Pitcairn revisited

By Angela K. Kepler (Pacific Biodiversity Information Forum) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
By Angela K. Kepler (Pacific Biodiversity Information Forum) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
A little while ago I received an invitation to an event which will be held towards the end of the month concerning the future of the seas around the Pitcairn Islands.  I was quite interested in attending until I saw that it was in Marseille.

However, this blog has shown an interest in marine protected areas, including those which should exist around the wildlife-rich seas of the UK Overseas territories such as Pitcairn.

The UK Government is pondering whether there should be a strict Marine Protected Area in the seas around the Pitcairn Islands and will make its decision fairly soon.  It doesn’t seem a very difficult decision really.  The small Pitcairn Island human community is united in wanting their seas to be protected – and that’s quite unusual in such cases. The science on the importance of the marine wildlife around Pitcairn is not disputed – this would be a National Park with strong protection if it were above the waves.

By User Jheijmans on en.wikipedia (CIA World Factbook, PCL Map Collection) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
By User Jheijmans on en.wikipedia (CIA World Factbook, PCL Map Collection) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
I do hope that my government realises that the natural importance of these seas is so high that the small amount of money that might be made by exploiting their fish stocks doesn’t really count.

If you would like to encourage this view – the ‘protect the Pitcairn seas’ view – then do have a look at the Facebook page on this subject and ‘like’ the page.

Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Get email notifications of new blog posts

Registration confirmation will be emailed to you.

21 Replies to “Pitcairn revisited”

  1. Taking advantage of a quiet day!

    Since the introduction of 'likes / dislikes' this blog (both its bloggee and its bloggers) have got a bit 'tetchy' and there appears to be bloggers exercising their competitive 'nature'

    One of my entries attracted 7 'dislikes' (for just stating a fact !) with '8 likes' to counter the silly dislikes!

    There were no (published) estimates of badger numbers 'on the ground' before the RBCT or indeed in the Final Report – so today's debate re badger numbers in the current 'trials' is just 'ill-informed-noise'

    Likewise – one of my blog entries attracted 'lots' of 'likes' but I made say three points and even I don't know which element the 'likees' were happy with or indeed the 'dislikees' were unhappy with.

    I guess the best way is to encourage folk to make a blog entry – as somebody else has said before – you can always hide behind a funny name (eg Trimbush - a hound's name).

    1. Trimbush - yes, I see your point. I have been asked quite a lot of times to include Like and dislike buttons in this blog so I thought I'd give them a try (and it was a technical challenge to which I am glad to have risen). I'll keep going with them as a trial for a while and then decide whether to keep them or dispense with them. Your comments are welcome here, bonkers though you sometimes are, but I doubt whether you thought that every reader agreed with them - did you?

          1. BONKERS?

            Thinking the unthinkable: Alzheimer’s,
            Creutzfeldt–Jakob and Mad Cow disease:


            As I have said before - I worked on a BSE project when it was then current – and today I heard about a compound successfully given to infected mice – the interviewee referred to 'prions' – which made me think back to the above scientific paper.

            "Summary The possibility of the age-related re-emergence of foodborne Mycobacterium bovis (bovine tuberculosis) as a vector for Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease (CJD or human Mad Cow Disease) and Mad Cow disease itself is real."

            Blimey !!

          2. Trimbush - we seem to have wandered rather a long way from Pitcairn. But then, everywhere is a long way from Pitcairn.

      1. Hi Doug

        'Trimbush' was a hound in one Patrick Chalmers' fox-hunting books – see abebooks.co.uk etc..

        Trimbush' was - he said modestly – leader of the pack – very mature and all knowing about things 'natural' – with, incidentally, a fantastic sense of humour and very handsome to boot! And a wet nose!

        Does that rings a bell? No ? Really?

        I adopted this 'name' when I established The Rural Army (website etc) way back in 1997 to fight the prejudices, ignorance and corruption of New Labour in respect of Hunting and the Countryside – sadly - nothing's changed – and Miliband's Labour is still taking its cash from animal rights IFAW

        Tally ho!

        PS – we'll now see how the likes / dislikes do – so tell your friends – we could rival the recent naïve epetition to spread TB nationwide - 299,999 to go!

        1. Re Patrick Chalmers...I've never read any any of his fox-hunting books, but his angling classic, 'At The Tail Of The Weir' is a peach...best accompanied with a Speyside malt.

          1. Hi Ernest

            I have only perused your book but recall reading about 'otters' – I won't tell Dennis I used to go 'otter hunting' in East Anglia – but never saw an otter – never! Fabulous days in the country!

            A Speyside malt? I bet Mark wouldn't say 'no' that that suggestion!

