Blog Archives - James Common

Another ‘wild’ year in retrospect

2018 has been a year of ups and downs; although, thankfully, mostly ups. The year marked by a great deal of personal and professional opportunities, myriad wonderful wild encounters and a whole host of new experiences. As is customary on this blog, I thought I would dedicate some time to knocking up something which vaguely resembles a summary. If you’re not all that interested in ‘personal’ posts, please look away now…

The undisputed highlight of the year has to come from my employment with the Natural History Society of Northumbria. I have aspired towards a job in nature communications for as long as I can remember and, to that end, have dedicated a great deal of time to building a CV deserving of such. In April, I was lucky enough to be appointed as NHSN’s communications officer and, truth be told, I have not looked back since. This is an organisation I have looked up to for years – ever since my first visit to the Hancock museum as a child – and thus far, I have enjoyed every minute of the role. Sure, it has involved a great deal of learning and I would be lying if I said there had not been hiccups; though working with an incredibly knowledgeable, supportive bunch of people for a organisation that supports the issues I care most about – wildlife and conservation in my local area – I can’t help but smile. I am having a blast.

Elsewhere this year, I found myself appointed to the publications committee of the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI). A leap into the dark if I am honest – I have never been all too knowledgeable on plants – but something I hope to embrace. It is also great to observe a blooming relationship – forgive the pun – between BSBI and New Nature Magazine, and I can only thank the Society for their support of our humble e-zine. A publication which I am immensely proud of which now is going from strength to strength under new Editor in Chief, Alice Johnson, and the rest of our gifted team. You may have noticed that we’re now publishing bimonthly – a decision intended to boost the quality of the publication and to give all involved in its design and production time to focus on other endeavours. New Nature is entirely voluntary, after all.

What else has happened in 2018? Well, I found myself coming in at second place in the UK Blog Awards for this blog, no less, while New Nature scooped first place in its category (hurrah). In a bizarre twist, this resulted in a rather terrifying first appearance on TV this summer as I featured in an episode of BBC Countryfile – chatting to the fantastic Steve Brown about blogging, squirrels and the youth nature movement. As someone who finds speaking rather terrifying – I much prefer writing – this was difficult; though I am glad I did it and hope I did not embarrass myself too much.

This year’s recognition and trembling media appearances would not have been possible without those who read this blog and, as ever, I am incredibly grateful to all those who have tuned in and taken note of my waffling over the past year. Though it beggars belief, more people than ever before – 26,500 to be exact – visited Common By Nature in 2018 and while meaningful writing has been scant due to commitments elsewhere, I hope all found at least one article of interest. I will do my best to keep at it over the coming year, although free time appears to be becoming increasingly scarce.

A quick thank you also to everyone who cast a vote for me in both categories of the coming, 2019, UK Blog Awards – I won’t hold my breath but will keep you updated should things progress.

All in all, I have had a grand old time in 2018. I may not have committed to as much as I have done in previous years and indeed, have had to evaluate just how much I can do before the pastimes I love begin to lose their appeal, but all in all, things have been good. Personal reflection aside, however, cutting down on commitments has allowed me to get back to basics and observe and enjoy a remarkable array of wildlife in 2018. As such, I will leave you with some photographic highlights…

A few confiding rare birds, some sensational mammal encounters and my first ever White-letter Hairstreaks and European Hornets certainly helped ensure 2018 was anything but boring.

A quick life update

I have been rather quiet on this blog recently, at least by my usual vocal standards. I can assure you that this is because I have been incredibly busy – with work, writing and university – and not because my interest has waned. For those who follow this blog loyally (to my surprise, there are a few) and for those who actually possess some sort of interest in what I get up to, here is a quick update of recent happenings in the world of James…

