Tag: Conservation

Agricultural Policy To Blame For The Sorry State Of Nature

The latest State of Nature report was released this week to widespread debate on social media, and widespread coverage in national media. Though not all chose to dignify it, with the BBC in particular, and rather shamefully may I add, deeming the topic unworthy of a spot on the prime-time news. Combining the expertise and hard work of 50 conservation bodies, the report gives a brutally honest overview of the health of nature in the UK, and beyond, in her oversea territories. And, truth be told, does not make for overly pleasant reading, setting out a sombre tale of widespread and often catastrophic declines, and highlighting sorry state of wildlife populations in the British Isles.

“Of the nearly 8,000 species assessed using modern Red List criteria, 15% are extinct or threatened with extinction from Great Britain.”

The overall message of State of Nature is not a positive one, with countless British species now at risk of extinction. With population trends suggesting that the UK has lost “significantly” more nature than the global average over recent years, and that between 2002 and 2013, that 53% of species have declined in the UK. A woeful set of observations by any standard, the blame laid predominately on the doorstep of policy-makers in the agricultural community, with changes in farming practice listed as a driving force behind many of the declines. And climate change coming in second, though the impacts of this have been mixed.

When talking specifically of farmland, the report states that “Over the long term, 52% of farmland species declined and 48% increased”, while over the short term, the overall picture was unchanged”. Ultimately reaching the worrying conclusion that, overall, “12% of farmland species are threatened with extinction from Great Britain”. With farmland birds and butterflies perhaps of greatest concern, declining by 54% and 43% respectively since the 1970’s. With the reasons for these worrying trends laid bare for all to see and including:

  • A switch from spring to autumn sown crops
  • A decrease in hay production and the subsequent rise in silage production
  • The increased use of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides
  • The loss of marginal habitats such as hedgerows and farmland ponds

If anything, State of Nature highlights a need for a rapid and radical overhaul of farming policy and a distinct change in how farmers  conduct their operations. No easy task, given the fact that we all need to eat, and that Britain’s population continues to increase each year. Yet I fear tough decisions must be made in order to protect species such as the High Brown Fritillary and Corn Marigold from further declines in the future. With many cherished species now standing on the edge of an abyss.

Obviously, the farming community did not take the findings of the report lying down, and many have come out fighting against the accusations. With both the NFU and former Environment Secretary Owen Patterson quick to highlight the beneficial changes in farming policy that have taken place in recent times. Which, to be fair, I agree with. Agriculture has, after all, come on leaps and bounds in the last few decades, through sympathetic management and environmental stewardships – which the report discusses in length. Though it is clear, to me, that this is simply not enough. And equally clear that Owen Patterson’s assertions that uncontrolled predator numbers are to blame for the downward trend in our wildlife, are completely ludicrous. Yes, predators can and will cause a problem from time to time – unlike many people in the environmental field, I accept this and often condone control – though would it not be better to tackle the fundamental, irrefutable problems faced by our farmland wildlife before shifting the blame?

I am not anti-farmer by a long shot, nor are those behind State of Nature it would seem. They do, after all, refuse to pin the blame on farmers themselves, choosing instead to tackle the dubious decisions of policy makers. Yet the findings of the report tell a worrying tale, and it is clear that action must be taken now. Action that I feel must centre on maintaining the existing subsidy system post-Brexit, and provide a clear financial incentive for farmers to make the right choice. Though the situation post-Brexit remains unclear, and the natural world could well suffer as a result of weaker environmental policies. Only time will tell.

It is important to remember that the situation on our farmland is not all doom and gloom. It is not great, by a long shot, but there are notes of positivity in which we may take some solace. As the Daily Mail (I cannot believe I am mentioning them here) were all too quick to point out in a recent article.

While the Mail’s apparent attempt to gloss over the woes of our countryside is troublesome, at best, and their dismissive stance in regards to the figures set out in State of Nature is nothing short of infuriating, I fear they do make a good point. For once. And one that fits with earlier statements made by high-profile members of the farming community. That a great deal of our wildlife is also increasing. Indeed, State of Nature shows that “44% of species increased, with 29% showing strong or moderate increases” with 48% of farmland species also increasingly over the long-term. With no change in the number of species threatened over a short-term period.

While “no change” may not immediately sound like a good thing, it is promising to learn that no new species have been added to the ranks of those facing impending doom, and with 48% of farmland species actively increasing, it is clear that some credit must be given to the farming community. So yes, Guy Smith’s statement that the “the environmental lobby should not criticise all the time but to also pay attention to the successes” may well be based in the realm of reality. Indeed it is very easy to criticise farmers, and I have seen many blog posts doing so over the past few days. Yet it should be remembered that they do, from time to time, conduct some wholly positive work, and, at the best of times, have a rather difficult job balancing the needs of feeding an ever-growing population with those of the natural world.

As Ben Eagle states a recent (and rather excellent) blog on the subject: “It is very easy to farmer bash and for farmers to take this personally and bring up the drawbridge“. Though in doing so, we shoot ourselves in the foot. The only way forward now is to build on past gains and work together, as a combined and effective force, to improve the state of nature. This will involve work with farmers, but also other groups with a stake in our countryside, and may prove difficult at times. It is, after all, not easy to forgive the slights inflicted upon the natural world. We must, however, pool our resources in an effort to sway policy in a more promising direction, and through education inspire cooperation, to achieve our goals in the future. Cooperation, of the kind demonstrated by the fifty or so NGO’s behind the State of Nature report, will be our only respite in the future.

Now many will disagree with me here, but to me it seems to that the time has come for conservationists to yield the moral high-ground, and take note of the positive achievements of others, and for additional factions, namely farmers, to take the warnings of conservationists on board. To abandon their entrenched positions and to help sway environmental policy in the right direction. The State of Nature report does not make for enjoyable reading, but it does contain glimmers of positivity, and provides a basis for unified work in the future. Work which our embattled wildlife so desperately needs if it is to surivive long enough to be enjoyed by future generations.

The Importance of Dead Wood

The sight of a dead tree, denuded and stripped of its prior glory, appears to be a worrisome one to some. Those who view such things as a public health hazard, a catalyst for fire or, worse still, as simply untidy. Often to such an extent that some actively remove fallen trees, or at the very least, encourage others to do the same. Sanitising our woodlands through the misguided notion that dead wood somehow represents dead weight in the woodland ecosystem, and does not quite fit with the verdant vision of perfection many people have for our wooded places. Though, in truth, this could not be further from the truth.

Dead wood has littered the floors of British woodlands for millennia – since the first trees began to live, and die, in natural succession. Indeed in prehistory, our woodlands would look much different than they do today. Not least due to the absence of dead wood which, in a healthy woodland ecosystem, can comprise as much as 30% of total woody biomass. The woodlands of today, somewhat poor in comparison, lacking a great deal of this valuable resource. But what is it exactly that sends conservationists balmy over dead wood?

The truth is that dead wood is keystone component within woodland ecosystems, with between 20-40% of woodland species directly dependent on the resource. With both standing and fallen deadwood of paramount importance in creating microhabitats in which a vast number of species thrive. Including a diverse range of saproxylic (deadwood-dependent) fungi and a mindboggling variety of mosses and lichens. Species which, over time, break down the wood, releasing nutrients and allowing larger plants to colonise. The characteristic “hummocks” formed by aged tree stumps blanketed first in mosses, and later in Bilberry and Ling a familiar sight in our more natural woodlands. With dead wood, in turn, providing a valuable habitat for a number of increasingly rare insects. With notable examples including the Black Tinder Fungus Beetle – found only in Glen Affric – and the increasingly scarce Aspen Hoverfly. The latter now listed as BAP species of conservation concern and wholly dependent on, as its name suggests, decaying Aspen. These are not alone, however, and a veritable smorgasbord of beetles, flies, worms and bees also call dead wood their home.

The virtues of dead wood stretch far beyond the realm of invertebrates, however, and a number of arguably more charismatic species are also directly linked to its abundance. Among these, the Crested Tit, the poster-boy for enigmatic Scottish wildlife, which is highly dependent on dead Scots Pines for nesting. There is also the Willow Tit, a species subject to a pronounced population decline in recent years, as well as, of course, more woodpeckers, owls, tits and treecreepers than you can shake a decaying stick at. All of which goes without mentioning the myriad species which feed on the insects associated with dead wood – the warblers, flycatchers and crests. With bats too utilising standing dead wood (snags) for both summer and winter accommodation. Indeed, ten of our fifteen native species have, in fact, been shown to utilise such places.

