Tag: Robin Page

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

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.