Masters degree. I have enjoyed some fabulous lectures of late, including enthralling (and eye-opening) talks from the likes of GWCT and Natural England, and am currently engrossed in my favourite module to date: policy and licensing. I have also secured some time on the fabulous Farne Islands to carry out my postgraduate thesis and, quite frankly, I cannot wait!
Squirrels – I am continuing my voluntary work with my local Red Squirrel action group. Work which centres, specifically, on the control of greys in my local area. This is not an enjoyable task but it is rewarding; more so given the continued presence of Reds in the area.
Other voluntary work – Following a recent meeting with some wonderful representatives from Northumberland Wildlife Trust, I have scheduled a second meeting with their marketing team in the coming weeks. It looks like I am going to be gaining some experience in communications in the future, while also helping out, where I can, with their social media and publishing efforts.
New Nature – the magazine is ticking over nicely. We have recently taken on a voluntary web editor and are all set to publish our second issue on February 6th; with fabulous contributions from a host of talented young writers and some more familiar faces. Please stay tuned.
Writing. Nothing published of late, sadly; though I have send off some pitches. I was, however, lucky enough to be featured in The Countryman today. Specifically, in a fine article by the magazines editor entitled “The New Young Naturalists” – Please check it out.
Curlew. To date, I have raised a total of £435 for the BTO’s Curlew Appeal and will be partaking in the Yorkshire Three Peaks Challenge later this year, while attempting to raise more money along the way. I have also managed to quit smoking (well, vaping) and am starting to feel like the process may not actually be the death of me…

I do hope it all pays off in the end…

Exploring My Personal Perception Of Wildlife

It should come as little surprise that the majority of issues initially billed as human/wildlife conflicts actually centre more on conflict between stakeholder groups. Between humans and other humans, as opposed to man and beast.

Wildlife, as a rule, is not overly confrontational, whereas people are. Thus many of the “big issues” in the realms of ecology, conservation and animal welfare – whether that be driven grouse shooting, pest control, fox hunting or canned hunting – actually boil down to our own conflicting views over how we should engage with the natural world. And, ultimately, how we as individuals perceive wildlife. Something which has proven a major focal point during the first few weeks of my Masters degree, and has caused me to contemplate, in depth, just how I, personally, view the creatures with whom we share our countryside. If only to decide, in the future, my stance on topical issues.

One thing has become quite clear during my background reading (and ample discussion) on the subject, is that there is no clear answer. And no right or wrong way of viewing the natural world. Sure, I find some outlooks distasteful, but taking a minute to assess my own views has resulted in the conclusion that our perceptions vary incredibly. Even among those sympathetic to nature. And that hypocrisy is often part of the norm, based on a whole suit of factors: from charismatic appeal of certain species to our own financial and emotional investment. While disagreement is inevitable, and polarised views common, I have come to believe that understanding alternate viewpoints is key. Especially when so many conflict situations can, at best, only result in compromise, and rarely produce an outcome deemed satisfactory to all involved.

Though I have also realised that it is almost impossible to place yourself entirely in one category, however hard you try.

But what are the broad outlooks that must be considered and understood?

Humanistic – Those who view animals as sentient beings, believe fully in animal rights and believe man and beast to be unequivocally equal. Oppose the exploitation, control or killing of wildlife on moral grounds. Emotionally invested in wildlife.
Conservational – Those who view wildlife as part of the wider ecosystem to be protected and safeguarded for future generations. Motivated by biodiversity and a belief that we are obliged to protect the natural world.
Utilitarian – Those who view wildlife as a resource, to be exploited for personal or monetary gain. Viewing certain species as a threat to be removed and others as a direct source of income or sustenance. Interested in the practical value of the land.
Dominionistic – Similar to the above but believing that, as the dominant species on earth, humans have a right to alter the land as we see fit. Exploiting the natural world as a resource, to be developed, consumed or likewise. Interested predominately in controlling nature.
Aesthetic – Predominantly interested in the aesthetic beauty and appeal of wildlife and the countryside, for recreation and personal enjoyment.
Negativistic – Those who possess a fear or aversion to wildlife and/or view species as an inconvenience to daily life.

An interesting graph from a university slide giving a broad outlook on how different groups invested in the countryside view nature. Though for many, myself included, the lines become blurred from time to time…

How do I personally perceive wildlife?

