbers can serve us all in thinking though the issues - that is a good thing; as long as we consider all the issues.

Think it's time to ban fox snares? Let's start with banning cars?



 

For a number of people, the killing of any animal whether that be; livestock to eat, protection of crops, assistance to a threatened species or gamebirds for sport is, on moral grounds, just wrong.

Such a straightforward and clear-cut position neatly avoids forming a view about what is, and is not, acceptable when tackling complicated conservation issues. I am,  as Ian Carter of Natural England said in British Birds, rather envious of this simplicity.

 

This view of life also works for those calling for a complete ban on snares in England and Wales; on the same moral grounds snares are wrong. They are designed to trap (not kill) animals, like foxes, which may then then be shot.

Discussion about trapping any animal is very serious but let’s continue with this idea of keeping things simple. If we accept that the killing of a fox is wrong on moral grounds – we could have to also say…

…the time has come for us to address one of the bigger killers of foxes - cars

The Mammal Society estimate cars kill an estimated 100k foxes a year. Is your journey more important than a fox? Yes? Well you have had 80 years to sort it out but still the killing by cars continues. The time for a ban has come.

It may sound a bit odd at first, but this fictitious press release calling for cars to be banned from our roads. If follows the same logic as a recent petition calling for the banning of snares.
 

Fox Protection Society launches petition to ban cruel and barbaric cars

Organisation: Fox Protection Society

Date: 25.09.13

A petition has been set up by the Fox Protection Society calling for a complete ban on the use of motor cars in England and Wales.

The petition was launched after the launch of the Society's manifesto to ban cars. The report showed current voluntary code of practice (the Highway Code, which was introduced in over 80 years ago in 1931) simply does not work. Anything in contact with the tarmac (including humans) and anything winging its way across the killing pathway is doomed.

Previous calls for clear “best practice” guidelines for drivers, which includes a national 30 mph speed limit at night to reduce mammal kill and calls to cut driving speeds on warm summer days to reduce insect kill have been ignored. A complete ban on car use is the only way to stop more animal suffering.

Throughout October  the animal welfare charity will be upping its anti-car campaign with the launch of its Car Aware month aimed at raising the public's awareness of the barbarity of cars.

Working alongside fellow animal charities, the Society are releasing daily case studies to highlight the horrific suffering car traffic causes to pets and British wildlife.

Basil Brush, Chief Executive at the Society, commented: "Cars cause a horrendous amount of pointless animal suffering to which car users are generally indifferent, yet shockingly car use remains legal. With the launch of Car Aware Month we seek to change this. Already individuals have given us their support and we are confident that as awareness grows, so will the number of petition signatures."

Almost everyone in Britain uses cars, and the machines commonly kill or injure wild animals and pets.  Although sensible driving taking into account wildlife hazards would prevent much or most of the problem, the evidence is that drivers are heedless of the risks and of the suffering they leave behind them.  The nature of cars also means that all such deaths and suffering are unintended, incidental to the purpose of car driving, and therefore unnecessary.  Despite the enormous value of the car industry, no efforts have been made by manufacturers to improve cars so as to lessen the risk of accidents involving animals.

Supporting the Society's campaign, Vet Jemima Puddle-duck: "Cars are a particularly cruel and inhumane force acting on our wildlife and pets. When accidents are not fatal, the injuries inflicted on animals by cars can be truly horrific and it is well past the time to make these devices illegal. As a vet and animal lover I fully support the move to get the use of cars banned in the UK and urge others to do the same."

The Society is calling on members of the public to write to their local councils to request that cars are not permitted on local roads. The charity has also issued a warning to pet owners to be vigilant to the threat of cars to their pets.

Notes

There are about 30 million motor vehicles on Britain’s roads. To take one wildlife species as an example, the Mammal Society Road Deaths Survey estimated that 100,000 foxes are killed on Britain’s roads annually; an unknown further number are injured. To put this into context, Britain’s gamekeepers – who kill foxes deliberately to protect ground-nesting wild birds – kill an estimated 39,000 foxes annually.

