In a way, this post follows on from Pip Howard’s Guest Blog this morning about once-alive invertebrates encased in perspex, except this post concerns actually-alive butterflies sold as extras for celebrations such as weddings etc.
A reader of this blog alerted me to this and wrote that ‘I was at a wedding recently and was appalled to see butterflies (and non-native at that) being released in the churchyard. Many of them were manhandled, mostly by children, and left to die injured and flapping amongst the gravestones. Crucially, why would they release animals to certain death? How is this allowed?‘.
The RSPCA response to an enquiry seemed a little off-hand to me:
‘Butterflies are, unfortunately ,not the subject of animal welfare law i.e. their welfare is not legally protected, however the RSPCA promotes kindness to all animals. These creatures do not suffer or feel pain in the same way as a mammal or bird and nature needs to be left to take its course.
As a charitable organisation we can only investigate situations which identify an impact on an animal’s welfare.‘
but I was considerably more impressed by Butterfly Conservation’s response which addressed issues of recording integrity, genetics, disease spread and the messages sent by such releases and ended with ‘If anyone contacts us regarding releasing butterflies at weddings we strongly advise them against doing so for the reasons above.‘.
That seems a pretty sensible response to me. Although, I do feel a bit of guilt in condemning an activity which is based on an appreciation of the beauty of the natural world – who wouldn’t want to be surrounded by natural beauty on special occasions? However, an appreciation of natural beauty has to be more than fleeting, and deeper than a shallow liking for prettiness or else it can harm that beauty, exploit it, and harm the individual creatures on which it depends.
Or do you think I am just a killjoy?
Do Children Really Want Real Life Bugs or a Living Planet?
All discussion on the environment will at some point, quite rightly, centre on education. We not only have to do something about the way we treat the environment, but we have to educate our children with regards environmental issues.
I grew up in the UK and remember Newsround, Blue Peter and other children’s TV shows were not afraid to tackle important humanitarian and environmental issues. Returning to the UK for a brief spell this summer I was dismayed to watch an episode of Newsround, which my son had on and despite the huge amount of worldwide news available it choose to centrepiece on celebrities, who or what they were doing I forget, I forgot very easily.
So despite all the talk, it is apparent that the environment is simply no longer considered news to children. In fact one only has to risk buying an English newspaper or watch the main news to realise it is in the main not considered news to anyone.
So one might assume that we can hope that the plethora of NGOs that abound in the English-speaking world would at least be doing something? I hear lots of talk of initiatives and projects centred on children ‘reconnecting’ them to the outdoors and thus to the environment. But then I visited a local toyshop, in Totnes, Devon. There was a small display of ‘bugs’ embedded in a plastic rectangle. On closer inspection these bugs were real; scorpions, tarantulas and other species you may not want to find in your wellies, but which are still a vital element in a habitat somewhere in the world. A sticker had been placed on the front of the display, which read: “Due to some concerns raised we wish to inform our customers that we have investigated the source and can confirm that they come from an ethical source”
Really?! What the heck is ethical about this?
Then today my son pointed out a TV advert on one of the children’s channels. It was for a magazine, where the ‘free gift’ was one of these embedded ‘bugs’. A quick look online and sure enough neither of us were dreaming this.
An Orwellian nightmare; taking the extreme of Victorian collections into a modern context the UK are happy to sell a children’s magazine which gives away free mass-produced blocks of plastic with once-living creatures inside! And the worst thing about this – it is apparently accepted by both National Geographic and the National History Museum!
Combined with the current Coalition stance on the environment, which seemingly does little more than attract an ‘eyes to heaven’ look by most nature conservation NGOs, one cannot hold out much hope for the UK in environmental issues.
Perhaps, as a French colleague said to me recently, this is not such a bad thing, as a worse case scenario in operation is always useful in scientific research and the British Isles are thankfully relatively small. So it is probably best to cross my fingers in hope that the UK leave the EU and therefore all discussion and debate with regards the environment and indeed all land issues.