CRESTED TIT (Parus cristatus)

The loss of dead wood from our woodlands is one of the most pressing conservation issues in Britain today, and many species are feeling the pinch. Whether from a decrease in suitable nesting sites or the loss of a vital food source. With dead wood dependent birds and insects comprising some of the most rapidly declining species today. Something which does not appear to have gone unnoticed, with many now, mercifully, taking action to rectify the problem, including both Trees For Life and the Foresty Commission. Though one of the most promising initiatives I have seen to date comes from the Westquarter Wildlife Group, who, at present, are pioneering a simplistic yet highly effective means of conserving this important resource. Through the use of specially designed plagues in order to educate the public regarding the importance of dead wood. Though the words below from Les Wallace gives perhaps the best summary:

“Westquarter Wildlife Group has pioneered something which may prove to be a useful tool in saving woods from the loss of dead wood, and it’s extremely simple and cheap. Dead trees, which constitute no genuine health and safety hazard, now carry a simple wooden plaque (a cut section of tree trunk), like the ones people have their house number on, with a message inscribed. With examples including, ‘Woodpeckers Love this Tree’ or ‘Dis Tree is Gr8 4 Wildlife’. The latter showing you can ‘text’ in order to make use of limited space and cut down on the routering, a form of carving, needed for a long lasting sign. There’s plenty of scope for creating new messages and making images of the animals and fungi that needs dead wood. Children could be asked to come up with their own designs. Which would be placed high enough on the tree to prevent vandal attacks, and remain conspicuous for years.

It’s straightforward enough – Gordon Harper of the Forestry Commission kindly donated the sawn wood, we just needed a wonderfully creative and patient person to router the actual message. Step forward group secretary Amanda Cameron. With the help of ranger Lesley Sweeney and assistant Finlay Maxwell two of the plaques have now been put up on dead tree stumps in Westquarter Glen. More will follow and hopefully there be other ideas to promote the need for dead wood and dying trees in the future. It may seem a very small step in practical terms, but, in reality, it’s quite a significant one.”

Personally, I love the idea listed above and take my hat off to the group for attempting it. As Les says, the scheme is simple, almost incredibly so, yet that, I feel, is the beauty of it. In a day where most people are unlikely to venture online in an effort to obtain the latest set of Forestry Commission guidelines or peer-reviewed journals, such things are a life saver. Short, sharp, informative messages – particularly important to children who, in the future, will be tasked with safeguarding the natural world. Such basic moves are essential in our day of growing detachment from nature, and I wish the group all the best in the future. Hopefully, in a few years, we will be seeing such measures enacted elsewhere in the UK.

If you would like to hear more about the antics of the Westquarter Wildlife Group, you can find them on Facebook. And if you wish to “do your bit” in the fight to conserve our priceless dead wood, the RSPB provide some tips on how you can do so. In your own backyard no less. See Here.

Buzzards, Badgers and Buffoons

Yes, the title of this blog post was directly influenced by former Daily Telegraph columnist Robin Page, who, true to character, recently launched a preposterous attack on “self-delusional” conservationists and what looks like every predatory species living in the UK. Check it out, it can be found here: “Buzzards and Badgers and Bigots“

I do not make a habit of launching personal attacks, no matter how much I disagree with a person’s point of view, thus will not aim to slander Mr Page here. It is clear that his views lie poles apart from my own, and that it fine by me. It is, after all, rather healthy to possess different opinions. On the contrary, it is not, however, healthy to broadcast misinformation. Nor to produce a misguided rallying cry for the predator-hating wildlife criminals in the UK, or attempt to justify their illicit actions under the guise of conservation. Which is exactly what I think Robin has done here, whether intentional or not. Condemning species such as Red Kites, Buzzards and Badgers for their “widespread” ecological damage, yet, somewhat mysteriously producing no evidence to back it up. Oh wait, moles in the conservation sector, right?

 First thing first, do predators impact upon prey populations? Yes of course they do. But only in localised areas, where a host of other factors have already reduced prey numbers. Factors that usually can be attributed to humans, whether they be farmers, gamekeepers, developers or any other group. It would make no sense, in evolutionary terms, for any predator to decimate stocks of its own food source. And, as a rule, predators only flourish where prey stocks remain healthy, targeting species based on abundance. An argument I have had with anglers, on a number of occasions, who had claimed that otters purposely target large salmonids, while in truth they prey on the most numerous species within the ecosystem. Amphibians during spawning, or ducks during the breeding season and so forth. Something I am sure also applies to badgers and raptors too.

As for predators such as sparrowhawks, badgers and kites wiping our declining species such as Skylarks, there is a wealth of evidence out there that shows that this is not the case. With a particular study, by the impartial BTO no less, springing to mind immediately. Concluding that “for the majority of the songbird species examined there is no evidence that increases in common avian predators or Grey Squirrels are associated with large-scale population declines”. While for more information on the topic you can check out Thomson et al whom similarly conclude that spreading corvids are not driving songbird declines, and a quick google search will turn up a wealth of similar evidence, all of which serves to dismiss this misguided view.

As I said, predators can have a localised impact on scarce species, hence why genuine conservation bodies, like the RSPB, do occasionally implement control measures. Sometimes such measures are justified and I, personally, agree with these. I do not, however, think it is just, nor reasonable, to blame predators for nationwide declines. Or to propose preposterous acts of “control” based on myths. Take a look at Skylarks, a species Mr Page has mentioned quite a lot in recent blog posts. They have declined horribly in recent years, as a direct result of poor habitat management and habitat loss, not predation. I really would be interested if anyone could produce a scientific paper suggesting otherwise? The same applies to Lapwings – I had thought that Lapwing declines had been driven through farming and the all out destruction of traditional breeding sites?

The next snippet that irked me in Robin’s latest outpouring was the bit about Buzzard and Badger diet. And his apparent belief that their diets are seemingly painted in an untrue light, with conservationists claiming that both species are heavily reliant on Earthworms, while in truth they are actually feasting on fledgeling birds. Well, yes, they undoubtedly do predate birds (and nests – as seen on Springwatch when a Badger at Minsmere unceremoniously destroyed an Avocet colony in a single night). Is this, and the horror stories produced by a vocal minority, reason enough to condone a change to the protected status of these species? No, not in my opinion.

Both Buzzards and Badgers are generalistic, opportunistic predators. They will eat whatever they find, when they find it. No one can dispute that. They do however rely predominately on common and widespread species. Such as Lagomorphs and, contrary to Robin’s assertions, Earthworms. No, they do note rely solely on these species, no one has ever claimed that to the best of my knowledge, but the facts point towards such items making up a large proportion of their diet, in keeping with their widespread status and the theory of abundance based prey selection. Do songbirds feature? Yes, they do crop up in dietary assessments from time to time, but in not in substantial levels. And certainly not to such an enormous extent to suggest that predators are eradicating passerine populations. It is no coincidence that many in the rural community have noticed vast increases in predator numbers at a time when prey populations have declined. This is, however, most likely due to the fact that such carnivorous species would likely, and wrongly, have been killed on sight in the not too distant past. Not the result of a conspiracy by conservationists, content to bury their heads in the sand.

Another point in this blog that stands out, is the blame cast towards the Badger for Hedgehog declines. Well, this one may be justified, to some extent. Badgers do have a negative impact on ‘hog populations where alternate factors such as road traffic and habitat fragmentation have taken effect. Again, is this reason enough to justify removing the Badger from the protected list? No – if conservationists are worried about the local impact of badgers they should apply for a license to control them. If it is deemed vital, I am sure they will be granted. To me it makes more sense to pursue the root causes of declines before jumping to radical extremes. And the same can be applied to wading birds, ground-nesting passerines too. Would it not be better to tackle the main causes – overgrazing in our woodlands, a lack of hedgerows, intensive farming, traffic, shoddy gardening etc – before resorting to such  shortsighted barbarity?

On, and as for the “designer conservationists with little understanding of the countryside” argument – that is a debate for another day. Though, like I have said before, attacks of this kind on scientists, interested townies and well-known TV presenters are nothing more than an attempt to “gag the opposition” and serve only to widen the divide between the two sides. In some cases, such designer conservationists have the best interests of our countryside at heart, whereas, in a number of cases, rural know-it-alls do not. (Many other rural folk are also excellent and certainly do have the best interests of the countryside at heart).

Robin Page does occasionally make a good point, I am unashamed to admit that, but calling for the widespread control of iconic predators based on sketchy evidence and high profile, yet sparse, instances of recorded predation is wrong.

Rant over, I promise to go back to pictures of fluffy animals and more positive accounts next time.

Five #conservation success stories from the UK

The life of a conservationist can be a thoroughly depressing affair, fraught with worry and persistent bouts of hopelessness. Indeed, in our day of constant negative news associated with the natural world – of declining species, degrading habitats and human ignorance – it can be hard to maintain an optimistic outlook. Particularly when the headlines are so often dominated by tales of once plentiful species now plummetting towards extinction, with Hen Harriers, Willow Tits, Small Tortoiseshells and so many iconic figments of our countryside teetering on the edge of an abyss.

