It was uplifting to learn that Black-tailed Godwits, the elegant wading birds at the heart of the outstanding Project Godwit initiative, have enjoyed a bumper breeding season in Southern England. Below you will find a news release from the organisations involved in the PG scheme for you to peruse at your leisure – surely we all welcome a dash of good news in our age of perpetual, environmental negativity.
Despite spring flooding and a summer heatwave, this years’ flock of black-tailed godwits has enjoyed a bumper year thanks to a dedicated team of conservationists working as part of Project Godwit. A scheme which combines the expertise of teams from both the RSPB and the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT).
When black-tailed godwits returned to the Fens to nest in March weather conditions were less than ideal: in fact, spring flooding covered most of the land the birds normally use at the RSPB Nene Washes nature reserve in Cambridgeshire. Desperate to begin their breeding season some of the birds resorted to laying their eggs in a field near to their traditional nesting grounds but conservationists found that some of the eggs quickly became stuck in the wet mud. Fortunately, Project Godwit already had plans to remove a number of eggs to raise chicks in special bird rearing facilities, boosting the birds’ chance of survival. So, working with the farmer who owned the field, the team collected 32 precious eggs from the farmland (in addition to 23 from the nature reserve as planned) and incubated them at WWT Welney Wetland Centre.
Project Manager Hannah Ward writes:
“When we rescued the eggs from the fields we were very worried that the chicks might not survive due to the muddy conditions of some of the eggs so it was quite a nerve-wracking wait to see if any of them would hatch. Meanwhile, our team on the nature reserve worked hard to make sure that when the water receded, there were areas where more godwits could nest in safety away from the flood.”
An amazing 38 leggy little chicks were released at Welney and the Nene Washes once they were ready to fend for themselves. Soon joining wild flocks which included 18 wild-hatched chicks and nine of the black-tailed godwits which were released as youngsters in 2017.
Nicola Hiscock, Senior Aviculturist from WWT says
“We’re thrilled with the progress the birds have made this year. In fact, two of the godwit chicks raised at Welney last year had families of their own which is a really good sign that the method we’re using, headstarting the young birds to give them the best chance in the wild, is working.”
The team were also delighted to find godwits breeding at the RSPB Pilot Project site next to the Ouse Washes, a site they’ve only bred at once before, in 2012.
Some of the birds involved in the scheme were fitted with geolocators allowing researchers to learn more about where the birds travel to in the winter. Research like this means that UK-based conservation teams can work with their equivalent organisations in other countries to ensure the birds have safe places to fly through or spend the colder months. This year ten new geolocators were fitted and two were collected from birds tagged in 2017. One of these showed that a female godwit went all the way to West Africa and back, stopping off in Spain, Portugal and Norfolk on her way before returning back to the Fens to breed.
As the godwits begin to depart for the winter, Project Godwit are calling on birdwatchers to send in sightings of the released birds, which all have a unique combination of colour leg rings. It’s easy to do this on the Project Godwit website: projectgodwit.org.uk and will help the team build up a picture of the important areas the birds need.
One of the major funding sources for Project Godwit is the EU LIFE Nature Programme. As we prepare to leave the EU, Project Godwit partners look forward to seeing how the UK Government will replace this vital source of funding for future conservation projects.
This week, the depths of social media have been filled with grumblings of discontent aimed at the RSPB for their use of lethal control as a conservation tool on their land: to protect threatened curlew (and other ground-nesting birds), to restore woodland and to protect a suite of native fauna from damaging invasive species.
Criticism of the RSPB has been rife, not least from compassionate conservationists, and based on a scan of various platforms, it is safe to say that more than a few RSPB members have been left questioning their commitment to the organisation. By all accounts, it seems like the RSPB simply cannot get it right: receiving flack for ‘not doing enough’ to protect our wildlife and then, when they do take action, finding themselves lambasted for their chosen methods. It’s all rather tedious, and frustrating; especially as in this instance, the RSPB have done the right thing entirely.
Take Curlew for example. We all know that to truly save this species from extinction in the UK, landscape-scale change is required – I do not dispute that. Neither do the RSPB and as I write this, they are working to achieve just that by conducting vital research into Curlew-friendly land management options. However, we also know that in areas where changes in habitat have left birds vulnerable, and where generalist predator numbers have increased, the impact of habitat loss is drastically amplified. With corvids and foxes, in particular, greatly reducing Curlew breeding success and thus, creating the potential for localised extinctions. The final nail in the Curlew’s coffin, so to speak.