Ten days ago or so, I joined the Hawk and Owl Trust at the Bird Fair, and a while later an envelope full of interesting information arrived as a consequence of my membership. It included a car sticker, a membership card and badge. These things made me quite nostalgic.
I can remember my kestrel-shaped YOC badge of decades ago, and I used to have a car sticker that announced my RSPB membership to the world, but both the car sticker and the yellow Ford Sierra on which it sat are long gone.
There is quite a lot of talk about whether ‘membership’ is an out-dated concept – or at least whether this generation of people interested in nature are less interested in ‘joining’ an organisation. We talk more about ‘supporters’ these days and there are a variety of ways to support an organisation – or a cause.
And there was a time when every secondhand car you bought might come with its own collection of stickers which told you something of its ownership history. you must, some of you at least, remember all those WWF panda logos on the back of cars, and a fair few Avocets to accompany them (though rarely, in my experience, were both found on the same car).
Are we less keen on being ‘members’ these days? And are we less keen on displaying our membership as publicly as we did?
Should environmental NGOs come together and send out ‘Green Blob’ car stickers for us all to sport?
Yesterday morning, a Swift flew over the garden and put a smile on my face.
It’s so difficult to know when you see your last bird of a particular species for the year (at the time) as there is always the possibility of seeing another a little later. My first Swift of the year is an event for celebration, my last only becomes known as time passes from its actual occurrence. Perhaps I’ll see another Swift today. Or tomorrow? Or maybe the next will be around the 25 April 2015?
We don’t mark the arrival of winter visitors in the same way do we? Or do you? I certainly notice the first evening when I hear the thin call of a Redwing overhead but I’ve never kept a list of them like I have, at various times, for first Chiffchaff etc.
That first Redwing can’t be much more than about a month away. I’ll let you know when it occurs.
I have bought an extra pair of binoculars and I’ve been trying them out.
They are Pentax Papilio 8.5×25 Close Focus binoculars.
As a birder, they look very twee and naff to me – not something you’d want to be seen staring through on the East Bank at Cley, on Tresco or getting off the plane on Fair Isle. However, that’s not what they are for. They are an essential (or at least, very useful) aid for looking at dragonflies and butterflies. I have become increasingly interested in creepie crawlies and I have noticed that they are small but get quite close. Under these circumstances, I find myself stepping away from the object under observation until my ancient 10x40B Zeiss Dialyts will focus.
I asked a few folk at the Bird Fair (the less birdy people at the Bird Fair) what I should use and these Pentax got several honourable mentions. Seeing that they were cheaper to buy from the evil Amazon empire than at the Bird Fair I fired up the computer and bought a pair. Then it rained, but in the last couple of days I have been looking at Red Admirals in the garden in more detail than ever before.
It’s quite an experience! Red Admirals look quite furry close-to, and they have ugly pointy faces too. But their wings are stunningly beautiful seen really well. Just fantastically beautiful.
I already think that these binoculars will open up the world of my garden to me in a new way. I go around looking at everything, and everyone, in much more detail all of a sudden! If you could see this Red Admiral’s legs you’d see they are dark, but they have pale joints – never noticed that before.
Oliver Simms has recently graduated from Durham University with a Classics degree and is about to start work as an accountant at the National Audit Office. He is a keen birder, hill walker and passionate conservationist, who has volunteered extensively including at Raptor Camp in Malta. He has served as Trip and Partnerships Officer for Next Generation Birders for the past year but is standing down next week due to his new job.
Back in April, Danny Heptinstall wrote a thought-provoking piece on this blog calling for a “youth conservation movement”. Anyone present at Birdfair, who would have seen over 100 Next Generation Birders and A Focus on Nature members present, would agree that we now have one. As I sat with fellow members of this “youth conservation movement” in a pub in Oakham on the Saturday night of the fair, conversation turned to the barriers facing young people in conservation. The usual answers like the lack of environmental education in schools or the desire of young people to get rich were brought up but what I feel is one of the most significant barriers to young people pursuing a career in conservation was largely ignored until I brought it up.