Britain, at present, is not a rosy place for wildlife, nor those who enjoy it – with crushing news delivered near daily as yet more slights are inflicted upon mother nature. Despite the best efforts of those seeking to protect it. Yet, despite this, it should be remembered that positive change is, in fact, possible. And that, when we put our minds to it, we have shown time and time again that it is possible to reverse negative trends in our wildlife populations. That through practical conservation work, changing attitudes and a healthy dose of optimism, we can make a difference. As such, and in dire need of a more upbeat topic, below I have included a list of five such success stories.  All of which centre on species that, due to our own actions, have been pulled back from extinction in the UK. And all of which represent some positive nature news for a change, standing in stark contrast to the perpetual negativity that so often dominates the airwaves.

Red Kite

By Tim Felce (Airwolfhound) – Red Kite – Gigrin Farm, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30783810

Many raptors have shown an upwards trend in recent times, since misguided killings and dangerous pesticides became illegal. Species such as the Osprey and Goshawk are once again a familiar sight in our skies, while White-Tailed Eagles have been successfully reintroduced to Scotland and Buzzards have increased by around 300%. Indeed, with so many success stories in the raptor world, it is rather difficult to choose any one in particular, though, for me, the story of the Red Kite stands out from the crowd. For both its success, and the undeniable charm of the bird itself.

Going back a century or two, Kites were one of our most frequently encountered raptors. A familiar sight in countryside and town alike, and a cherished part of our biodiversity. Though sadly as time progressed, and our attitudes towards wildlife shifted, kite numbers suffered. As a direct result of persecution and the accumulation of dangerous chemicals in the food chain. Both of which damaged kite populations to such an extent, that by the early 1900’s Red Kites were extinct across most of the UK, including in both Scotland and England. The only remaining population of this iconic raptor clinging on in Wales, where the birds were eventually granted special protection.

Due to the slow rate of natural dispersal from the Welsh population, in 1989 steps were taken to restore this species to the wider countryside, and a reintroduction scheme was launched by the RSPB and the Nature Conservancy Council. With fresh stock imported from Spain, and some birds translocated from Wales, in order to establish populations in four additional areas. The Chilterns, East Midlands, Yorkshire and North-East England, with further reintroductions taking place at various sites across Scotland. And such measures, combined, helping to once again establish the species as a widespread breeding bird in the UK.

While the Red Kite is not out of the woods just yet, particularly in parts of Scotland where illegal persecution continues to limit population expansion, it is is largely out of danger. And today, some 1600 pairs of this enigmatic raptor now breed in the UK, with numbers set to increase further in the future. To the joy of many whom hold the birds to heart, and the annoyance of the few, who still view this species as a pest.

Bittern

From one charismatic bird species to another, the Bittern. A superbly adapted member of the heron family that once “boomed” in reed beds across the length and breadth of Britain. Before, of course, becoming extinct in the late 19th century as a direct result of habitat loss and hunting. The species formerly prized as a food source, and entirely dependant on wetland areas which, until fairly recently, suffered greatly from drainage.

The Bittern first made a comeback on British soil in 1911, when a pair bred in Norfolk. The precursor to a natural resurgence that saw 80 “booming” males in residence by 1954. Though this natural recolonisation was soon cut short as a direct result of the drying out of wetland habitats and a lack of sympathetic management, and by 1997 only 11 males were recorded nationwide. The Bittern, once again, one of our scarcest breeding bird species. And this decline alarming conservationists, including those at the RSPB, who then undertook a research project designed to assess the needs of this cryptic species, with the aim of conserving our dwindling population.

This research, conducted by the RSPB, has since lead to species-specific management across vast areas of the UK, involving reedbed restoration, scrub removal and the reshaping of pools across a number of historic breeding sites. And, ultimately, has saved the Bittern from a second extinction. The initial, embattled population increasing at thirteen of the sites managed by the RSPB by 2004, and the national population increasing to over 100 booming males in 2016. The highest it has been for quite some time.

While the Bittern is still far from a common sight across the UK, and remains at risk from climate change and rising sea levels, overall the future of this reedbed denizen look bright. Due, almost entirely, to the work of man. And, of course, the fact that dietary habits have changed greatly since the days when a Bittern made an acceptable choice for supper.

Large Blue

Large Blue by PJC&Co – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7329673

The Large Blue, the largest and rarest of our blue butterflies, has the regrettable honour of being the only butterfly species to go extinct, in the UK, in recent times. Succumbing to extinction in 1979, despite over fifty years of conservation efforts enacted to halt its rapid decline. The reasons for this thought to relate to habitat loss, poor management of traditional haunts and, finally, the onset of Myxomatosis which obliterated Britain’s rabbit population – rabbits are excellent at maintaining the short-cropped grassland that Large Blues, and their food plant, Wild Thyme, depend on.

Measures to reinstate the Large Blue were first undertaken in 1984, when the species was reintroduced to a number of suitable sites in Southern England. With butterflies brought in from Sweden following years of habitat managment to ensure the released sites met the standards required by the returning butterflies. Since then, our population of this bedazzling butterfly has increase year on year, and now the UK holds the largest population of this species found anywhere in the world. With roughly eleven populations now persisting in Devon, Gloustershire and Somerset, and managment continuing to ensure that the Large Blue flourishes long into the future.

Interesting fact: the Large Blue is unique among British butterflies in the sense that it depends, solely, on a single species of ant (Myrmica sabuleti). On which its larvae feed on during their ten month stay underground, having been carried into the ants nest by workers fooled by the caterpillars scent. As such, any management for the Large Blue must also benefit the ants too, which thankfully, it often does.

Polecat

Polecats, one of our most eye-catching, yet elusive Mustelid species, share an all too familiar story with many other threatened creatures in the UK. In the sense that, like Buzzards, Red Kites and Pine Martens, they were once persecuted to the brink of extinction due to their supposed negative impacts on human interests. With killing once continuing, unabated, to such an extent that the Britains remaining Polecats found themselves restricted entirely to Wales, and a small part of Northern Scotland.

With the onset of laws that prohibited the killing of Polecats and a general shift in public opinion towards such actions, this species has spread extensively in modern times. Regaining ground to such an extent that it can now be found across vast swaths of England, with populations in Suffolk, Norfolk and South Yorkshire, and occasional sightings further afield. Our growing Polecat population further bolstered by reintroductions in Cumbria during the 1980s.

Given the extent of recent gains, conservationists are now optimistic that Britains Polecats will continue to thrive long into the future. And that the species could recolonise yet more counties very soon. While the Polecat remains threatened in some places, mainly due to hybridization with escaped domestic Ferrets, and in some cases, continued illegal persecution, the future of this masked mustelid looks bright. Due, in no small part, to use of legislation to dissuade killing. And a population more sympathetic to the needs of wildlife.

New Forest Burnet

The New Forest Burnet is a scarce moth species now confined, entirely, to a single site on the coast of Western Scotland. Far from the woodland that gives this intriguing species its name. This population only discovered in 1963, with a stroke of luck, following the collapse and eventual extinction of the original English population in the 1920s. It has, since its discovery, been subject to rigorous conservation measures since 1991 in programme lead by Scottish Natural Heritage.

Given its specific habitat requirements, the New Forest Burnet is very susceptible to overgrazing. Particularly by domestic stock which limit the growth of its larval food plants – Meadow Vetchling and Common Bird’s-foot Trefoil. As such, as part of the 1991 initiative to protect this species, sheep were excluded from the site of the Scottish population, with promising results. Indeed, by 2001 population estimates placed numbers of this moth somewhere in the region of 10,000 individuals. A substantial increase on past estimates and a trend which continued until 2004 when the species underwent a partial decline. Though this decline was not sustained, and by 2005 the species had recovered once more.

In recent times, the New Forest Burnet has begun a slow colonisation of suitable sites in the immediate vicinity of the initial location, in some cases aided by man. With the possibility of more widespread introductions in discussion for the future. The main population of this species could, possibly, face declines due to the natural succession of its grassland habitat, although measures have been undertaken to halt this. Including the limited reintroduction of grazing stock into the area. All in all, the prospects of this colourful moth look rosy, with action on behalf of conservationists undoubtedly responsible for its continued longevity.

If young people hope for a greener future, they must act now.

Many people are quick to stereotype the new generation of young people. Branding them lazy, self-obsessed and simply disinterested in current affairs. And, by default, green issues.