As a conservationist, I, of course, possess a predominantly protectionist outlook, and desire to maintain the countryside in a “natural” state – though I use this term loosely as, for the large part, all hope of this has been lost. This mindset, of course, often puts me at odds with a number of other groups: namely those who exploit wildlife too harshly, or take an over dominionist approach to species, to such an extent that it seems detrimental to their conservation status. It does, however (funnily enough) also set me on a collision course with those boasting a humanistic outlook – though animal rights and conservation are often unfairly lumped together from time to time. Conservation often involves the abandonment of sentiment – whether you’re killing foxes to prevent the predation of rare birds or enacting lethal control measures to stem the time of invasive species. It is not nice, but it is often necessary.

I am, however, not prone to bouts of sentiment, and thus find myself adopting a humanistic approach from time to time. Something which, at times, leaves me looking rather hypocritical – my stance varying depending on the appeal of the species in question (many will not admit to this, but I suspect the same goes for others). Prime examples being my all out hatred for whaling and the killing of protected hen harriers but my willingness to control grey squirrels, and at times, my openness to removing pest species from the home. Whether they be rats or ants. The latter leading me to believe that dominionist tendencies do exist somewhere in there. And also posing questions with regards to whether or not I take a negative approach to certain species, which I almost certainly do. I am not above using the term pest with regards to rats gnawing through my household cables and am unashamed to admit I am actively scared of wasps. Is a rat costing me money through household damage any different to a fox costing a farmer money through the killing lambs? Not really when you think about it.

Examining things, I have also come to the conclusion that at least part of me is also a wildlife utilitarian. I eat meat – the prime example of supporting practices seek to exploit the land, and also consume game. Something which leaves me unable to broadly label all those involved in its production as “the enemy”. I also engage in wildlife tourism which, despite its obvious links to conservation, could also be seen as utilitarian. The money from which may go to good causes but more often than not, I suspect, also ends up lining the pockets of one individual or group.

I am also invested in the ascetic beauty of the land – who isn’t? Though my perception of beauty ofter varies with that of others. My ideal vision for a “wild” Lake District, for example, vastly different to those who view its current visage fondly. Which, again, links in with the conservational approach to things and leaves me at odds with those who utilise the land for their own financial gain.

Conclusion?

I, like so many others, am a big fat hypocrite with regards to wildlife and find myself falling into all of the above categories. Albeit to varying degrees. Motivated, on occasion, by each, yet still confrontational to each from time to time. Not that this is a bad thing, and the decisions of each group must be questioned on occasion, though absent sweeping generalisations. Everyone is entitled to view the natural world in the way they see fit, and often the labels we attach prove unfair. A farmer or gamekeeper actively invested in the land may still appreciate it for its beauty, and find themselves motivated, on occasion, by the principals of conservation. Whereas an ecologist, dedicated to the preservation of nature, may also exploit wildlife to a varying degree for food or enjoyment. It is all rather complicated, isn’t it?

Conflict when it comes to wildlife is inevitable, and in some cases healthy, though unless you are the staunchest member of each group – which few are – we must avoid the tendency to stereotype. It is possible to reach common ground with almost any stakeholder when one looks hard enough, and no individual is exempt from hypocrisy.

While we most challenge others perceptions, it is almost always necessary to understand what motivates others before doing so. There are very few clear-cut “bad guys” when it comes to wildlife, and even fewer wholly good ones.

Just a few thoughts – I apologise for the rather rambling post.

Reflecting on Rewilding (once again)

Ever since I first picked up a copy of George Monbiot’s Feral during my time as an undergraduate, I have been a firm disciple of the phenomenon known as ‘rewilding‘. I concur fully with the notion of restoring our degraded ecosystems to a more natural state, I support the reintroduction of extinct species – on both ecological and moral grounds – and feel that the rewilding approach, first coined by conservationist David Foreman, is by far the best means of soothing the grievous wounds inflicted upon the modern British countryside. If this makes me a “fantasist” or “eco-zealot” then so be it.