I have become increasingly concerned that the requirement of the majority of entry level conservation jobs for applicants to have at least a year’s unpaid volunteering experience is a significant barrier to young people from poorer backgrounds. The placements offered by large charitable organisations like the RSPB and National Trust are great but participants either depend on the support of their parents or have saved up enough money to fund their living costs during the placement. With the increasingly crippling costs of living, an increasing number of young people, particularly those struggling with university debts, are not in this position. As competition for jobs in conservation is so great, these placements are effectively a prerequisite but, in my opinion, the question now has to be asked whether having this experience is really a test of passion for conservation or the wealth of someone’s parents.
I decided against pursuing a career in conservation at this stage but this post is not about people like me. I am very fortunate that my parents could have supported me through an unpaid placement but I know many cases of people who have turned the back on a conservation career simply because they could not afford it. I also know of an individual who was forced to give up a placement with a large charity due to financial issues, despite loving his work. Thankfully he has not given up his dream of working in conservation but many would in his situation.
The two solutions often suggested are that young people from poorer backgrounds doing placements can even find part time work or sign on. For some, these may be an option but not in the majority of cases. Many understandably do not wish to claim benefits and the law is very ambiguous over whether this is permitted during such long placements, while finding part time work is often impossible for people at the more remote reserves or those without good evening public transport connections. I posted my thoughts on this issue on the A Focus on Nature Facebook page and a couple of people posted examples of paid placements open to those without substantial experience. I urge anyone considering a career in conservation to have a look but they were noticeably limited in number. More surely needs to be done.
In an ideal world, all these placements would be paid but I appreciate funding is tight for conservation charities. My solution would be a bursary scheme to fund minimum wage 6 month or year long placements for those from the poorest backgrounds. I would like these to work in such a way that young people apply for the same unpaid placements as those from richer backgrounds and then the bursary is awarded after the application is successful. How exactly this would work requires fine tuning but it is essential that the funded placements do not soon become like other entry level conservation jobs and require a mountain of experience.
The benefits of my proposal are obvious for young people looking to get in to conservation but what are the benefits for charities when there is so much pressure on funds and there are multiple applicants for each unpaid position? The first is simple – passionate young people, who could make a great contribution to the work of these charities, are not prevented from working for them by financial constraints. The second though is even more important. Making conservation careers accessible to people from all backgrounds is surely going to make it less of a middle-class elite issue and bring it in to the mainstream. A passionate employee of a conservation charity is surely going to spread the word of campaigns and issues to friends and family. I know this is optimistic but my proposed bursary scheme could be the first step in moving issues like Hen Harrier persecution, so important to readers of this blog, in to the eye of most the public.
For the reasons I have outlined above, I am now calling on charities, such as the RSPB and National Trust, to set up this bursary scheme and on the youth conservation movement to lobby to make it happen.
If anyone wants to discuss the issues with me, comment below or e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
The following is a write-up, a personal one, that I did for Plantlife, the Wildlife Trusts and the Rare Breeds Survival Trust of a meeting to discuss meadow conservation which was held on 18 July this year.
’When people come to Highgrove and see the flower meadow there they often say that it reminds them of their childhood. As time goes on there will be fewer people for whom that is true.’ HRH The Prince of Wales (Patron of Plantlife, Rare Breeds Survival Trust and the Wildlife Trusts)
In July 2014 100 people gathered at a conference in Sussex to discuss the future of meadows in the UK. The aim was, as the title of the event states, to explore how to reverse the decline in flower-rich meadows. The quote above exemplifies the problem – unless action is taken young people today will grow up in a world with so few meadows they may never see one. This paper reflects on the themes presented and discussed, and proposes action based on ideas from participants.
Why should we value meadows?