The image of detached youths shut away in their rooms, absent care nor worry is, unfortunately, rife in Britain. And the misguided assumption that most young people are content to watch the world go by, detached from the wider issues plaguing our countryside sadly, still commonplace. As is the generalistic assumption that, besides the trail-blazing few, that most young people simply do not care about the environment. A false assumption, but one that prevails nonetheless, in our society. Despite that, in truth, more young people than ever before are now interested in green issues, and many aspire for a brighter future for both the environment and themselves.

From my experience, when asked, the vast majority of young people do care for the environment. For wildlife and, indeed, the future of the very planet on which we all live. At present, more young people than ever before are fighting for a greener future. By speaking out and drawing attention to important issues, or campaigning for just causes. A great deal of these now seek to educate, inspire and inform on green issues. And more still dedicate their time to enact their goals, whether through conservation work, campaigning or by other means. You just need to look at the plethora of dedicated, inspirational young people in the A Focus On Nature group to know that there is hope for the future. And to see that times are, mercifully, changing.

For every one person that takes a stand for a brighter future, however, it is safe to assume that there are ten that do not. People who do not, necessarily, care any less about the environment than their more vocal counterparts. But fail to act nevertheless. It is these people, in our day of ceaseless ecological ignorance, that we need more than ever. These people, the sleeping giants in conservation, ecology, policy and education, that could bring about the future many of them wish for. And these people who, in a day where wildlife finds itself besieged from all sides, who must now stand up and be counted. And while many, to no fault of their own, are unwilling to commit to a career in the turbulent environmental sector, each and all can make a difference. Below are a few thoughts of my own on how you can do just this.

Make yourself heard.

At present, it is easier than ever before to express an opinion and to project important information to a wider audience. Making yourself heard on environmental issues is vital, and at the very least can lead to increased curiosity that may just inspire others to look further into such issues. While, at the same time, it can also actively promote change. In both peoples outlooks, and their actions. Speak to friends, speak to family, and, if the mood takes you, utilise the phenomenon that is social media to inform the world about the causes you care about. Tweet it, Facebook it, Tumblr it, Instagram it. More people than every before are living an online existence, and the likelihood is, that in doing so, at least one person will take notice of you.

Write about it.

This links in with the former point, but for those interested enough to express their thoughts in words, there is a huge audience out there ready to take note of a well-written plea for action. The online realm is a great place to start and nature blogging is growing in popularity at present – with many people inspiring others through their encounters in nature or fanning the flames of action through motivational outpourings. Why not do the same? And remember to share your work far and wide on social media.

On the other hand, you could also proposition local newspapers to offer your views on topical issues, write to your MP to express concern on said issues, or, for those with a particular knack for literature, submit a piece to a popular magazine or mainstream newspaper. Written word has the power to inspire curiosity, intrigue, devotion and rage in equal measure, never forget that, as all can lead to change.

Utilise your talents

Think outside of the box! Many people are not overly confident in broadcasting their views, vocally or in words. Many people, however, do possess unique talents that could allow them to educate or inspire in their own, often quirky way. Can you paint or sketch? Create artwork with a message. Singers? Sing a song with meaning. Athletic? Run for charity, or to raise awareness of your chosen issue. Each person is wonderfully different, and each person is capable of enacting change in their own, unique way. Skydive, serenade or skinny dip, why not do it for a good cause.

Volunteer

Now this is an obvious one, and most people know that, should they wish it, that there are dozens of conservation charities out there ready to accept help. Do it! Build fences, eradicate invasive species, raise money, lead trips, dig ditches, fix footpaths, do whatever you can to contribute to your cause. And for those seeking something different, remember that not all volunteer work has to be physically demanding. Nor for a large NGO. Dedicate time to curate your local museum, utilise your social media and writing skills to contribute to the online presence of a club or group, or venture into schools to inform the next generation of young naturalists. Most people, organisations, schools, and charities, despite not advertising volunteer positions, will gladly accept help. Remember to ask and explain why.

Get into politics

Despite the record turnout, it is likely that if more young people voted in the recent EU referendum, that the disastrous decision to leave may not have come to fruition. That ship has sailed, sadly, but we can learn from it. And getting involved in politics is the perfect way to make a difference on the issues you care about. Read manifestos and join a party you believe in – not who you are told to believe in. Once you have done that, vote in leadership contests and later, local and general elections. Use your vote to make a difference. And, for those wishing to go beyond this, why not lobby your MP? Meet them, write to them, campaign for them. Every little piece of effort really does help.

Do not be afraid to question others

This step really links in with the four mentioned previously but is vital in itself. If you feel that someone has made a dreadful decision, or committed to a dubious course of action, do not be afraid to speak out. Question your MP on their policies, your friends on their views, or even conservation bodies on their choices. Questions raise answers, and answers can sometimes yield positive results. If they do not, and fail to set your worries to ease, then take to social media, write, campaign and get involved in politics. If only to inspire more questions, from others, that may force a different response.

Inspire a friend

This is a difficult one. Many young people will not necessarily possess friends favourably inclined towards the environment, I certainly didn’t until fairly recently. This does not mean they cannot be inspired. Change your planned catch-up to incorporate a more natural setting, and show them first-hand the joys of nature. Inform them of the wider implications of their choices, question their views and educate them. More importantly, ensure them that they, themselves, can make a difference. Start the process anew.

Join a community

Life can be a lonely affair for young people interested in nature, and there are many horror stories associated with this. Though it does not have to be this way. Now, more than ever, there are dozens of groups where you can meet like-minded individuals, to share your views, network and make friends. Join a community and get involved. There are some wonderful ones of there, that meet a host of needs and cover a vast array of interests. A Focus On Nature (again), that provides a hub for all nature lovers. Wilder – for those looking to campaign, and more niche groups such as Next Generation Birders, for those fond of avian pursuits. There are, of course, many more than this. All of which can be found during a brief search of the internet. Or, in the case of local groups, advertised in a whole manner of odd places. Keep your eyes peeled.

Act Now

Now, this is the biggy, and the culmination of all points mentioned previously. Whatever you choose to do, whether you take up writing for nature, uncover a spark for online campaigning, or a particular interest in politics, please act now. As I have said before, every little action can help. What does not help, is waiting for others to enact change on your behalf. If you care about something, and this does not apply solely to green issues, then shout about it. Raise a clamour, educate, inspire, or take up a placard. Action is always better than inaction, and whatever you do, however small, will contribute to a brighter future.

The New Forest is degrading, and Bambi is not to blame.

It may surprise you to learn that the New Forest, one of our few remaining relics of a more holistic Britain, is crumbling. From the inside out. The forest, like so many others in our day and age, plagued by overgrazing. The only difference being that, in this case, unlike other wooded areas continuously degraded through grazing pressure – the Caledonian Pine woods of Scotland, for example – that Bambi is not to blame. And the real culprit is one you may not immediately suspect.

The New Forest is unique among British woodlands. Comprising an intriguing mix of ancient woodland and open heath which, together, provide the ideal conditions for biodiversity to flourish.  Indeed, the forest itself is home to some 92% of Britain’s reptile species, with Slow Worms, Adders and, increasingly threatened Sand Lizards still, mercifully, abundant. It also boasts an incredibly diverse floral community: of ancient Beech trees and towering Oaks, which cast their imposing shadows over an understory rich Holly and Hazel. The botanical elements that make up this great wood, irresistible to woodland birds. Including red-listed species of conservation concern. And, on a good day, one may bear witness to Honey Buzzards pirouetting above the canopy, Lesser-Spotted Woodpeckers foraging amid the daintiest of fronds, or, at dusk, Nightjars hawking the heathland clearings. The New Forest is, by all accounts, the jewel in the crown of our modern woodland realm. Albeit one that is being gradually tarnished.

As well as the creatures listed above, and more amphibians, fungi and endearing invertebrates than you can shake a stick at, the New Forest is also, and quite famously, home to ponies. Ponies that have roamed in the shade of the forest for centuries. And, through the practice of “commoning”, have greatly contributed to the forests current visage. Their persistent grazing helping maintain a favourable condition for much of the wildlife that persists there today. At least until now.

In the present day, the ponies that have for centuries, shaped this special place, are a major factor in its continued demise. Their population soaring from c2000 individuals during the 1960’s, to an estimated 5000 today. An increase aided, in no small part, by subsidies which – under the Under the Verderers’ Grazing Scheme (VGS) – can pay each farmer up to £68.00 per pony, annually. The problem only bolstered by yet more financial incentives for commoners to increase their stock, with a new system of payments, which offers £269 per pony, coming into force just last year. Under the EU-funded Basic Payment Scheme (BPS).

These payments – which effectively reward farmers for increasing the size of their herds – are doubtless a leading factor in the forests current battle with overgrazing. And have, for the large part, gone relatively unscrutinized for many years, until now. With multiple sources now voicing their concerns over the current system, and the impact it is having on the forest ecosystem. And many veteran trees now feeling the effects of an unsustainable number of ponies.