This call for the complete ban on cars, on moral grounds alone, neatly avoids any wider discussion. No mention about why cars are used or what would be lost without their use. The issues are complex. Just like snaring, saying something is wrong, and starting a petition, does not, on its own, make it wrong. The detail needs careful consideration.

Is it acceptable for cars to still kill foxes so you can make that car journey? but not acceptable to use a snare in the spring or summer to save a curlew, or other ground nesting bird? Not even at sites where other methods of fox control become impractical because of the growth of vegetation cover, especially among arable crops?

For those looking for hard factual information about snares the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) has, over the years, contributed to that discussion by conducted research to understand about both the utility of snaring and its drawbacks. For more information on the development on more effective snares and operating practices click here.

Hen harrier recovery - as easy as building houses

Yesterday I had the pleasure of travelling up to London on the train. As we passed though beautiful towns and villages, commuters were reading column inches devoted to the recent idea of capping house prices to 5%. This has been floated as the way we could avoid another housing bubble. For those living along the Southampton to London railway line this is a real issue. On the letters page I saw another solution suggested; increase the supply by building more houses. Sounds like a simple idea.

This got me thinking. If we already have Building Regulations to ensure we build good quality, safe housing and it's old fashioned Planning Permission standing between us and another housing bubble; lets scrap the latter. Let people build where they want to live; start filling trenches with concrete and start bricking up urban Victorian terraces at say 60-80 dwellings per hectare; rather than the 25-30 dwellings per hectare as we do now. The market can take the place of these old fashioned planning laws. People will stop building houses when they can't sell them.

If people want to live in, say, Surrey we could study the maps and identify all the land that could be build on. We could calculate the maximum number of houses that could ever be built in Surrey. This exact number could be the new target. Anything less than that is utterly unacceptable. The builders are busy, farmers sell up and moved further out; why were we ever thinking of farming in Surrey anyway? Housing bubble avoided. Accommodation is maximised. The perfect plan. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, quite obviously, lots. However it would not be a complete disaster because the houses are all full. That just leaves one small problem. Now the once beautiful countryside has been trashed, the people the houses were built for have, in turn, left. Let's hope no-one ever checks up on this minor detail.

I feel there are some parallels with conservation. As conservation organisations grapple with a Hen Harrier recovery programme in England, there a temptation to do follow the same simple house building logic.

Step 1 - As with house building - study the maps and calculate the maximum number of Hen Harriers that could live in the English Pennines. Set this as the target. Anything below this is see as utter failure.

Step 2 - Commit every available resource to ensure the maximum density target is achieved. Any other impacts on economic, employment, social or other wildlife species are ignored because there is only one target.

Step 3 - Look confused after the event when the hen harrier population crashes because it no longer wishes to live there. The Pennine moors, now utterly changed, are no longer attractive to hen harriers and many other species. An issue heighted before on this blog here.

Step 4 - Blame the politicians for their failure to avoid the disaster.


I feel this illustrates why any hen harrier recovery programme must be sustainable; just as we must build new houses at a sustainable way:

• new housing must be spread evenly across available space, so does the hen harrier population. The hen harriers tend to aggregate so to achieve even dispersal there will need a proper plan to intervene. They will not be able to do this on their own.
• new housing must be built to a sustainable density which may be less than the maximum possible. So with hen harriers we need to reflect on what the sustainable population number is. A population that can thrive but may not necessarily be the maximum possible. That number has to be agreed at the beginning and so will the ability to intervene when targets are reached. A wildlife population can't always do this on its own.
• new housing must be built with local employment and wildlife impacts in mind - so must the hen harrier. A species that has been proven to, quite literally, put game keepers out of a jobs. The plan will need to explain how these other essentials are protected too.
• new housing must not extinguish the original motivation for living there - Hen harriers want to live on grouse moors because the keepers set the conditions they need to thrive. If the keepers leave we then lose, as we have in Wales, some of the species we cherish the most.