• Because they are beautiful – and the seasonal, ephemeral nature of their beauty makes them even more special
• Because they are part of our cultural heritage and history (some as old as cathedrals)
• Because they are threatened in many ways and often not protected, either from development or land use change
• Because they harbour rare plants, scarce invertebrates and declining bird species
• Because they are difficult to replace or restore once lost
• Because they are places which bring rest, joy and spiritual refreshment
• Because they provide refuges for pollinators and other insects beneficial to farming
• Because they are good at storing carbon – better than improved pastures
• Because they act as water filters, removing pollutants, and water sponges, delaying run off and reducing flooding
• Because they sustain healthier cattle and sheep which produce tastier meat and milk
• Because they produce “local food” with low food miles for livestock- grazing and winter fodder
• Because they are a precious genetic resource – and source of products as diverse as hay and honey
It seemed to this group that there were lots of reasons to cherish and protect surviving meadows and to create new ones. And yet, flower-rich meadows have declined in extent by 97% in the last century and losses continue today as hay meadows are converted to arable or to silage or when they are lost to development, or simply neglected. It is clear that the meadow enthusiasts’ views are not shared by all, or at least, that there are powerful forces at play that allow these views to count for little.
Some meadows are owned by conservation bodies whose job is to protect them. But many more are owned by private individuals, most of whom are farmers, and who usually need to make a financial return out of the land that they own. The fate of meadows depends on the individual business decisions made by those disparate enterprises. When a land owner considers what to do with a meadow, the long list of reasons why we should value meadows appear to count for little. Why is this?
First, the list of reasons why meadows should be valued is not a well-known or even a fully accepted list. Some of these reasons are more widely held than others, and some are contentious or weakly supported by evidence. Perhaps a more compelling evidence base should be collated and researched?
More importantly though, even if all of the reasons for valuing meadows were true and undeniable, many of them reflect public goods rather than private opportunities. Take carbon storage, there is evidence that swards of mixed grasses and flowers store more carbon in the soil than do single species swards. But the private land owner does not benefit directly from that carbon storage except as a member of society – it is a shared public benefit and yet it is dependent on the land owner’s decision.
And, crucially, although economists will put estimated monetary values on public goods such as beauty and carbon storage these do not yet translate into cash in hand for the land manager. Public policy currently recognises these “ecosystem services” – but that recognition is not yet being translated into public payments. This is just another way of saying what many farmers will say ‘Nobody pays me for the view, even though I help to create it and protect it’.
Given that we regard the hay meadows that remain as being precious, perhaps we should know more about the reasons why their owners and managers have kept them – these farmers are rare and precious too, and also hold a declining source of knowledge and skills in meadow management. Meadow management was once the sign of a truly successful farmer – the ability to keep animals fed all year was literally vital to sustainability. As such they are probably worthy of more study alongside their meadows. Are they the richest or the biggest farmers or the poorest or smaller farmers? Have their meadows been saved through love, by accident or through benign neglect? Or do they produce specialist goods, using rare native cattle? What are their thoughts on the future of their meadows?
At heart, we have the commercial interests of individual landowners in conflict with what might be the wishes of a broader society. However, we should not fool ourselves that the average person in the street knows much, or cares much, about meadows. People might now protest about the loss of a tree, or an ancient woodland, but not often the loss of a meadow. If nature conservationists and others feel that meadows need a better deal, then they had better spread the word further and better about the joys of meadows and their value to us all. Meadow conservation can only be strengthened by having more supporters and more advocates, and a public profile as high as ancient woodlands to have any chance of protection.
At the conference, a variety of means were discussed to create a greater public awareness and enthusiasm for meadows; open days, webcams, guided walks, visits, posters, plaques proclaiming the importance of a site, involving children in growing meadow plants for re-creation of meadows, involving artists etc. All of these might play a part in building general public awareness and local community pride in the remaining meadows.