A few years back, I would have jumped at the chance of dumping Bears, wolves and other extinct megafauna back into the Scottish Highlands, or elsewhere. I would have, quite merrily, ranted and raved at those opposed to rewilding and would have proclaimed my belief in the practice from any available roof-top. I still would. Though in recent years, I have mellowed somewhat in this regard, and now find myself taking a more tempered, even critical, approach to the subject. Giving particular thought to the logistics, feasibility and, from time to time, the ethics of the issue. Not that this makes me any less of a supporter, and indeed, I still cannot help but cringe whenever I hear someone dismiss rewilding outright – much as certain rural factions and notable personalities have done of late.

By [2] – [1], CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37294448

Take for an example Robin Page, the former Telegraph columnist who recently published a blog on the subject here. I am not a fan of Page, largely due to his persisted bashing of conservation NGOs, TV naturalists and “designer” conservationists, but also due to his apparent belief that the only people who deserve an opinion on rural affairs are those who graft in the fields. Similarly, I abhor his dismissal of rewilding as little other than a poorly disguised attempt at class warfare, perpetrated by middle-class bunny huggers. It is not. And I cannot help but feel that like so many others, Page believes “rewilding” to revolve solely around the reintroduction of large, controversial carnivores. I do, however (and I cannot quite believe I am writing this), feel he is right about a few things. Even if they are presented in an unnecessarily antagonistic manner in the article shown above.

My personal stance on rewilding is that it is not, simply, about the reintroduction of large charismatic beasties such as bears, wolves and lynx. It is, to an extent – and I am a firm supporter of the ongoing efforts to reinstate Lynx, and the continued reintroduction of Beavers. These things, of course, have their place and come with a lot of ecological benefits, though some – bears and wolves – appear a little far-fetched at present. I hope, in time, that such ambitious schemes will come to fruition, though for me, rewilding is more of a “bottom-up” affair, involving gradual change and a shift in our combined mentality. As opposed to simply headline grabbing schemes sure to split public opinion.

Rewilding, to me, is about gradually restoring habitats to a more natural state and making small-scale gains which, in the future, may provide the basis for further reintroductions and wholescale change. It is about increasing our forest cover, replenishing our dwindling network of hedgerows, creating urban green spaces, supporting more holistic farming practices, restoring our wetlands and, above all else, educating people with regards to the benefits of such positive change. All of which, I believe – in accordance with Robin Page it would seem – cannot come at the expense of people.

Some of the more extreme supporters of rewilding, shall we say, appear to approach the issue like a bull in a china shop. Or, worse still, with a mindset not too dissimilar to that of those who governed the former British Empire, domineering and almost colonialist. Favouring land grabs and clearances and, it seems, showcasing a distinct disregard for the people caught up in the midst of the clamour. I believe we need such people, if only to push boundaries and promote dialogue, but cannot support this mentality myself. Nor can I buy into the flourishing notion that those who stand in the way of rewilding – farmers, gamekeepers, foresters, sportsmen etc – are little more than obstacles waiting to be overcome. These people, whether we like it or not, have a right to their way of life, and many, particularly farmers, have an important part to play. We cannot, after all, live without food. Thus I find our tendency to goad these people, and to ignore their worries outright, altogether counterproductive.

Rewilders have already made some wonderful gains – in the Lake District, in Scotland and further afield – though these, currently at least, remain rather isolated. The only possible way I can see to extend these gains across the entirety of Britain is through the combined voices of all. Not just of the few pioneering conservationists ready and willing to take a stand or our cash-strapped NGOs. We must find a way to make rewilding work for all, and dare I say it, realise that Britain will most likely never again resemble the wilderness it should be. There are simply too many people and too many vested interests in the countryside. This, however, does not mean that we cannot make the country a whole lot better. I believe we can, but only through cooperation as opposed to perpetual bouts of one-upmanship and bickering.

It is all well and good me saying that teamwork would be wonderful, though I am not so naive to believe this will come overnight. The countryside, at present, is far too polarised. Largely as a result of differing ideals – with some championing management, and others preferring to let nature manage itself. With a select few, much like myself, adrift in the middle. Agreeing with the arguments put forth by both sides, and wishing that everyone would just “suck it up” and find common cause.