Among those critical of the current schemes is prominent naturalist Chris Packham, who recently expressed his concerns to The Guardian. Warning that if action is not taken to combat overgrazing now, that “there will be no New Forest tomorrow“. While Sam Manning, the founder of the up and coming conservation campaign group ‘Wilder’, has also expressed his concerns on the matter. Echoing worries about the forest and the damage being brought about by its wayward ponies:

“We know that ponies have a grazing intake three times higher than deer. Deer numbers are at a historic low of 2000, while ponies are over 5000. The stripping of bark on beech trees photographed in the guardian article is not the result of ponies as some have suggested. The forestry commission has evidence that it is certain individual ponies. A meeting has been had on this issue by the verderers (minutes available on their website ) and still, nothing has been done about the issue.

There is a lack of political will amongst the managing organisations in the forest, about solving the issue of overgrazing. If this problem is not solved, the long-term condition of the New Forest’s rare and treasured habitats will decline further.“

Sam, who I have spoken to at length about the matter, has also stressed that neither Wilder, nor himself, condone a cull of ponies. Instead drawing attention to the other means by which grazing impact may be reduced:

“Numbers could be reduced by restricting breeding (which is controllable) and overseeing a generational phase out of the current levels. Allowing ponies to live out their natural lives, alternatively, individuals could be sold. Grazing is essential to the new forest ecosystem, too little and habitats scrub over, but too much – and we see the damage to biodiversity that is occurring now, there needs to be a scientifically advised cap on pony numbers, and commoners should be financially incentivised to maintain an optimum grazing level.“

Opinion

Like any issue that clashes with agricultural, and indeed, cultural interests, this is not an argument that is going to vanish anytime soon. Though, to me, the course of action is clear. Pony numbers must be kept in check: both for the sake of the unique ecosystem at the heart of the New Forest, and the many scarce species that call it home. While subsidies have, and continue to, bring about positive change for the environment, they should not be issued absent thought. And their impacts should be properly thought out. Something which, in this case, was clearly not the case. The New Forest is a bastion of life amid our increasingly degraded countryside, and it cannot be allowed to fall into ruin. Commoners must manage their stock appropriately, to mitigate the negative repercussions of overgrazing, and I cannot help but feel that a reevaluation of payment criteria may well be necessary. Both for the New Forest, and other areas similarly plague by overgrazing elsewhere in the UK.

This is an issue that, unlike many others, may be resolved with a few similar changes. Alterations that, I hope, would help reach a beneficial solution for both the embattled forest and those who have worked and managed it for generations. Though only time will tell, I guess.

If you would like to get involved with Wilder, you can check them out on Twitter (@Wilder_UK) or join the movement on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/wilderUK

A focus on Black Grouse decline

The Black Grouse (Tetrao tetrix) is, by far, my favourite upland bird. A vision of unrivalled beauty, clad in flamboyant plumage and boasting a surprisingly timid demeanour. A species which, each year, leks its way into my heart as I make my annual pilgrimage to view the birds in their upland realm. Usually at RSPB Geltsdale, or, should the mood take me, the Scottish Highlands. Grey hen or black cock, it matters not, and many it seems share my affection for the bubbly jock – a local nickname bestowed upon it in parts of Scotland, in reference to the bubbling call of amorous males. And many, like me, seek them out whenever possible. Ventures that sadly, increasingly result in failure, as like many other British species, the Black Grouse finds itself ensnared in a downwards spiral. Our population of this charismatic game bird, plummeting, year on year. A historic decline that continues until this day, and one that I thought I would look atin this post.

Black Grouse – RSPB (http://www.rspb.org.uk/joinandhelp/otherwaystohelp/famousblackgrouse.aspx)

A History of Declines

The historic decline of the Black Grouse is well documented. An all too familiar tale of human ignorance, inactivity and the resulting decline of an iconic species.

Once a familiar sight across much of Britain, present in quantities enough to sustain shooting on a level wholly unheard of today, grouse populations began to plummet during the latter half of the 19th century. Across much of the species range within the UK. Remaining somewhat numerous until the 1970’s, where a rough estimate put their numbers at somewhere in the region of 10,000 to 100,000 birds. Though it is thought that the real number fell well within the lower portion of this range. The species, subject to a 28% reduction in range between 1968 and 1988 alone.

 Once a familiar sight across much of Britain, present in quantities enough to sustain shooting on a level wholly unheard of today, grouse populations began to plummet during the latter half of the 19th century, across much of its range within the UK. Remaining somewhat numerous until the 1970’s, where a rough estimate put their numbers at somewhere in the region of 10,000 to 100,000 birds – though this is thought that the real number fell well within the lower portion of this range. The species, subject to a 28% reduction in range between 1968 and 1988.

Since the time of these early surveys, grouse populations have continued to free fall, until fairly recently. The overall population of this iconic species declining from an estimated 25,000 lekking males in 1990, to just 6510 in 1996 (SNH, 2016). With an average rate of decline of 10% per year. Mirroring regional trends across the UK: with only 139 lekking males recorded in Wales during 1997, and widespread declines across parts of Scotland. Though it was the English population that suffered the most. With recent regional extinctions in Staffordshire and Lancashire and the complete failure to find any remaining birds in areas subject to previous extinctions. Including the New Forest and Exmoor, where grouse persisted until the 1960’s. Indeed, some estimates suggest that, at present, the Black Grouse population in some areas is continuing to fall each year, with annual declines of between 10-40% observed.

It should be noted, that Black Grouse in some areas have recovered somewhat in recent times. With surveys in 2002 and 2006 showing an increase in numbers in Northern England, from 773 males to 1029, and exceptional increases observed in the Yorkshire dales between 1998 and 2006. The latter increase estimated to stand somewhere in the region of 128%. Though, in more recent years, this population seems to have declined, once more, to within the region of 700 males.

More recently still, the Welsh grouse population increased to around 328 birds, with similar (yet isolated) increases observed in parts of Scotland, including Dumfries and Galloway. Despite these recent gains, however, the Black Grouse remains one of Britains most threatened birds species and a BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) priority species. With the British population of increasing significance, given the wider declines taking place across Europe – where the species has decreased catastropically across much of its known range.

Causes of the Decline

There are many catalysts for the decline of the Black Grouse. With habitat loss, perhaps the most pressing. And overgrazing, by both sheep and deer, thought to be a major contributing factor. Specifically, across areas of heath and grassland favoured by Black Grouse – where increasing numbers of ungulates remove much of the cover grouse broods utilise to feed. The loss of botanical elements such as Bilberry and birch scrub proving particularly  detrimental. Elsewhere, agricultural intensification across formerly arable areas is also thought to have removed an important food source for some grouse populations. And a subsequent loss of invertebrate life in some places is also thought to be a contributing factor – with insects of particular importance to grouse chicks. (See here for more information).

Habitat loss and degradation also extend to wooded areas favoured by Black Grouse, particularly conifer plantations. Many of which, until fairly recently, provided a refuge for the species. It is thought that young plantations, such as those planted within the second half of the 20th century, typically benefit grouse numbers, supporting a dense understory of heather and Bilberry. These plantations typically mature within 10-15 years, however, thus shading out this understory and removing both nesting habitat and a food source for grouse. An increasingly common trend in current times as timber plantations, planted in past decades, reach fruition. While conifer plantations, in their infancy, may bolster populations, it is accepted that, overall, afforestation may have contributed to an overall decrease in habitat suitability for Black Grouse.

Habitat fragmentation is likely also a factor in recent declines, with many grouse populations now hemmed up in areas that favour their needs. And separated, sometimes by great distances, from other populations. This reduces genetic diversity, leads to inbreeding and, over-all, means that the most isolated colonies are unlikely to persist much longer. (SNH, 2016).

In addition to habitat loss, it is also thought that shooting could have played a part in the decline of the Black Grouse. Shooting which, despite low numbers, continues until this day – between the 20th of August and the 10th of December each year. While most estates that still possess Black Grouse do not harbour numbers enough to sustain driven shoots, of the kind seen in previous centuries, a number of birds are shot each year on walk-up days. And more still are killed accidentally, due to mistaken identity, often during driven shoots for Red Grouse. Particularly greyhens, which may appear somewhat similar to the untrained eye. To combat this, some estates now impose a fine for any Black grouse killed in this way, though these are likely not enough to provide a serious deterrent. Illegal shooting, for trophy birds, has also been reported at Black Grouse leks in recent years and is seen as serious wildlife crime.