We need to appeal to hearts as well as heads – evoking the cultural and artistic significance of meadows, as well as the botany and other science, and to capture and tell meadow stories as part of our social history, before those who remember them as part of our day to day lives are no longer here to remember them. Meadows each have a tale to tell – of the people who owned them, the workers who maintained them, the name of the horse that ate the hay, or the type of cheese made from the cows turned out to graze in late summer. Some of those tales are recorded in field and place names, or reflected in local dialect or folklore.
But their fate still lies within the hands of a relatively small number of land owners who are being pulled by short-term economics into activities that threaten the future of the last remaining flower-rich meadows. What can conservationists do to protect them?
One mechanism little mentioned in the conference, it’s almost as though it is going out of fashion, is land purchase. This is the most certain way to protect any area for nature conservation and yet this was hardly discussed. Perhaps this is because meadows are so obviously a human-created and managed habitat, which needs very exact cutting, mowing and grazing regimes, and don’t fit a ‘protect nature’ model as well as more obvious ‘wildernesses’. Land purchase by nature conservationists is essentially a means of taking land out of primarily economic activity. But taking them out of production is essentially undermining the essence of a meadow: which was created by a highly specialist and highly successful economic activity far from being a wilderness, that nature conservationists shy away from buying them.
These days, a wildlife-rich meadow is likely to be a single field on an otherwise more intensively managed farm. Nature conservationists may be unable, if they even come on the market, to buy a whole farm for the sake of one hay meadow field.
Livestock and their feeding and management are critical. Hay meadows were created for, and by, livestock. The hay provided the means of keeping the animals through the winter and the aftermath provided useful autumn grazing. Hay meadows were not created for their biodiversity: farm animals are the raison d’etre of hay meadows. Unless that link is restored some of the economic benefits of hay meadows will be lost. Optimal meadow management for economic reasons, using collected forage and aftermath grazing, relies on traditional, hardy breeds of livestock that can flourish on relatively low-quality diets rather than the high input-high output cereal and silage diets on which most of our livestock are now fed.
There are still meadows being ‘discovered’ – discovered by nature conservation professionals, that is: their owners will have known that they existed! Some of these newly discovered sites and also some existing ones are worthy candidates for legal protection through SSSI notification. Natural England, Natural Resources Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage should be encouraged and resourced by the country administrations to notify such sites as being part of a suite of nationally import meadows. This would not only protect the sites from development, but would also enable targeting of ever-limited agri-environment resources to pay farmers for their ongoing management.
In a similar vein, the form of protection provided by the existing Environmental Impact Assessment regulations could be strengthened, better enforced and made more relevant to meadows. Equally the planning system could be used more effectively to protect the remaining 3% of meadows. Because they are undesignated, both planners and councillors undervalue them.
All measures aimed to protect existing meadows would benefit from perfect knowledge of their state and location. An inventory of meadows is long overdue, and is needed for the UK to assess its progress towards meeting 2020 biodiversity commitments. It should be the responsibility of the statutory agencies, supported, respected and used by them and by the UK governments. An inventory would aid the targetting of meadow restoration to link those surviving meadows.
However, we have to return to those landowners, mostly farmers, mostly quite modest enterprises, who currently have meadows within their landholdings and who may have a variety of feelings about them. Some may see their meadows as an asset, others as a block to their aspirations and some may fear the “threat” of designation. Maybe conservationists should talk more to these crucial people, about their hopes and fears for their meadows (which we tend to think of as our meadows too).
At the conference, many talked of giving land managers more support and influencing their bottom line to support their meadow ownership. This is easier said than done, given that 97% of meadows have been lost in the last century and we are left with the last 3%.
Support to farmers need not necessarily be direct financial support – moral support can go a long way. Praise from the local community or from the wider public can help any of us as individuals, or any small business. A greater profile for wildlife-friendly farmers from their peers, from the Soil Association, LEAF, CLA and NFU would not go amiss. Should there be a meadow-friendly farmer roll of honour on which the names of the managers of the finest meadows would appear?