The RSPB acknowledge the need for landscape-scale change to protect Britain’s Curlew and are working to inform and enact this; though they also recognise the need for action to halt Curlew declines while long-term plans are formulated. Essentially, they are not content to merely wring their hands and wait as Curlew numbers plummet and instead have opted for a science-based approach they know runs the risk of alienating some of their members. In doing so, prioritising the protection of birds – through necessary and entirely justified means – instead of profits. Is that not what critics have pushed for all along? It is certainly what I want to see as a paying RSPB member. Action as opposed to apathy.
As I stated in a blog post a few weeks ago, whether we like it or not, the act of killing is, in many cases, the only thing which stands between a plethora of wildlife populations and collapse. It should never be undertaken lightly and absent scientific justification – as is widely available in the case of the Curlew – but is, in fact, a necessity in response to wildlife populations forced out of kilter due to long-term mismanagement of the countryside.
It is also worth pointing out that the RSPB only enact lethal control of wildlife once all other viable options have been exhausted. Demonstrated by this quote pulled from the aforementioned post by Martin Harper:
Non-lethal methods, whilst always our preferred way of doing things, are not always practical. Lethal vertebrate control on RSPB reserves is only considered where the following four criteria are met:
That the seriousness of the problem has been established
That non-lethal measures have been assessed and found not to be practicable
That killing is an effective way of addressing the problem
That killing will not have an adverse impact on the conservation status of the target or other non-target species.
There is no magic wand available that will restore the countryside to a natural state of equilibrium. There are things we can do on a case by case basis, sure: rewilding were we can and pushing for legislative change that incentivises sympathetic habitat management. We should do both of these and in the long-term, they are vital; though both take time. Time many species currently teetering on the brink simply do not have. Whether we’re talking the control of foxes to protect Capercaillie, the control of surging deer populations to protect woodland or indeed, the killing of corvids and foxes to safeguard Curlew, in many cases, action is required now.
Such action may, from time to time, be hard to swallow but ultimately, is preferable to the losses that may be incurred otherwise. At least in my opinion.
If you enjoyed this blog, please consider voting for James in the Terra Incognita ‘Wildlife Blogger of the Year’ competition. The form for which can be found beneath the article here – please enter number 13.
This latest guest blog comes from AMA student, Edward Grierson, and focuses on the subject of Driven Grouse Shooting. Disclaimer: the words below are not those of the blog owner and queries and comments should be directed to the author, as appropriate. If you would like to submit a response for publication on this blog, please get in touch.
There is no topic in modern conservation more polarising than driven grouse shooting. As it stands, the debate on the subject, for the most part, is between two opposites: those who want to ban the sport and those who want to change nothing about the sport. Nor is there a topic which has been the subject of more discussion from both sides, to the point that this article feels like a flogging a dead horse. I’ve even written about this subject several times myself. Unfortunately, the recent disappearance of three hen harriers near grouse moors in the Borders and Cumbria has reminded both sides that wildlife crime is still rife within the sport[1]. With this in mind, now feels like as good a time as any to discuss a possible middle ground in such a schizophrenic debate. I am of course referring to licensing grouse shooting in the UK.
To understand why I support this approach, we have to look at the other two sides in this conflict. Firstly, there are those who oppose a ban, or any form of legislation, being applied to driven grouse shooting. Essentially, this equates to keeping the sport exactly as it is. And therein lies the problem: with grouse shooting as it is, peregrines are declining in the Peak District[2], red kites are as badly persecuted in Scotland as they were 25 years ago[3], and only three pairs of hen harriers bred in England last year[4]. This is despite the decades of negotiations between conservation organisations and shooting estates, which are still being touted as the solution to solving raptor persecution. Put simply, trying to keep the status quo, when the status quo is so clearly flawed, as with driven grouse shooting, makes no sense.
That being said, neither do I side with those who want to see driven grouse shooting banned. Admittedly, I have a history with this side; I proudly signed the first three e-petitions created by Mark Avery, and when the third e-petition earned Parliamentary debate, I wrote to my MP encouraging them to support a ban (they didn’t even turn up to the debate). More recently, however, I’ve begun to have doubts about it. Not only is it unlikely to be effective in the long term, since it would only apply for one part of the UK, but for a lot of our upland wildlife, it could be a major setback. Curlew, lapwing, golden plover, merlin, kestrel, ring ouzel, black grouse…all these would be far worse off if driven grouse shooting was to be banned. Don’t get me wrong, I want to see more of our uplands, including grouse moors, allowed to revert to natural conditions. But I can’t deny the importance that grouse moors have played in keeping a lot of Britain’s rarest species from going extinct. Not to mention that there are a lot of people working on these landscapes with a genuine love of what they are doing, who don’t deserve to be put out of a job if this ban were to be put into effect.