If we over simplify the issues involved, will the new hen harrier conflict resolution process end just as the last one did, with some conservationists simply standing up and walking out of the room? We are fortunate that all these issues are know. The hard facts are there; such as this published scientific paper by the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust in 1998, and demonstrated in a real study here. A solution is entirely possible if we recognise the resolution will require a plan that recognises all, not a select few, of the issues involved.

"Mega reintroductions" - a convenient distraction away from our failure to halt wildlife declines?

The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) has been directly involved in reintroductions for over 80 years. These have all been part of planned conservation efforts to either halt local declines or re-introduce locally extinct species; such as our pioneering work on the water vole. Many other organisations have also achieved significant results on butterflies and other species; but are we now tempted by the discussion on "mega-reintroductions", of say the lynx, as a convenient distraction away from the harsh reality that we need a fresh approach to conservation? Is it easier to talk about romantic "once-native" reintroductions than it is to agree that our existing focus on protection and prescription alone is not enough? Is it easier than starting to discuss a whole new approach to conservation? Perhaps we all recognise that a shift is required, but struggle to fully embrace the thought and so are looking for a distraction? Reintroductions provoke many questions and Ian Lindsay, our Director of Advisory & Education, asked some of them in a fascinating article published in the NFU's Countryside magazine. I found it thought provoking and have included it in full for you. The links are mine. Enjoy.

Starts:
The recently-published State of Nature report, a comprehensive review of UK biodiversity carried out by a number of UK conservation organisations, paints a depressing picture of our attempts, to date, to meet important UK conservation targets.

Farmland birds continue to decline, upland waders in Wales, arguably, have reached functional extinction and many of our internationally-important species, black grouse amongst them, continue to suffer from significant range reduction.

Against this background, the fascination by the media and the profile given by conservation organisations and government agencies to the reintroduction of 'once-native species' may seem strange. Perhaps though, to a largely disengaged public, inured to a diet of unremitting environmental angst, it provides an easy win, a good news story diverting attention from our failure to reverse the declines of many species we already have. And, it seems, the bigger, more charismatic and celebrity-friendly, the better!

A high profile is being given to existing and proposed reintroductions, such as red kites, sea eagles, beavers and lynx. But parallel to this are concerns and substantial resources devoted to the control of introduced alien species, including North American mink, ruddy duck and parakeets.

The argument, of course, is that such species are non-native, that our indigenous animal communities lack evolved strategies to compete with them and, as a result, they pose significant conservation problems. Perhaps the best-known example of this is mink and their on-going threat to our endangered native water vole populations.

Of course, the reintroduction of red kites and sea eagles to the UK has proven to be a huge, well-publicised success. No doubt, these are magnificent birds adding to the pleasure of many people who visit the countryside. But how far are we aware, or, indeed, how much do we care about the impacts of many of these species.

Already, concerns exist over the impact of sea eagles on the distribution and abundance of golden eagles and hen harriers; iconic species in the own right, with high conservation designations. Elsewhere, there are concerns in the Chilterns over the impacts of red kite predation on local declining amphibian populations.

Of course, these species have shared evolutionary history and once co-existed in some post-glacial panacea but, like alien re-introductions, seam quite capable of exerting significant consequences on the status quo of today's fragile and fragmented ecosystems.

And all of this is quite apart from impacts on human activities, particularly in economically fragile rural communities. To an urban public or a government conservation department bereft of a good news story the loss of a few crofters' lambs' or the impossibility of keeping free range poultry may seem a small price to pay for the reintroduction of sea eagles, pine martins or even lynxes.

It certainly goes without saying that few crofters on Skye or Wester Ross were consulted as to whether they would actually like to host reintroduced sea eagles or whether they felt that efforts to restore, say, upland waders might be a more attractive conservation priority within their local communities.

Equally, in the case of beavers, in the midst of global warming, recent rainfall patterns and the increased risk to life and property from flooding, to many - particularly those with direct experience of their damming activities in, say, Scandinavia - their reintroduction to the UK might seem like an act of complete folly.