In addition to the factors listed above, a number of other issues have been linked to the decline of this iconic bird. With predation foremost among them. Indeed, species such as Fox, Stoat and Carrion Crow are thought to have a profound impact on grouse numbers in some places, while links have also been found to Pine Marten. Particularly during studies in Northern Europe which showed grouse numbers to increase immediately after the removal of martens (Angelstam 1984; Willebrand 1988). This is likely the reason that some  of our healthiest grouse populations now persist on moorland estates – where such predators (with the exception of martens) are vigorously controlled.

Other issues associated with the collapse of the Black Grouse population includes deer fencing – with which the birds collide with some frequency – and weather. And it is clear, that despite recent gains, and the tireless work of conservation bodies, more must be done to bring this species back from the brink. With the shooting of “black game” becoming increasingly rare and habitat slowly being reinstated, there may well be hope for the future. And I, for one, long for the day that the bubbly jock once more roams the length and breadth of upland Britain.Optimistic? Perhaps…

#VisionForNature: A Groundbreaking Call For Change

 This week, to widespread applause, ‘A Focus on Nature’ published their phenomenal #VisionForNature report. A document like no other – one in which a plethora of incredibly passionate young naturalists set out their vision for nature by the year 2050. A document which, following two years of hard work on behalf of those involved, stands as a loud, proud, call for change; urging the government to immediately step up and offer our embattled wildlife the increased protection it so desperately requires. The report can be downloaded here and truly, if you read one thing today, let it be this.

Vision For Nature is bold, very bold: highlighting the shortcomings of politicians and decision makers who, to date, have done very little to safeguard the environment. Not only does it call for the increased protection of wildlife and wild spaces, but for a fundamental shift in the way we view and interact with nature. It calls for a greener society and ecological integration into all areas of daily life. Calling on businesses, food producers, educators and landowners alike to do their bit, and ensure that by 2050, nature will find itself in a far better state. The report itself setting out recommendations for each group in turn, offering clear intruction as to how each – farmers, landowners, politicians and more – can shape the future of the British ecosystem. In the report, no stone is left unturned and no possibility unexplored, and AFON do not hold back when stressing how things could, and should be, in the future.

Vision For Nature is also unprecedented in the sense that it also calls for change on behalf  of conservation bodies. A brave move, and one that personally, I find nothing short of admirable. It exposes the flaws of the nature conservation movement, with a notable example being the lack of social and racial diversity in the field. The report calls on NGOs to be open their doors to those from all walks of life, not just the priviledged few who, at present, can afford to enter the field. It states the need for a living wage for interns and for a rethink of entry requirments for roles within the sector. Moves which, if acted upon, will surely inspire many and more young people, from all backgrounds, to take up arms in the protection of nature.

In short, the Vision For Nature has great potential, both as a constituion for future, ecologically-concious goverments and bench-mark to which each and every one of us must strive to reach, if we are to protect nature. It has the potential to not only influence policy, but to influence the very lives of each and every person living in the UK. Particualy young people, who through education and increased opportunies may well find themselves in a position to enact further positive change come 2050. After, of couse, the aspirations set out in the report are met. Which, choosing to think positively, I am sure they will be. Due, in no small part, to the hard work and determination of the young people currently rallying in defense of the natural world. Well done to all involved, Vision for Nature truly is remarkable.

Further #VisionForNature reading can be found here, here and here. Please do take a look.

How YOU can help the environment post Brexit.

Dr Rob Sheldon recently published an excellent blog post on what average joes like you, and me, can do to safeguard the environment post-Brexit. The piece can be found here, I would really advise everyone to give it a read.

In it, Rob sets out a number of things each and every one of us can do to ensure our voices are heard, and the topics we care about – whether that be conservation, protective legislation or anything else – are discussed. Now more than ever it is imperative that we raise a clamour of the kind never before seen in Britain. It is important that we unify, pool resources and provide a powerful voice for the environment which looks set to be swept under the rug once more – with our politicians once more turning a blind eye to the needs of our embattled countryside. As such, I have included below, courtesy of Rob, a list of eight things you all should consider in the coming months. With an extra addition by myself.

1)      If you aren’t a member or supporter of a conservation or environmental NGO, then consider joining one. RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have a proven track record in influencing wildlife and environmental policy.

2)      If you are a member of a wildlife or conservation NGO, then please write to the Chief Executive asking them to take immediate and positive action for a post-Brexit environment. Ask them to join forces with other NGOs and organisations to provide a large unified voice that can’t be ignored.

3)      Join the Green Party as the only political party in the UK that has the environment at its core.

4)      Write to your MP and explain your concerns for the future of the UK environment and that you want to see the environment at the heart of the Brexit negotiations. Find your MP here.

5)      Get active on social media? Do you use Twitter or Facebook? If so make regular contributions about the environment. Follow the NGOs and leading environmental figures and help spread a positive message.

6)      The Environmental Audit Committee have recently launched an inquiry into the future of the natural environment after the EU referendum. Take part, either by contributing directly or asking any NGOs that you are a member of to put across your views.

7)      Zach Haynes has recently set up a petition on the UK Government and Parliament website asking for strong environmental and wildlife laws to be adopted. If you agree, then simply sign it.

8)      Talk to your family, friends and work colleagues about the natural environment and how wonderful it is. Help create a sense of pride in our natural environment. Yes, it could be better, but it could also be worse.

9) Join us at Wilder, a new wildlife-specific, grassroots campaign set up to lobby support for the natural world. An organisation which, though in its infancy, is helmed by a dedicated group of young conservationists – each passionate about preserving the laws that safeguard our wildlife. I will be tweeting and blogging from their accounts for the foreseeable future, and look forward to sharing a lot more excellent article, such as the one above, in the very near future.

Pondering the Prospects for Lowland Rewilding

Another intriguing post by Ben Eagle looking at rewilding in the often forgotten lowlands. Places over overlooked during talk of sprawling pine forests, prowling wolf packs and “unpleasant” grouse moors. Give it a read!

The rewilding fraternity seems to have gathered its main focus thus far around making a case for upland landscapes as the most likely or suitable hosts for rewilding projects. The more productive and urbanised lowlands feature less in the debate. One could say that there are many logical economic and ecological reasons for this. Nonetheless, […]

via Pondering the Prospects for Lowland Rewilding – some reflections on the Rewilding Dorset conference — thinkingcountry

Eagles Owls, Native or Not?

Recently the Eagle Owl was cast into the spotlight once again, notable sportsman Sir Ian Botham using the species as the basis for a scathing attack on the RSPB. In his article, published in the Daily Mail and found here, Botham accuses the RSPB of wanting to “nip the ongoing colonisation of Eagle Owls in the bud” and goes as far as to accuse conservationists of deliberately disturbing nesting owls. These accusations have been dismissed by the RSPB, who stress that at present, no action is being taken against the species. Instead the RSPB highlight the need to monitor the ongoing spread of B.bubo with regards to the potential implications associated with the presence of the species in Britain – not ruling out future action should problems emerge. All of this, whether based in fact or fiction has once again hurled Bubo bubo into the limelight. Many, it seems, are unable to decide whether the species is in fact a natural figment of the British landscape, an acceptable non-native on par with the much smaller Little Owl or indeed, a damaging invasive species worthy of control measures.

By Dick Daniels (http://carolinabirds.org/) – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17039928

Britain’s existing Eagle Owls

it is the opinion of some, that the Eagle Owls currently dwelling in the UK are decedent entirely from domestic stock (RSPB, 2016). The species has been kept commonly in captivity since the 17th century and remains a popular choice of pet for many, including non-falconers, due to the fact no formal license is required to own one. When selling an Eagle Owl, a certificate is however required; such certificates can be used to give an insight into how many owls are kept in the UK. In the ten years leading up to 2007, over three thousand such certificates were issued though this only represents birds sold to new owners and it is estimated that many more are kept nationwide (RSPB, 2016). With so many owls kept as pets, it is inevitable that some will find their way into the wild – whether through deliberate releases or accidental escapes. Indeed, the RSPB estimate that as many as 65 owls could escape into the wild each year. Many of these likely to survive due to the owls broad diet and adaptation to our climate. Both the RSPB and British Ornithologists Union (BOU) hold the opinion that the Eagle Owl residing in Britain at present are non-native.

Whereas many of Britain’s Eagle Owls almost certainly stem from domestic escapes, there are those who argue that the species has occurred naturally in the UK – contrary to the claims of the RSPB and British ornithologists Union (BOU). Among these, the World Owl Trust have proven vocal on the matter. Citing records from Orkney (1830), Shetland (1863, 1871) and Argyll (1883) and highlighting the continued expansion of the species in mainland Europe, the trust suggest that there is no reason that at

least some of the Eagle Owls currently inhabiting Britain could have occurred naturally. The World Owl Trust also highlight a wealth of data that appears to suggest wild Eagle Owls have existed (and still exist) in the UK. Among this; perhaps the most persuasive argument put forth is the presence of B.bubo in the fossil record – something which suggests that the Eagle Owl did indeed inhabit the UK before eventually succumbing to extinction. In a 2007 study published in British Birds, John Stewart concluded, following a review of the archaeological records, that “Eagle Owls form a natural part of Britain’s fauna”. This paper is freely available online.

The World Owl Trust also put forth other evidence to suggest that B.bubo is in fact native to the British Isles, the following appearing to lend credence to this theory:

* The occurrence of three birds in Donegal, Ireland following a a sevre northeasterly weather front.

* The account of R, Bowdler Sharpe of the Zoological Department of the British Museum, suggesting that wild birds have been previously shot on Orkney and Shetland – where the likelihood of escapes occurring is severely diminished.

* The recording of this species as a “rare vagrant” by numerous sources including Bernard Tucker, author of ‘the handbook of British Birds’, as well as T.A Coward and Charles St. John.

* The conclusion of the authors of the renowned Collin’s Bird Guide that “a handful of genuine records have occurred in Britain, all in the 19th Century”

* Reliable sightings (and photographic evidence) of Eagle Owls resting on North Sea oil platforms

All in all, the World Owl Trust provide a veritable smorgasbord of information suggesting that the Eagle Owl is in fact a native British species, all of which can be found here:

http://www.owls.org/sites/default/files/Eagle_Owls_In_Britain_Dossier_Revised.pdf

The debate surrounding the Eagle Owl in Britain is a very interesting one. Personally I find myself agreeing with the stance of John Stewart and those at the World Owl Trust – I believe that Eagle Owls have and indeed, still do occur wild in Britain. Until a ringed bird is recovered however or a bird is actually caught in the act of migrating, the debate will rage on. The RSPB and other parties are right to monitor the situation, though I, like many other birders, welcome the addition of the Eagle Owl to the British List and look forward to, some day, viewing these imposing predators wild in the UK. Something which may never happen if action is taken to halt the further spread of the species, though only time will tell if such action is ever deemed necessary.

The historic decline of the Grey Partridge

Living where I do, secluded in a reasonably rural area of Northumberland, Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix) are still, thankfully, rather abundant. Indeed, many an evening stroll is accompanied by the guttural croaks of amorous male partridge and any venture into nearby farmland carries the risk of a mini-heart attack, induced by erupting covey’s vacating their grassy abodes. Up here in the North, you would be forgiven for assuming that this species is actually doing rather well – they are certainly easy enough to come by, all be it with a little effort. The fact of the matter remains however that the Grey Partridge, once one of our commonest and most widespread game birds, has declined massively. The history of this charismatic farmland denizen an overtly solemn one and the future of this much loved species, still undecided.

Historic declines 

The Grey Partridge was once the most widespread and heavily exploited game bird in the UK; its historic fondness for grassy steppe habitats allowing it to adapt readily to cultivated ecosystems. Indeed, during the 18th and 19th century, aided by an increase in arable farming, land enclosure and widespread predator control the partridge population expanded considerably. So much so that between 1870 and 1930, upwards of two million Grey Partridge were shot in the UK each year (Tapper, 1992). The latter representing a number that may, at first, sound unsustainable but one that had little impact on the overall population ofP.perdix at the time- a testament to the health of the UK population in the last century.

Like many farmland bird species, the Grey Partridge has not fared well in modern times (Tucker and Heath, 1994) – the population high prior to 1930 now, sadly, a thing of the past. This species has declined across the length and breadth of Europe, showing a decrease in population size ranging from 1% to 80% between 1990 and 2000 (Kuijper et al, 2009) with the UK showcasing one of the most pronounced downward trends. The decline of P.perdixappears to have taken place in three distinct stages; a stable period characterized by high hunting bags, often 100 partridge per square kilometer between 1793 and 1950 followed by a rapid decline between 1950 and 1970 (Kuijper et al, 2009). The latter made apparent by a sharp decrease in the size of hunting bags (Potts & Aebischer, 1995). The third and final stage, from 1970 until the present day, shows a slower, gradual decline in partridge numbers across much of the UK (Potts, 1986). For once, the reasons for this decline appear clear and much research has been carried out on the subject, some of which I will attempt to summarizes here.

The initial decline (1950-1970) 

The initial population crash, the one that took place in the UK between 1950-70 has been largely attributed to a rapid decrease in chick survival rate (Kuijper et al, 2009) – something observed right across Europe during the first years of partridge decline (Potts, 1986). This apparent increase in mortality coincided with an increase in the use of pesticides to prevent agricultural crop damage, among these; herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. Whereas prior to 1950 only 7% of crops were sprayed in this manner, by 1965 more than 90% were exposed to pesticides (Potts, 1986) – coinciding perfectly with the drop in partridge numbers. Such chemicals may affect birds in a number of ways, firstly through direct poisoning of the partridge themselves though little evidence exists to support this theory and instead the indirect implications of pesticide use are thought to have played a bigger role (Kuijper et al, 2009).  Such pesticides have been shown to directly affect adult partridge through the removal of preferred food sources, among these; chickweed and black bindweed, and the removal of insect prey on which partridge chicks depend. A number of studies, including those of Moreby et al (1994) and Taylor et al (2006) have found a direct link between pesticide use and chick food availability – supporting the conclusions of Potts (1986) and others. As it stands, pesticides and their associated impact on the food chain in farmland ecosystems may well be the driving factor behind the decline of the Grey Partridge in the UK.

Habitat loss is also cited as a major factor in the pre-1970 decline of Grey Partridge in the UK (Kuijper et al, 2009; Potts 1986). During these initial crashes, habitat quality in agricultural ecosystems began to deteriorate; hedgerows and unmanaged areas largely removed as farming practices intensified. This removed vital breeding habitat for Grey Partridge who depend on such cover for protection from predators (Rands, 1987). Of course, the removal of such habitats also removed yet another valuable food source and thus can be closely linked with previous talk of chick mortality. In short, the way we managed our farmland prior to 1970 was irafutably to blame for the decline of P.perdix. But what about post-1970?

The continued decline (1970-present) 

Whereas pesticides and habitat alteration and the resulting decrease in chick survival rate were surely to blame for declines prior to 1970, studies have shown these are not responsible for the continued decline in modern times (Potts & Aebischer, 1995). Instead it is believe that a decline in nesting success is to blame for this sustained downward trend, increased predation to blame for a rise in both the mortality of incubating hens and the eggs themselves (Kuijper et al, 2009). This increase coinciding with a decrease in gamekeeping operations and thus, predator control since the 1970s (Potts, 1986) – the resurgence of corvids, mustelids and foxes likely limiting partridge breeding success in many areas. It therefore stands to reason that Grey Partridge do indeed benefit from gamekeeping operations and the subsequent predator control that takes place – something not to dissimilar to the situation with breeding waders on driven grouse shoots. One study in particular, conducted by Tapper et al (1996) showed a 3.5 fold increase in Partridge numbers on a site where predators where intensively managed – concluding that control of natural predators is a viable conservation tool alongside habitat restoration and reduced pesticide use.

Whereas the game shooting industry does have to potential to benefit P.perix it should be noted that shooting operations may also have factored into the decline of the species (Kuijper et al, 2009). The release of both Ring-Necked Pheasant and Red-Legged Partridge – now a very common practice – can be detrimental to partridge stocks (Tomkins et al, 2000). Pheasants and Grey Partridge share a common parasite, the caecal nematode, which while having little effect on pheasants has been shown to reduce the body condition of partridge -likely resulting in reduced breeding success (Tomkins et al, 2000). The continued release of these two species also leads to many wild Grey Partridge getting caught up in shooting drives and can lead to unsustainable levels of adult mortality (Watson et al, 2007). As a result of this, partridge declines have been more pronounced one estates that rear and release these species (Aebischer and Ewald, 2004). Finally, Leo et al (2004) concluded that shooting has in fact lead to the localized extinction of many Grey Partridge populations and threatens many more. It should be noted however, that banning the shooting of Grey Partridge could be counter productive and may not actually help halt the decline. The impacts of shooting and the benefits of predator control balancing each other out somewhat in certain locations (Watson et al, 2007).

Conclusion 

The decline of the Grey Partridge in the UK (and across Europe) can be attributed to a number of causes. Firstly; low chick survival due to habitat loss and the increased used of pesticides leading to steep population declines prior to 1970. Though steps have been taken to counteract these measures, partridge continue to decline – the latter drop in numbers being attributed to an increase in natural depredation, at all stages of the birds life cycle. Furthermore, conflict with invasive pheasants and over-shooting – at times inadvertently, may be limiting the recovery of this species.