  2. Does it really matter how many "likes" or "dislikes" a comment receives, shame you can't disable them Mark for comments and leave them as are for blog posts, after all wasn't it your intentons to get feedback on your posts and not comments? Trim's right, and as I've pointed out already it'll stifle a healthy debate, for example if someone posts a comment, a genuine comment, and receives 3 dislikes and 0 likes will they a) moderate their comment just to get a "like" (sadly it's human nature) b) not comment for fear of not being "liked"....back to the blog post: I'm somewhat astonished after blogging about the subject and being invited to the conference you're not going, just because it's in Marseille, surely it's closer then the USA, with good train links you could possibly do the journey both quickly and with a relative small carbon footprint too, you could also perhaps whilst in France have a look at why the French still think it's ok to kill and eat Ortolan Buntings as a future blog post. Failing that you could either a) pay me to go, honestly I wouldn't mind 🙂 or b) get someone who is going to guest blog on the conference and now back to "likes" and dislikes" once this is posted I'm ticking "dislikes" just for the hell of it

  3. Trimbush,well I find it difficult to understand you,for sure I agree with some parts of your comments,for sure you are really clever and knowledgeable but then you seem to suggest that those in the countryside in favour of hunting.
    You obviously know that is incorrect as most in countryside which is not just landowners of course would be against something that is no use except for those who like blood sports..
    It serves no purpose whatsoever and if there were enough foxes(ironically there are less foxes since it was banned and none now being bred and fed specially for hunting)to be a problem it is much less cruel to control them in other ways.
    What is not in doubt is that any fool who suggests that the fox enjoys the chase needs to be chased by a pack of Rottweilers,they would at least have a minute or two to realise the error of that thinking.

    1. Hi Dennis

      Unlike those folk in Ireland we followers of hounds have a problem with the Hunting Act – and you're right – we now have more foxes killed – male, female, cubs - in or out of breeding season – it appears not to matter to some.

      Unlike those folk in Ireland we cattle farmers have a problem with the Badger Act – and also the badger's protected species status – In Ireland TB is going downwards whilst over here it's totally out of control.

      In both cases the two 'quarry' species are now worse off – funny that eh?

      Some folk 'ride to hunt' – others 'hunt to ride' – I've never met anyone who thinks foxes enjoy being chased – most hunting folk that I've met do not ascribe such anthropomorphic qualities to the fox.

      As to being of “no use” - you should ask a shepherd or gamekeeper what they think!

      Hunting is totally in harmony with Mother Nature – that's what it's all about! Wildlife in the UK needs to be managed and controlled and the right balance maintained.

      1. On the eve of the Bill to outlaw hunting with dogs returning to the Lords, Roy Jenkins wrote the following in an article for the London Evening Standard:

        'Foxhunting means little to me, but banning it would be a supreme act of illiberalism'

        I think he was spot on.

        I maintain to this day that this act of intolerance would probably have been dropped were it not for the actions of the Countryside Alliance.

        1. I was in Parliament Square when the Police panicked and were instructed to truncheon all the elderly protesting gentlemen and ladies – The content of the next day's papers was a sea of red! Bloody outrageous!

  4. I think that the likes/dislikes mean that people pass their judgement but then don't actually respond in the form of a reply.

  5. Trimbush,my experience with both gamekeepers and shepherds which as a retired farmer is extensive would be that they are quite capable of controlling foxes better than the hunt.You might have noticed I never mentioned Badgers.Have no problem with keeping balance of nature but no need for bloodthirsty ways of getting that balance.
    If the hunts are not bloodthirsty let them happily follow a scented rag.

  6. I don't half shiver when I hear (or read) people using comments such as "Mother nature" (Peter.... was that tongue in cheek... please tell me it was!) or "balance of nature" (Dennis).

    It's a slippery slope from that to the "Natural order" or "The laws of nature" or even "Gaia" .

    Inaccurate would be kind.

    Reminds me also of that bleedin' awful Chris Packham TV programme on a year or so ago where he proceeded to try to inform us that everything had deliberately evolved in a web-like system which made use of everything else so perfectly - it seemed to be almost "designed" that way. Everything was perfectly balanced.

    What bull.

    There is no "mother nature" (that's theism - count me out).

    Nature might seem like its in "balance" to us but its constantly on the trot, constantlly adapting and moving. It might well seem like it's balanced but that is an illusion in most cases and purely a statisical accident in others.

    And Packham. Please don't ever come back on our screens and try to simplify evolution into a easily-digestable fairy tale which has very little basis in truth.

    1. Hi Doug
      If you asked me what's the difference between 'Nature' and 'Mother Nature' – I couldn't really tell you apart from it appearing 'more poetical' – I promise to think about its relevance next time I'm tempted!

      As for Chris Packham – well I don't often shout at the television ..... but ...
      and he's got about 80,000 Twitter followers – this worries me!

  7. D M D,do not understand your problem with those three words,seems to be a bit picky.My guess is that in the case of certain things lets suggest rats then you would be happy for us to do things to control them so keeping "the balance of nature".
    Without control we would be overrun with them and the spread of disease from them both to us and our animals.
    Hope that explanation satisfy's my meaning.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.