Of course, I do not have the answers on how to fix our fractured countryside, though I do hold an opinion. And I, personally, would like to see an increased focus from conservationists, activists, campaigners and other groups, on reaching a mutually beneficial solution that works for both man and beast. Cooperating with farmers to push for a fairer system of subsidies post-Brexit would be a good start. Subsidies which would not favour the wealthy, paying out based on land ownership, but would support those who actively work to the benefit of nature. Particularly smaller landowners, many of whom, at present, receive little recognition nor reward for the great work they do. I would like to see people actively campaigning for compensatory systems, ready and waiting to mitigate the losses caused by reintroduced fauna, and would like to see a concerted effort, from all sides, to tackle invasive species – you cannot very well aspire towards a “wild Britain” while we have half of the tropics running rampant around our nation. I would also like to see a greater focus properly defining rewilding – with emphasis on just what the process can do for the everyday man. From natural flood defences to more pleasant country strolls – the possibilities are endless.

Above all else, however, I would like to see a shift in the “I am right, you are wrong” mentality that abounds in our countryside, from both sides. I would like to see conservationists abandon the moral high horse and find common ground with those of opposing views. This certainly will involve compromise – this should be expected, we are somewhat of a minority after all – and would involve the adoption of a more pragmatic approach. One that involves listening, as opposed to dictating. Equally, however, I would like to see those radically opposed to rewilding accept that nothing remains the same forever, and that change must come in order to protect the wildlife and wild spaces we all adore, work in, work with or manage. The British countryside is broken and I see rewilding as the perfect means by which to fix it. If, of course, we choose to abandon our trenches and approach the matter as adults.

By Sven Začek – Photography by Sven Začek., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12096440

Catgate: Some Personal Reflections

Cats have featured heavily in the media this week, though not for the usual reasons. Indeed, following the publication of Cat Wars, a new book by American author Peter P. Marra, our feline friends have found themselves at the epicentre of a heated debate regarding their supposed ecological impact. With British conservationists downplaying the authors comments that “all free-ranging cats should be removed from the landscape by any means necessary” due to their impact on native fauna.

In his book, Marra highlights the negative impact of free-ranging cats the world over, from New Zealand and Australia – where they are responsible for the near extinction of a number of endemic species – to his native America, and has since gone on to criticise the inactivity of British conservation bodies when it comes facing the problem in our own back yard. Echoing the earlier views of popular naturalist Chris Packham in calling for cats to be kept indoors, neutered or, in some cases, euthanised.

These views appear directly at odds with the popular line that despite being fairly numerous (7.4 million), and killing upwards of 55 million birds a year, that cats are a relatively harmless figment of the British landscape. With both the RSPB and John Bradshaw, director of the anthrozoology institute at the University of Bristol, claiming that cats are not a problem. Instead championing habitat loss as the main cause of bird decline in the UK.

By Niels Hartvig – Flickr: You even scare me, Psycho!, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31074921

As a cat owner, a cat-lover and also a naturalist, this is a debate which greatly interests me. And has done for a long time. Despite my cats being relatively housebound, and kitted out with enough bells to rival Santa’s sleigh, I have been unlucky enough to witness the effect of cats first hand on many occasions. Not often from my own, mercifully, yet only last week I pulled a moribund juvenile Greenfinch (a declining species in the UK) from my neighbours cat, and this summer witnessed a cat toying with the corpse of a Tree Sparrow – a ‘red list’ species of conservation concern. Such things have caused me to give considerable thought to the issue at hand.

In terms of the very public bickering going on between both sides, I actually find myself agreeing with both. I agree that cats are a terribly destructive force around the globe and, despite my fondness for them, find myself agreeing with control measures implemented by countries such as Australia, aiming to protect native wildlife from what is, above all else, an alien predator. I also agree with the RSPB that habitat loss is the number one cause of bird declines in the UK, that cannot be disputed. I am, however, a little dubious of their decision to dismiss the issue outright. Fifty-five million birds is, after all, a somewhat staggering number.