Which is why I favour licensing grouse shooting: it’s a compromise between two extremes. It’s not likely to put people out of a job or lose important species, as a ban would, but it also provides would-be raptor killers with an incentive not to do so. It also allows for prosecutions to take much less time, as a perpetrator of wildlife crime can simply have their license revoked, and if licenses are issued to both the keeper and the shooting party, it would avoid the situation in which one is prosecuted for the actions of the other. It’s also worth noting that the UK is far behind in enforcing this, in comparison to continental Europe: France, Spain, Germany, Latvia, Romania, Poland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, to name a few, all require shooters to have licenses to kill game[5], and all still have thriving shooting industries.
It goes without saying that licensing is not the be all and end all in combatting wildlife crime. Other measures, such as increased powers for conservation charities to investigate crimes, also common in many European countries, also need to be implemented. But it’s a big step in the right direction. Taking the middle ground in an argument rarely feels desirable, and to me can often feel as if it lacks a sense of conviction. In this case, however, I’m happy to make an exception, so that both people an wildlife can get the best deal. If I’ve convinced you that licensing driven grouse shooting is the way, you can sign the e-petition here[6].
In a groundbreaking study on sparrowhawks, scientists have found that city birds in Scotland are more successful than their country cousins. In this study, researchers from RSPB Scotland and the Scottish Raptor Study Group examined differences between populations of the birds in Edinburgh and in the Ayrshire countryside over four years from 2009 to 2012.
They found that territories in the urban environment (Edinburgh) were occupied far more frequently than those in the rural study area (Ayrshire) and that the city hawks also had significantly higher breeding success than the country hawks.
Of the twenty breeding attempts that failed throughout the study, only two were recorded in the urban study area, the rest in the rural. The number of nest desertions was also much higher in the latter. It was this complete failure of numerous nests that caused lower breeding success in the rural sparrowhawk population.
In total, 195 sparrowhawk pairs were located in the two study areas across 117 separate sites or ‘territories’. The paper has been published in the journal Écoscience.
Michael Thornton, lead author of the paper and member of the Lothian & Borders Raptor Study Group, said: “This study clearly shows that urban green spaces, such as parks, gardens and golf courses provide both suitable nest sites and an abundance of prey species to support high breeding success in this charismatic predator, and it is important that we protect these areas for urban wildlife and for our own health and wellbeing.”
Staffan Roos, Senior Conservation Scientist with RSPB Scotland and one of the authors of the paper, said: “Urban environments offer a huge variety in quantity and quality of natural habitats, particularly for bird species such as house sparrows, starlings, oystercatchers and, as this study shows, sparrowhawks”.
“The availability of food appears to have played an important role in the differences observed between sparrowhawks living in the city and those in the countryside. Gardens and parks hold large numbers of songbirds, which these raptors feed on, and the structure of urban landscapes in Edinburgh and other European cities, with parks and woodlands right next to private gardens, provides an ideal hunting environment for sparrowhawks.
“We would like to see further studies carried out, with nests being monitored by camera, to learn more about the impacts of food abundance on these birds in different parts of Scotland. The more we know about various wildlife species, the more we can do to protect and conserve them in future.”
Sparrowhawks were one of the first raptors to colonise urban areas across Europe, in the UK this happened in the 1980s. The European sparrowhawk population is estimated to be up to 582,000 pairs with the UK holding around 35,000 pairs, 12,000 of those in Scotland.
A copy of the paper ‘Breeding success and productivity of urban and rural Eurasian sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus in Scotland’ can be found online here:
Wading birds gathered in record numbers at Dove Stone in the Peak District this breeding season, all thanks to an ambitious ongoing bog restoration programme implemented by United Utilities and the RSPB.
Over the summer, RSPB staff and volunteer surveyors recorded 49 pairs of dunlins at the Saddleworth site, up a quarter from the 39 pairs observed in 2014 and up five pairs on last year’s previous record of 44. With the increase in breeding Dunlin mirrored, also, in Dove Stone’s Golden Plover, which increased from 92 pairs in 2014 to 110 this year.
Dunlin, small wading birds that love breeding in wet hilly places, have been gradually increasing at Dove Stone over the past decade after virtually vanishing from the Peak District in the early 2000s. Golden plovers are medium-sized wading birds that also favor nesting on wet bogs and, likewise, their numbers have been steadily growing at Dove Stone in recent years.
The RSPB, which manages Dove Stone in partnership with landowner United Utilities, has discovered a direct correlation between this increase of breeding wading birds and the restoration of blanket bog at the site.
Healthy blanket bogs, which are found on wet hilly plateaus, can provide great benefits both for people and wildlife. As well as provide insect food for birds, they lock up harmful carbon, improve water quality by acting as a natural filtration system and prevent flooding by slowing down the water flow. However, like much of this habitat in the UK, Dove Stone’s had been damaged by past industrial air pollution with the surface vegetation and peat-building sphagnum mosses having almost completely died out, leaving large areas of bare, dried out peat.