A large part of our problem in the UK is based on a lack of moral courage on the part of conservation agencies. Whether we like it or not reintroduction is 'forever' - a one way street with no prospect of any 'reverse gear' even when a reintroduced species, was shown to have significant and important impacts on property, livestock or other wildlife.

Perhaps even worse is the widely-held belief amongst affected communities of constructive 'censorship' on the part of conservation agencies to reveal the extent of alleged damage or to assess it openly. Imagine the scene: owing to and unseasonably wet summer with frequent flooding and widespread damage to property (or worse!, 'wash-out' from beaver dams has been strongly implicated in local damage.

Faced with urgent calls to protect life and property the Minister authorises the destruction of dams and the removal of beavers from affected catchments. Well, if he did he would be a brave Minister. Within hours aging rock stars would wrap themselves in earnest appeals to protect our wildlife and online petitions would be exploding in the urban blogosphere.

But the real point here is, in the context of our declining wildlife, are reintroductions a part of sound conservation management addressing key environmental priorities - or an expensive, cynical and high-profile diversion from it?
Ends.

Mark Avery and the GWCT in complete agreement again?

Recently I had a long conversation with a GWCT  member who felt the organisation was 'going soft' on the problems wildlife is facing in the countryside (some commentators may use the expression 'left'). The construction of his observations were well made. As he slowly explained his logic I had the opportunity to fill in the gaps in his understanding. I was delighted that he could see how keeping what we all wanted to achieve for wildlife was crucial and, to that end, the GWCT was neither moving left or right. However, is it the answer to the wrong question? - I feel that organisations should be judged on what they have achieved - not left or right of another.

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.

Should we ban grouse shooting?

It’s that time of the year when, as usual, grouse stories are circulating - some are calling for an outright ban - such as this blog Mark Avery. The logic is simple; if it is the case that game keepers are preventing the recovery of hen harriers then lets just ban grouse shooting.

So why not just ban it? Well recent work suggest what might happen if we were short-sighted enough to curb or undermine grouse moor shooting.

Across the UK, there is a strong correlation between grouse moor management and the abundance and productivity of species such as lapwing, curlew and golden plover, which are otherwise increasingly rare. And a new scientific study by the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT), published recently in the Journal of Applied Ecology, identifies that the control of predators such as foxes and crows, carried out to protect red grouse, can benefit one of our most striking birds of prey – the hen harrier.

The consequences of failing to work with farmers and keepers in the wider landscape is nowhere better illustrated than in the uplands of Wales, which once supported the most productive grouse moors in the UK as well as abundant populations of other birds.

However, since the last war almost half of the heather cover in Wales has been lost. Since the 1990s, owing to disease, overgrazing and, from the moor owners’ perspective, a lack of support from conservation agencies, grouse management has been all but abandoned and, as a consequence, upland bird populations have crashed.

This analysis has been leant credibility by a recent study carried out by GWCT, funded by the Moorland Association, which analysed the trends of upland birds in the Berwyn Special Protection Area (SPA) in North Wales. The study focused on changes in red grouse numbers and other upland birds between 1983 and 2002. Like many other parts of Wales, grouse bags peaked early in the 20th century. Unfortunately, this was followed by a steady decline in driven grouse shooting and, with it, upland keepering, which had virtually ceased by 1990.

The study showed that between 1983 and 2002, red grouse declined by 54 per cent in the Berwyn SPA. Over the same period, in the SPA, lapwing became extinct, golden plover declined from ten birds to one, and curlew declined by 79 per cent. Today, over 75 per cent of the entire Welsh black grouse population exists on the one remaining keepered Berwyn moor.

Given the private investment and measurable biodiversity benefits grouse management brings to the rest of the UK, many Welsh moor owners find it difficult to understand a negative and obstructive attitude towards traditional moorland management which had produced such an important landscape worthy of designation. There is a desperate need in Wales for a partnership between conservation agencies and sporting interests. Conservation management, on its own, has not succeeded.