The RSPB are quick to point out that cats tend to prey on sick or injured birds. This may well be true, on occasion, but what about their tendency to raid the nests? Juvenile birds are neither sick nor injured, merely defenceless. Remember the nest of Wood Warblers on Springwatch a few years ago? Such behaviour is likely hugely under-recorded but who is to say it is not a problem? While most predators show a preference for easier targets, one must remember that cats, despite their appeal, are a superbly adapted killer, and like any other predator, have the potential to prey on healthy animals when the need be. Particularly in gardens where food is placed out absent consideration, as is often the case.

The other commonly voiced opinion with regards to cat predation is that they tend to predate, majoritively, common and widespread species. A statement recently echoed by Dr Mark Avery, who later went on to state that “cat control is far from a top level priority” insisting that we should work to combat issues such as climate change and raptor persecution first. Well, I agree with Mark on the second point, but as for the first, I remain sceptical, to say the least at least. The Springwatch Wood Warblers very publically showed that cats do indeed predate rare birds. Something brought home by my own encounter with the Tree Sparrow. Of course, it makes sense to believe that cats would consume common species – these are, after all, those most likely to be encountered within the ecosystem, though it is clear that this is not always the case. An important thing to remember given the depleted, often fragmented state of some rare bird populations. Could cats tip them over the edge? I suspect so.

The RSPB state on their website that the species suffering most from cat predation are likely (and in order): House Sparrows, Blue Tits, Blackbirds and Starlings. These species are indeed some of our most plentiful birds, but three of them are currently suffering declines in the UK. And in the case of the House Sparrow (red listed) and Starling (red listed) declining catastrophically. With House Sparrows, in particular, shown to be particularly prone to cat predation (Churcher & Lawton, 1987).

Of all of our birds, it is our embattled sparrows I fear for the most in regards to cats, with and a number of studies hinting at the potential role of cats in their decline. Indeed, Baker et al (2005) suggest the need for future research due to their own observations, and Crick et al (2002) highlight the fact “that cats (both domestic and feral) accounted for 26 million dead House Sparrows in Britain during 1997, of a total population of 49 million”. Does it not then stand to reason that cats could, at least in part, be blamed for the decline of this once common bird? I suspect it does, especially given the often shared habitat of both. Obviously many other factors pose a threat to House Sparrows – food supply, harsh winters, window strike, take your pick – but the deaths of 26 million that may otherwise have lived to “chirp” another day surely gives cause for concern? There is, however, a distinct lack of scientific evidence for those wishing to answer this question definitively.

I, personally, would like to see this issue given much greater consideration, particularly from the scientific community. It may only be an opinion, but with fifty-five million birds a year falling victim to cats (not counting for those undiscovered), it does raise alarm bells. As Mark Avery says, many factors have contributed to the declines of British birds and these are often of more pressing concern. It does, however, seem rather preposterous not to consider the impact of cats, especially given the woeful declines of some of their favoured prey species. And, of course, the trends observed elsewhere in the world. Yes, House Sparrows and their like are not endemic, nor on the verge of extinction, yet. But surely alleviating one source of pressure would be a good thing? It would not be easy, but it could be done.

As for the reluctance of conservation bodies to even broach the issue of cat predation, in my opinion, this relates directly to one thing. Membership. Many paying members of conservation bodies such as the RSPB likely own cats, a great many no doubt. These people directly fund the amazing work done by such organisations and would be peeved, let’s say, should said bodies demand their beloved tiddles be confined to the house. Many would likely pull their support for that organisation as a result of this, removing a substantial amount of income in the process. Just a thought, but if this is true, which to an extent I suspect it is, it is both understandable, yet entirely shameful at the same time.

I, personally, find myself agreeing most with Chris Packham on the matter. Cats should be kept indoors, much as my own are, and owners should be liable for the damage done by their marauding moggies when they are not. I would need to see a lot more evidence before I condoned lethal control of cats, but would like to see efforts to educate owners ramped up by those who claim custodianship of our environment.

Just some thoughts.

Share this:

Share this:

How do I personally perceive wildlife?

Conclusion?

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: