Local knowledge is sincerely to be prized, and who could know a National Park better than its Chief Executive?
Jim Dixon, the outgoing Chief Executive of the Peak District National Park (famed for its raptors, like all our National Parks) took me to task, just a little, on what I wrote about the recently departed Dowager Duchess of Devonshire.
This was Jim’s comment on this post: ‘Jamie Horner sets the facts out on Chatsworth’s record on birds of prey which is exemplary. The dead Gos found earlier this year was unusual in many ways and was a bird that originated from a next (sic) well away from Chatsworth. In addition the estate has a good record protecting its SSSI deer park, woodland and moorland. There are bad guys out there but the people at Chatsworth aren’t amongst them. I’d be interested to know how many Gos were raised in Northamptonshire this year.’.
Jim was clearly wound up about this as he went on to Twitter (@PeakChief) and said that I had drawn a ‘sketchy conclusion about estate’s attitude and success with conservation from little data’ whereas, I think you can see, I failed completely to draw any conclusion at all.
It’s only because I am an ardent seeker after truth, and am keen to check my facts, that I thought I would look up the record of the Chatsworth Estate on their SSSIs.
Chatsworth Old Park SSSI is in Unfavourable recovering condition according to NE.
Here are the conditions of the SSSI units also managed by the Chatsworth Settlement Trustees in the Eastern Peak District Moors SSSI (all from the MAGIC system):
Unit 117, dwarf shrub heath – Unfavourable recovering
Unit 118, dwarf shrub heath – Unfavourable recovering
Unit 119, dwarf shrub heath – Unfavourable recovering
Unit 120, dwarf shrub heath – Unfavourable recovering
Unit 121, Upland bog – Unfavourable recovering
Unit 122, Upland bog – Unfavourable recovering
Unit 123, Acid Grassland – Favourable condition (although only for Merlin and Short-eared Owl)
Unit 124, dwarf shrub – Unfavourable recovering
In units 117, 119, 120, 121 & 122 overgrazing (historically) is implicated as the reason for the condition status, although it appears that this has been addressed in recent years hence the ‘unfavourable recovering’ status.
Those who know how the system works, as Jim certainly does, will realise that the ‘recovering’ tag attached to most of these units can mean simply that the land is benefitting from a Higher Level Stewardship Scheme payment (from you and me) to ensure that it gets into good condition. I have always been completely consistent in saying that I am a great fan of this form of public support for land owners. Indeed, one of the last successes ‘I’ had at the RSPB was campaigning to protect HLS payments in the first round of cuts after the 2010 general election.
You’ll recall then, or maybe you really don’t give a fig, that this started with me telling a little story about a letter that the lately-departed Dowager Duchess of Devonshire had written to me, going out of her way to make her dislike of the RSPB clear, and basing this on the RSPB’s stance on birds of prey. I imagine, and my imagination is based on quite a lot of experience, that her view was shared by many other Dukes and Duchesses, Lords and Ladies and even by mere Mrs and Mrss dotted around the large country houses of the UK.
The Peak District National Park’s Chief Executive then criticised me for drawing a ‘sketchy conclusion about estate ‘s attitude and success with conservation from little data’ but adduced no data himself to back up his claims. It’s so good that we can check on these things ourselves.
Just remember:
‘The Peak District National Park has a pioneering story as the first UK national park. One of our country’s most precious assets, with outstanding natural beauty, the Peak District has the potential to lead the way and show how we can maximise the value of these assets financially as well as for the environment and for people. It will take an inspirational, enabling leader to build on our legacy and realise our ambitions.’
[registration_form]
It seems that each time these people open their mouths it is purely to spout utter babble in an attempt to fool those people who do not know the facts. Thankfully, and mostly thanks to you Mark, we are all fully aware of the facts and the underhand methods used to change those facts into something completely false. The general public are fed up with being told lies by the people with some degree of power. To those people I say stop lying and hold up your hands as the guilty parties. This is the only way you are ever going to save face in this matter.
Is there any evidence to show that the stewardship payments work? I’m sure there are several studies that suggest that they don’t deliver their promise…
You may not have drawn a specific conclusion in your original post, but you did make a pretty clear insinuation about the dead goshawk found on the Chatsworth estate. That is what Jamie Horner and Jim Dixon sought to challenge.
Yet, rather than withdrawing or qualifying that insinuation, you have switched to a more general criticism of the estate’s stewardship, thereby allowing the inference about the circumstances of the goshawk’s death to stand. I see that on Twitter you have argued that your one-sided approach might somehow be of assistance to the police, which I’m bound to say I find rather baffling.
Anyway, for the sake of balance, I suggest it would be fair to quote the Footnote to the report on Raptor Politics which you linked to: “We are well aware of efforts made by the Chatsworth estate to conserve and protect goshawks through their estate. Gamekeepers employed on the estate have been warned on no account must they ever interfere with protected birds of prey that breed on the estate. Chatsworth has the highest number of breeding pairs of resident goshawks anywhere in Derbyshire.”