Alarmingly, we see in south west Scotland a similar decline in upland areas actively managed for red grouse. This abandonment of sporting management threatens the rich tapestry that is the Scottish countryside. We therefore welcome Scottish Natural Heritage’s Wildlife Management Framework, a guide to decision making for wildlife management situations which could be used to test possible ways of re-starting sporting conservation.

Which brings us back to the grouse. Like it or loathe it, red grouse shooting generates on average £30 million to the Scottish economy alone. The management of grouse moors (heather burning, legal predator control) hugely benefits our diverse yet fragile wildlife. And most of this management is funded through the private investment of landowners.

Grouse moor management isn’t perfect and the GWCT and others are working to improve some aspects of it, notably the conservation of some birds of prey. But we, as a nation, should embrace grouse management and the private investment it brings as a positive contribution to biodiversity and celebrate the fact that we have a thriving industry maintaining our heather hills.

Surely it is time to move on and avoid such simplest views on grouse moor shooting?
 

RSPB Conservation Awards for Shooting?

Well if hen harriers are back in the press grouse shooting must have begun. The hen harrier numbers for England are shocking. Bricks are being thrown; talk of hen harrier extinction etc. In the 15 years since the GWCT published a scientific paper that stated that “In the UK, a full recovery of hen harriers Circus cyaneus breeding numbers is prevented by illegal culling by some gamekeepers who fear the species threatens the future of grouse moors”. It is hard to see exactly what has changed other than perhaps the population range of hen harriers has contacted to grouse moors alone. No hen harriers are breeding on RSPB managed moors for example; they used to.

What does this tell us? For me it is two things. Firstly the slow but constant blaming of hill keepers with negative press messages has not worked. It was never likely to work. I can think of no conflict resolution example where his has been the solution. Indeed it was not until the RSPB stopped blaming farmers, for the declines in farmland birds, that the farmers began to hear what they had to say. This was achieved in part by positioning themselves as the ‘farmers friend’ and listening to them. The second point is that the very conditions that the hill keepers put in place to help grouse (and as a result many other wildlife populations) appear to be exactly what the hen harrier needs to thrive.

So if  keepers hold the keys I believe we should, as with farmers, engage positively with them. Rather than run yet more stories about how evil keepers are; how about what they have achieved for conservation. Perhaps more importantly we should listen to the keepers concerns. Is their fear that the loss of their productive moor would result in the loss of their job? If so I can understand that. Surely it is time to listen and understand what these key holders what to say? Why not offer them some quota agreement (with the relocation of surplus hen harriers) so we can all move forward? To those on both sides that say this is heresy – I say other ideas have not worked well enough. Worse, if the moors should become unproductive; the keepers will leave and so will the conditions that the hen harriers (among others) need to thrive.

I was inspired by Martin Harper (RSPB Conservation Director) words at the CLA Game Fair. He mentioned that the RSPB approach to shooting is “no different” from farming or any other land use. So there has never been a better time for the RSPB to link up and run a conservation award scheme for the shooting community; just like it does for farmers. I am sure there will be problems but surely in the interest of maximising the benefits to wildlife and positively moving forward – this is exactly what is needed. Perhaps, an award of the best run grouse moor too. It is most certainly a time for an approach that works much better.

State of Nature - shattering the old conservation battle lines

For over a generation the UK’s approach to conservation has been based on one of protection and prescription. So, if a species is in worrying decline our response has been a rush to give it protection from the hand of man. Itself a little ironic since most of the remaining species in the UK are here precisely because they have found a way to live alongside man. Some species in fact thrived alongside man and followed, as farmers moved west opening up woodland for agriculture.

Protection takes two main forms. Firstly; legal protection, even though the real threat may come from something that legislation can’t address. It gives politicians, and those that like writing lists, something to show; however that may be all that is achieved. The second level of protection is buying land and putting up fences to protect nature from the hand of man. Marvellous places for inspiring minds. However the chances are nature is there precisely because man has not been using it to live, work or grow food and there is often no plans to alter that state.