Much is now being done to counteract the worrying decline of this iconic farmland bird, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust in particular biting the bullet and trying to halt the trend. If you yourself wish to do something to benefit this species, taking part in the GWCT’s Partridge Count Scheme or helping out with localised counts would be a good place to start. Information on both of these found here. http://www.gwct.org.uk/research/species/birds/grey-partridge/. I shall touch on the subject in more depth in the future but looking at the causes the means to protect our remain partridge remain clear. Replenish degraded habitat, switch to a more organic way of farming (as many have done) and, perhaps more controversially, manage predators in areas where partridge populations are at particular risk. The issue with pheasants is a little harder to tackle and it would certainly be interesting to see just what is having a greater impact on partridge stocks – parasite transmission via  pheasants, or depredation. It may not be possible to control both these factors in the same areas, one seemingly at odds with the other, though with more research perhaps a means to do this may become clear.

Image Credit: Grey Partridge – CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=79300

Are Badgers over-protected?

A few days back I touched upon the potential impact of Badgers upon Britain’s declining Hedgehog population and resigned myself to the fact that they probably are somewhat detrimental. Not an easy thing to admit if, like me, you adore the stripey mustelids. For some further reading, I thought I would share this fantastic post by Peter Cooper looking  at Badgers in a little more depth and asking, ultimately, if Badgers are in fact over protected?

Martens & Capercaillie: A conflict of interests?

Lately I have noticed a number of comments, from a number of sources, claiming that Pine Martens could be having a negligible impact on Scotland’s vulnerable Capercaillie population. This, in my opinion, is an intriguing topic; both species stringently protected by law and both firm favourites among nature lovers. At present, the two species in question display starkly contrasting population trends; Pine Marten’s increasing and Capercaillie continuing to plummet. This has lead some, notably the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to suggest control of Pine Martens in order to protect dwindling Capercaillie populations. Could one iconic Scottish species be causing the decline of another? If so, would Pine Marten control be justified? This debate poses a lot of questions and I certainly do not have the answers, though a scan of the available literature gives considerable food for thought.

Background 

The Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) is the largest member of the Grouse family; a cold-adapted, ground nesting species native to Northern and North-Eastern Europe. It is dependent on conifer forests with an open canopy and a rich shrub layer abundant in Vaccinium species such as Bilberry, species which the Caper’ relies on for sustenance. The story of the Capercaillie in Britain is a particularly solemn one, today’s remaining birds derived entirely from Swedish stock imported in 1837 following the complete extirpation of native birds due to the combined effects of deforestation and overhunting. At first, the reintroduction program was a success, Capercaillie thriving until the mid-1970’s before beginning a sustained decline that continues until this day. By 2009, it is estimated that only 1268 male Capercaillie remained in Scotland marking a 36% decrease in numbers since previous surveys in 2004. Should this decline continue, it safe to assume that the “horse of the woods” could face extinction, for a second time, in the very near future.

Like the Capercaillie, the Pine Marten (Martes martes) has a rather woeful history in the UK and despite recent increases remains one of Britain’s rarest mammals. A member of the Mustelid family, it is estimated that the Marten was once one of Britain’s most common mammals, thriving as a result of widespread tree cover. Despite this, by the early 1900’s the species came close to extinction, namely as a result of the removal of said forests and direct persecution by man. By 1915 the species was mainly confined to the most inaccessible reaches of Scotland and Ireland with a few scattered remnant populations persisting elsewhere. Now however, the tide has turned. Due, in no small part, to legal protection, the Pine Marten has begun to make a comeback, spreading across the length and breadth of Scotland and slowly beginning to recolonise sites elsewhere in the UK. Indeed the present population estimate courtesy of The Mammal Society stands at around 3-4000 individuals.

A conflict situation? 

The Pine Marten is a voracious predator, though one that has coexisted with the Capercaillie across its range for millennia. No one, on either side of the debate, denies that Martens are a natural predator of Capercaillie, opportunistically predating eggs and chicks when the opportunity arises. Indeed, as a ground nesting species, the Caper’ is particularly vulnerable to predation from a myriad of species. Among these, corvids and foxes which are already subject to control measures to protect the species and increase breeding success. As such, it stands to reason that an increase in any natural predator, in this case the Marten, will have some impact on the Capercaillie, though the extent of this remains open to interpretation.

The Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA), referencing a 2009 study where 57% of predated Capercaillie nests were taken by Pine Martens in Abernethy Forest, have advocated control measures as the only means to protect declining Caper’ populations. Indeed, both Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and members of the Biodiversity Action Plan group (BAP) have acknowledged that Martens may have an impact on fragile Capercaillie populations. SGA’s Allan Hodgson highlights the fact that despite combating the other factors associated with Capercallie declines, mainly habitat loss and deer fencing, declines continue and suggests predator control as the only means by which to halt declines. On this he writes: “What’s needed are new conservation measures, alongside the existing programme of work, and that must include measures to deal with all predators and pine marten in the remaining core Capercaillie area.”. Later highlighting the need for a managed scientific trial by writing: ”A managed scientific trial using live traps to capture and transfer pine marten during the breeding season in the remaining Capercaillie heartland has been mooted.Such a localized trial may establish the benefits or otherwise to Capercaillie survival in the core area, if pine marten were removed.

The notion that Pine Martens are directly impacting on Capercaillie populations has been hotly contested by some however with the Mammal Society in particular directly opposed to control measures. Although they acknowledge that in the later stages of decline, localised predation by Marten’s could have an impact on Capercaillie numbers, the Society claims that at present, the issue stands on the peripheral and would not accept such measures at present. Writing: “recognising that the pine marten is a scarce, protected mammal still recolonising its former range, The Mammal Society does not accept that the removal of pine martens is justified by the questionable benefits to capercaillie conservation”. Various groups also highlight the fact that, should a cull ever take place, it may be of limited benefit to Caper’ populations. Likewise pointing out that such schemes should never be undertaken lightly – something I think all of us will likely agree with.

A number of other scientific studies have tried to get to the bottom of this controversial issue and many of them have produced contrasting results. In A recent study in fourteen forests found no link between Capercaillie breeding success and Pine Marten abundance though some have produced different results. In addition, attempting to summarise the existing data, Dr Fiona Matthews of the University of Exeter writes:

“A study in Abernethy Forest, where pine martens are particularly abundant, revealed that 39% of capercaillie nests were predated (where other predators were controlled, around a third of nests were lost to pine martens); this level of nest loss was close to the mid-range among other studies in Scotland and in Europe. A recent study of the impacts of various predators on capercaillie in north-east Scotland confirmed that signs of pine martens were more abundant than in 1995. However, no evidence was found of a relationship between pine marten abundance and any of the three measures of capercaillie breeding success, leading to the conclusion that: ‘This survey found no evidence to suggest that martens are impacting upon capercaillie breeding success’. A multivariate analysis of long-term capercaillie brood count data confirmed that breeding success is strongly influenced by weather. When the effects of weather and predator variables were considered together, some measures of capercaillie breeding success varied negatively with an index of marten abundance.”

For the rest of Fiona’s excellent paper on the matter, see here: https://biosciences.exeter.ac.uk/documents/MammalNewsAutumn2012.pdf

 Opinion 

In my opinion, it is clear that something needs to be done now, in order to combat the worrying decline of the Capercaillie. Whether recovering Pine Martens are playing a role in this remains unclear and as such, under no circumstances, would I support a lethal control programme in current times. This said, surely it would not hurt to clear the issue up once and for all? I cannot help but agree with the SGA way of thinking in that a well-managed scientific study, involving the live capture and relocation of Martens from Capercaillie conservation zones would help put this matter to bed. The individuals relocated could be used to sustain reintroduction schemes elsewhere in the UK, thus benefitting the long-term conservation of Pine Martens. Such a study would allow us to highlight, once and for all, the relationship between these two species. If Capercaillie numbers recovered during the absence of Martens, perhaps a conversation regarding future control measures would be justified. If no recovery became apparent, Martens could simply be allowed to relcolonise the sites from surrounding areas. To me there is no downside to such a scheme though, as ever, the arguments surrounding the ethics of such schemes will no doubt come into play – though in my opinion, these play second fiddle to the wider conservation of the species in question. Surely it cannot hurt to trial such a study  and conclude this debate and for all.

 Both species are iconic inhabitants of the Scottish landscape and both warrant strict protection. Indeed the Pine Marten has only recolonised 15% of its former range in Britain and still has a long way to go. Still, if we do not get the ball rolling and uncover the truth behind the issue, we may find ourselves standing by as the Capercallie slips even closer to extinction. At least with a trial of non-lethal control in such areas, the truth behind the debate will come to light and we may be able to make informed decisions regarding the future conservation of both species. As ever, this is simply my personal view, I am not in a position to advise people either way and fully understand some people will disagree with this. Still, it certainly makes for an interesting debate when two species of conservation concern potentially come into direct conflict.