As well as that important sense of pride this could also lay the foundations for the currently elusive demand for specialist products – from flower-rich hay for pampered pets to artistic holidays, as well as cheese, lamb and honey . Some saw this as essential and achievable – others as impractical and over-aspirational. We see success in selling pasture fed meat as desirable and healthy – is it just a small step to develop a “meadow sweet” brand?
If we are thinking of contributing to the economic wealth of farmers so that they maintain their meadows then there are a few options. Meadow-managing farmers could be helped by their businesses (their accommodation, their meat, their cheese etc) being promoted to the wider public by conservation organisations – ‘Buy Farmer Giles’s beef – it’s reared on a wildlife-rich meadow!’ or ‘Stay at Farmer Giles’s B&B and see his wonderful meadow! It works in Romania, we heard at the conference.
Practical help can also be given to land managers – information on management methods, breeds of animal appropriate for grazing, machinery swaps and voluntary labour might make a big difference to the busy lives of some farmers. Is a Meadow Management Handbook needed with best practice and advice on appropriate breeds of animal, grazing regimes, cutting dates etc? If not, what is the best way to promulgate best practice? What role for colleges, for apprenticeships or mentors or discussion groups to provide access to experience and expertise? Or for local meadow management groups where the machinery or livestock needed can be shared? For smallholders the cost of machinery needed for cutting, tedding and baling hay is prohibitive, and contractors not available. Co-operative ownership and operation may provide the solution.
Rare meadows are a little like rare birds – except they don’t move about so much. Experience with restricted-range farmland species, such as Corncrake, Stone Curlew and Cirl Bunting, has been more positive, overall, than attempts to stem the decline of widespread species such as Skylark and Grey Partridge. This may be because conservationists have been able to tailor advice, money and time to a geographically restricted rural audience and speak directly to the people that matter rather than through the more scatter gun media of national grant schemes, farming unions or the farming press. If there are lessons to be learned from previous farmland conservation success stories they might be: knowing a lot about the thing you want to conserve, knowing quite a lot about the farming system but seeking solutions from the practitioners and offering financial help as a stop-gap and until government grants can take up the slack. This would necessitate a team of excellent meadow advisors with empathy for farmers and a bit of cash in their back pockets.
If, as a nation, we want meadows to be maintained for ever, and we recognise that it is not in the individual farmer’s interests necessarily to do so, then the taxpayer should be prepared to contribute to the cost of maintenance of meadows provided that ensures their long-term protection. Agri-environment schemes must be designed to work for ancient habitats such as meadows and must be well-enough funded to ensure long-term security of these habitats, and administrators broad minded enough in the application of the rules to enable the very small, very rare and very isolated to benefit. And they must work native breeds suited to meadows – livestock are an integral part of biodiversity too!
There may also be a role for local action and community level activists, in tandem with the larger scale policies and practices. There was talk of a sense of “outrage” about the plight of meadows amongst many present and examples of that same outrage being harnessed as a force for good by communities who saw local meadows being threatened or neglected. We can show farmers in our communities how much we value their meadows, and support them in their efforts to sustain them, including by what we buy. Or we can take direct action by adopting or acquiring meadows – perhaps as a very special form of village green, but even better perhaps as a very special form of community enterprise, which covers its costs by producing goods which are sold locally (perhaps in the community shop) and provides experiences which are now lost to many – a village “hay making day” instead of a village fete, anyone? Vibrant examples of this approach can be found – ranging from the Parish Grasslands Project in St. Briavels at the parish scale, to the Monmouthshire Meadows Group at the county scale.
Reversing the trend on meadow loss will necessitate re-creating meadows at a rate fast enough to counterbalance any ongoing losses and to link sites to create a critical mass of habitats and managers . HRH exhorted the conference to aspire to a meadow in every parish.