Prescription takes the form of clip-board based conservation initiatives. In response to the cry for more to be done; NGO’s and civil servants arrive with manuals and instructions to tell people what they should be doing. Obviously it was never intended to be seen as top-down direction, however the bigger the conservation problem becomes, the greater the temptation to increase to dictate. This control and direction increase further when financial incentives are introduced to encourage adoption of prescriptions. The bureaucracy and manual must be right because I you are going to receive a payment for these ideas.

The result is a national approach to conservation isn’t working well enough. Plenty of people have said that, including the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (2007-08)  “… new approach will be needed to address the dramatic biodiversity loss that is occurring…”. Organisations produced alternatives, including the GWCT’s Restoring the balance discussion paper but most offering ‘new’ thinking were uncomfortable reading for most. Whilst all would agree we had to something better the idea of moving on from protection and prescription based conservation alone was just too much. Remember an entire generation had been educated and trained to follow this manta. Those that had ideas outside the core group were marginalised.

Ignoring the warnings that the existing approaches to conservation needs to change was easy. Human behaviour meant that, those with most to lose, the large conservation NGO’s, turned a blind eye to the growing problem. For as generation those that bought into the thinking made strides up the conservation corporate ladder; the rest held back.

The backfire effect, another human behaviour hardly helped. Studies have shown that when likeminded groups are presented with evidence that fundamentally challenges their view they just don’t believe the evidence. Worse, the more the evidence mounted, the more strongly people cling to their cherished view.

Just as in 2008 when the world realised that a AAA rated assets could be almost worthless will the publication of the State of Nature in 2013 chance the herds relentless pursuit of prescription and protection? We are all worried bystanders, unsure of what to do, fearful of embarrassment. Is the herd about to change? The chances the conservation community will have to switch course at some stage since to continue on the existing route will just require even more money – something the next generation of conservationists are likely to have.

Future conservation is going to have to rely less on what conservation NGO’s and civil servants think needs to be done – and more on engaging with and giving people on the ground the freedom to decide what they want and how they are going to produce it. A system that rewards success rather than putting conservation schemes in place. It is what we do for food production for us.

A time to share and celebrate the conservation achievements from game management?

We can all recall memorable occasions from our childhood. For me, one of these took place whilst shooting with my father on a sunny winter’s day. I can remember the exact spot on a woodland ride, where I plucked up the courage to question him about how nature benefited from shooting. I doubt my father recalls the moment in as much detail, but for me, it was pivotal. He talked me through what exactly a keeper does, showing me the pens, feeders and cover crops. Most importantly he explained how the woods supported a wide range of species as a result of this activity –  subsequently proven by Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) research.  In later years I began to recognise the subtle changes between individual shoots and the contribution they made to wildlife conservation.

Of course, much has changed since those halcyon days over 30 years ago. Farmland bird numbers have declined dramatically and prior to the introduction of agri–environment schemes habitats researched by the Trust and delivered by game managers provided the most significant on – farm habitats for many species. Today, many of these prescriptions are at the heart of farmland conservation policies but the contribution of game management to wildlife conservation has probably never been higher. A further key change in that time is the significant number of pheasants released, as shown in Table 1 below. This demonstrates the growth of pheasant release and management in that time.

On the one hand, this provides a powerful indicator of the potential contribution of game shooting to wildlife conservation but on the other the key questions are now being asked about possible damaging effects of pheasant releasing. The key challenge, of course, at national and shoot level is to demonstrate the most sustainable levels of release which are consistent with maximising the wider benefits for wild game and other wildlife.

 

Figure 1: Pheasant releasing trends 1961-2011, GWCT National Gamebag Census (1961=1)

The factors that have produced this trend in numbers are complex but originate in the crash of wild game and farmland birds during the modernisation of agriculture in the 60’s and 70’s. Key nesting and brood rearing habitats were lost and invertebrate numbers– the key resource for wild gamebird production – were lost in the drive for food production.