Lazywell – no comment then on the Dowager Duchess’s views on raptors (or even of the RSPB), no comment either on the disarray in which the GWCT finds itself in its support of driven grouse shooting and no comment on the Leeds university report on the ills of heather burning? Yes, I see.
Sorry, Mark, I thought I was replying to this post. I find it telling that even now you seem unprepared to qualify your earlier comment, which was worded in such a way that you could respond to any challenge with the same kind of faux innocence as the13th Duke Of Wybourne in ‘The Fast Show’: “What, me? Make an allegation, or draw a conclusion? What a preposterous notion.”
Anyway, since you raise these other matters here, I will offer my two penn’orth. I do envy you for having received a letter from Debo, though it’s perhaps not quite in the same league as her letters to her sisters or to the likes of Patrick Leigh Fermor. For what it’s worth, I don’t happen to agree with her attitude towards the RSPB, although she had a point in questioning its gung-ho approach to some reintroductions; and I would like it to be more proactive in support of a managed solution to the grouse/raptor conflict. Mainly, though, I find her candour refreshing and respect the fact that she took the trouble to write to you in person in response to what I take to have been a piece of computer generated junk mail.
Yes, I have been following your most recent glib and derisive diatribes against the GWCT. I would take them a little more seriously if they weren’t compounded by your increasingly regular comments in support of LACS. I know you’re a member; but anyone would think you’d become an advocate for it.
The Leeds paper, on the other hand, I quite agree is a truly significant piece of work, although I thought Andrew Gilruth was right to express some caution about jumping to conclusions as to how one should apply its findings.
It’s important to remember that the project was exploring the differential impacts on the environment between burning and non-burning; it wasn’t in its remit to consider the difference between controlled, rotational burning and the more damaging consequences of wildfires, and the mitigation of one of by the other. And what about the broader biodiversity benefits – scientifically established – of managed burning, not just for grouse (black as well as red), but also waders and invertebrates?
I was interested to hear one of the authors, Dr Joseph Holden, speaking on BBC Radio Scotland the other day. He confirmed that there were “clearly many positive effects of burning – and some of those are economic effects;” and he acknowledged that “there are pros & cons of … different management practices [in the uplands]”.
As the report observes, 75% of the world’s heather cover occurs in the UK uplands; and you will be familiar with the findings by Pete Robertson about the vital role played by managed grouse moors in preserving this precious natural resource: over a period of 40 years twice as much heather cover was lost on moors not managed for grouse.
So the subject is pretty complicated from a policy point of view – as recognised by the sensible response from Yorkshire Water. And I note that even you, while suggesting that this evidence of ecological “disservice” is yet another nail in the coffin of driven grouse shooting, are not against burning in absolute terms.
Lazywell – I do love your carefully worded comments. thank you, once more.
I share your admiration for the late Dowager Duchess’s letter to me – which is why I quoted it here. I thought highly of her (not that she or anyone else should have cared about that) for taking the time to write that letter. I hope this blog does, from time to time, praise those with which it does not agree if they stand up for strongly held beliefs. Also, I don’t know, but I rather fear, that you may well be right in surmising that the letter to which she replied was towards the ‘junk’ end of the spectrum – perhaps even with the salutation ‘Dear Dowager’ – who knows?
There is nothing, however simple, that can’t be made to appear complicated by those who wish the world to remain in ignorance of it. The Leeds study isn’t that complicated and its summary is pretty clear.
LACS – they appear to me to be doing a good job in Malta and they are against driven grouse shooting. Those are the two things about them that have gained my support.
Faux innocence? I think your razor-sharp intellect will realise that there is no allegation to qualify.
Thank you for your comment – I really do enjoy them.
Mark
Impressive that you’ve been able to write such a convincing story based on half truth and zero context. Don’t bother mentioning the HLS scheme NPA staff – yes the very same hard working degree-educated conservationists you enjoy taking pot shots at – have prepared, submitted and are delivering to address the conservation objectives at Chatsworth. Seeker after half-truths more like. Great fun getting some adulation from your followers for ridiculing bureaucrats. People like you find it fun to belittle people who do real conservation work with real farmers and landowners. Far harder to do than to commentate on. I’m proud of my record on conservation in the Peak District where over the last ten years we’ve fought off road schemes, huge quarry applications and turned round the poor state of SSSI status – note that until Manchester cleans up its air quality we ‘ll be held back further. Our Moors for the Future is recognised – in the State of Nature and by (current) RSPB staff as the best in the country.
I recall vividly having to write to you when you took the decision to pull out of the Peak District farmland waders work because the then RSPB to team thought it a lost cause. We’ve turned the corner on the populations of lapwing and curlew, because we’ve stuck at it.
I only hope that as I move into a more independent position that I retain a bit of respect for the hard-working staff of bodies like national parks.