Much is being done, and much is being learned in this area, particularly through the Coronation Meadows project. Green hay from high quality meadows is being matched with nearby ‘receptor sites’ (almost always former meadows themselves where the seed bank will contain relevant plant species). Such projects are practical examples of responding to the Lawton report of more, bigger, better and more joined up patches of nature-rich habitats. Funding and implementing such projects is a priority – at present government funding is not forthcoming . But it’s not easy – or at least not easy to do it right. Scattering seeds on any bare earth is not the right answer, despite the growing market for packets of generic mixes. To spread success we need to evaluate and learn from experience and share knowledge formally and informally, as well as matching the right hay/seed to the right local opportunity.
Reversing the trend for meadow loss is a microcosm of much of the angst about the rest of nature conservation in the UK; we have lost so much, nobody intended it to be like this, we need to do something urgently or the game is lost, how do we influence a host of individual decisions made by private individuals?, what are the roles of the individuals, communities, NGOs and government and its agencies?, what are the priorities for action?, do we have the money and the will to make a real difference?, will we all work together to achieve a common goal?
Here is a list of 10 priorities for action if meadows are to be valued, protected, managed well, recreated and enjoyed – all essential if their demise is to be reversed. Not all have obvious owners or actors – but somebody needs to do each of them.
1. Raise the public profile of the value of meadows so that they and their owners receive greater public support
2. Research the services and benefits of meadows so that the evidence is even more convincing: for example in flood prevention or nutritional value
3. Transfer more meadows into conservation stewardship – by communities, skilled farmers or conservation bodies – and where necessary into conservation ownership
4. Notify all high-quality meadows under existing legislation to protect them and enable public funding and use the planning system better to protect undesignated sites
5. Capture and record meadow history , including losses, to know more about what and why we have and could restore
6. Talk to farmers who own meadows and manage traditional stock to understand their needs and aspirations and to learn and share their knowledge
7. Promote the businesses of meadow-conserving farmers and buy the products they make
8. Increase direct payments to those farmers who protect meadows in the long term
9. Re-create new meadows on former sites the “right way” and where they link with existing meadows and share skills in this specialist undertaking
10. Establish an inventory of meadows as a means of focusing efforts to where quality is poor or to join up sites and to record our successes and failures.
I’m lucky enough to get the chance to write for money sometimes and that helps to keep the wolf from the door – although I’d quite like to open the door here in east Northants and see a wolf trotting past. That would be quite a shock and a very nice surprise.
Here are three places where you can find more of my writing at the moment, and where you can find lots of other good things to read too.
BBC Wildlife (September issue) has a 6-page beautifully-illustrated article on Passenger Pigeons which may whet your appetite for A Message from Martha.
My Birdwatch column (September issue) discusses some of the implications that would follow if Scotland voted ‘YES’ on 18 September and I review David Cobham’s book (illustrated by Bruce Pearson) The Sparrowhawk’s Lament.
In my ‘every-other-issue’ column in British Wildlife (August issue), I ask where leadership comes from in nature conservation at the moment. Guess what? It could be you!
A little while before midday yesterday our e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting passed the 16,000 signature mark. Thank you to all who have signed it already.
This is already, inside three months, the 9th most-signed e-petition aimed at Defra. And there are another seven months to go (there would be nine if it weren’t for the timing of the general election).
When such an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures, the responsible government department needs to respond to the people who have made the e-petition so successful. Our e-petition passed 10,000 signatures on 31 July but Defra, as we have come to expect, have snoozed through the last few weeks and have not yet roused themselves to respond. I wonder why not? Maybe it is because their off-hand, badly argued, pathetically arrogant response to the previous e-petition on licensing grouse moors was so widely ridiculed that they know they must do better.
This gives Defra a bit of a problem. The status of the Hen Harrier has worsened through the years of this government, they have already ruled out vicarious liability and licensing of grouse shooting and their Hen Harrier group has stalled because of intransigence on the part of the shooting ‘community’. What will Defra say? What is their initiative? Do they have any initiative? It seems not.
It seems that Hen Harriers are being hung out to dry by this government.