Perhaps paradoxically the resulting emphasis on rearing as a means of sustaining driven shooting had consequent detrimental effect on wild stocks since keepers and owners increasingly managed shoots for released birds and not for the wild ones. For example, many driving game crops such as maize and kale provide ideal autumn and winter cover for released birds but these are not suitable for nesting or chick rearing. Also, predator control by keepers is concentrated in the summer to protect released poults rather than in spring to save nests. However, many permanent pheasant coverts planted primarily for showing released pheasants do also provide good nesting cover around the edge and pheasant breeding densities are high in woodland designed as winter holding cover. More worrying is that reared birds make poor parents in subsequent years, since they are much more prone to predation, parasitism and adverse genetic selection.  

Although there may be problems associated with pheasant releasing, the creation and management of woodland for pheasants has very significant positive conservation benefits to other species. For example, GWCT research has shown that woodlands managed for pheasants have greater structural diversity, more butterflies and bird species compared to woodlands lacking game management.

In 2011 we surveyed birds on 34 farms in Leicestershire and recorded bird numbers on farms with and without shoots. This revealed that numbers of songbirds on farms with shoots were 30% higher than on those without (see Figure 2)

 Mean number of songbirds per transect (+ 1 se)

Figure 2: Songbird numbers are higher on local farms with shoots than on those without (based on survey of 34 farms)

The obvious question is one of wider sustainability – at a national level how long can bag levels be maintained though releasing ever greater quantities of pheasants? This is the type of question we are starting to see emerge from new reports from powerful and well funded organisations that are clearly antagonistic to gamebird releasing. These reports have not been produced for fun and may well indicate increasing pressure in the future. It’s surely time to act. Are you ready?

Across the country we all know and celebrate individual shoots that have been ambitious and achieved amazing conservation success, at a local level. At some sites the results have been scientifically recorded and the results published. Is it not time to now inspire the same success on a nationwide scale? Should we all be more ambitious about our conservation? At the level of the individual shoot we don’t need huge changes to demonstrate improvements in biodiversity. But added together small local improvements, in improving the productivity of ground nesting waders could add up to significant contribution at national level given the sheer numbers taking part. 

It will not be easy, but the results will be worth it. Nor is it as simple as pointing a finger at the larger scale shoots with big bags; the data show these increases can apply to all sizes of shoot. Just as with profitable farming, successful conservation can be achieved on any scale – as long as there is a will to succeed.

The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, the original source of that science that meant so much to me thirty years ago, thinks it can be done. It should be possible to implement effective conservation on shoots right across the country and then measure it. Just imagine, for one moment, being able to state the estimated net impact on nature from the combined efforts of all shoots rather than just selected sites. Today, the GWCT’s National Grey Partridge Count Scheme provides an example of the collective effort of farmers and game managers to reverse declining species. It provides a useful model – and confidence – that a broader influential statement of the benefits of game management can be achieved.

It is lucky that the charity has a powerful reputation for taken on daunting tasks. In 1932 the GWCT’s predecessor (ICI Game Research Station) started with the ambition to, ‘Make two birds fly where one flew before’. It seemed like a radical thing to do. Stocks of wild game were down to such an extent that people considered giving up on game shooting.  Undaunted, they launched this positive and far reaching path that paved the way for today’s Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust.

Now we need to reinvent that optimistic approach but within the context of a modern, more complex world; by not only enhancing game stocks but, on a shoot by shoot basis, demonstrating the direct biodiversity benefits of game management. This is a call for action, to all, to do just that – a national Campaign for Game.

Today I am proud to work for the organisation which conducted the original scientific research that measured the local wildlife gains from shooting and is still prepared to be ambitious enough to shape the national picture. I hope that when my children ask how nature gains from released game, I can repeat what I was told. More than that, I look forward to adding that it is not just where shoots put in place best practice that nature significantly gains but that, more importantly, there is a proven net contribution nationally. Future generations will need thoroughly researched scientific evidence showing the net gain to nature to counter the unpopularity of releasing not just from animal welfare groups, but the media, politicians and some conservation charities.   

The GWCT has always brought people together to share their ideas on best practice and demonstrate new thinking. Do get in touch with your ideas.