Since 2005, United Utilities and the RSPB have been working to restore Dove Stone’s bog by covering the bare, damaged peat with new vegetation, blocking gullies to raise the water table and sowing new sphagnum moss. The increase in breeding waders appears to be rising in direct response to the improving habitat.
Dave O’Hara, RSPB site manager at Dove Stone, said: “It’s no coincidence that numbers of breeding waders at Dove Stone began to increase at the same time we began to restore the blanket bog with our partner United Utilities. It’s gratifying and inspiring to see our continuing restoration work paying off with more and more wading birds nesting here every year.
“Thanks to generous funding from WREN, we are currently in the middle of Sowing the Moss, a three year project where we are working with volunteers to plant more sphagnum, which will help rebuild the bog. Restoring Dove Stone’s bog is a huge long-term undertaking but it’s such an important habitat that brings so many benefits for wildlife and people that it’s well worth all the effort that everyone has – and continues – to put in.”
Ed Lawrance, Catchment Partnership Officer at United Utilities, said: “The moorland restoration work is a long-term project, originally driven by our approach to improve water quality in a sustainable way, reducing treatment costs for our customers. It’s wonderful to see the dramatic result it has had for wading birds at Dove Stone. It’s a brilliant example of a win-win partnership and we are very proud of what’s been achieved.”
Follow all the latest Northern England RSPB news on Twitter at @RSPB_N_England
Cover image courtesy of Matt Tillett, licensed via Flickr Creative Commons.
My views on unpaid, long-term conservation internships undulate substantially. On one hand, and from firsthand experience, I know the benefits such placements bring; in terms of the acquisition of skills, networking opportunities, personal development and, of course, contribution to the great work of our NGOs. I also, however, and again from my own experience, see such positions as exploitative, exclusive and rather detrimental to the sector as a whole. Believing wholeheartedly that volunteer culture decreases diversity in conservation by favouring those with money to flaunt and thus, time to spare.
I am aware that not all agree with my views on internships and that many actively support them, though the topic is one of great interest to me. So interesting, in fact, that a few days past, I put a simple question to a number of young naturalists on social media: what are your personal views on unpaid internships. A question asked absent any mention of my own personal views on the matter and intended to provide a general insight into popular opinion. The topic broached in coorindination with a rather interesting poll I am currently running from New Nature.
I can understand why some internships are unpaid – the field has limited funding, we all want more money to go into conserving habitats/wildlife than overhead costs – but it is unfair for fresh graduates trying to find work, especially if one has a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in relevant fields. Many jobs require at least one, usually five years of experience, but it seems impossible to get any experience without having to pay for it. The salary of higher executives in large NGOs can be quite high, and for interns to be expected to work for free is a discrepancy that blocks the younger generation from entering the field. This trend also disadvantages those of lower socio-economic classes who are not privileged enough to be able to afford to work for no/little money, and limits the diversity of conservationists. If organisations genuinely cannot afford to pay, there should at least be tangible beneficial outcomes for interns such as making an effort to find a job for them subsequently or putting them in touch with other organisations. Unpaid conservation internships exploit the ready supply of fresh graduates who want to do good but seem to be here to stay.
Spending time getting practical conservation experience can be great, especially when you’re young and have time away from education to volunteer. However, I think that the feasibility for these unpaid internships, especially ones that require a lot of time and effort, rapidly drops away as soon as your financial responsibilities become a priority. Doing work for free that you know you should be getting paid to do isn’t a luxury that everyone has, and will leave many interested and qualified people unable to apply for these positions. That’s not a sign of a candidate’s commitment to conservation or lack thereof, it’s simply a matter of time requirements and financial burdens. This only makes it infinitely more frustrating when you find that the requirements of some internships are aimed specifically at graduates that will be looking to support themselves fresh out of university. I’m not saying people shouldn’t go for unpaid internships if they have the resources to do so, but employers should think carefully before offering them and consider that applications for unpaid internships won’t be from the most suitable or worthy candidates, but will be from those that are lucky enough to have the time and money to spare.
I’ve done two unpaid internships and the experiences couldn’t have been more different. The first was a year at two nature reserves with a major NGO. It provided some good experience but was poorly organised at times and even though some individual staff members were great with career advice it had an overall feeling of a conveyer belt. The second was a short-term placement with a major conservation project and everything was fantastic, the staff went out of their way to provide experience of all aspects of the project and it was a huge boost to my career skills. So overall, I would say that short-term volunteer placements or internships in conservation are acceptable, especially if they allow you to explore a role that in the paid ranks would be well above your current experience level. They are also probably easier for people to commit to with time and money.
With the full year unpaid internship I think the charities running them need a major reality check. I was lucky to be able to fund mine through a previous paid job but they wouldn’t be a viable option for many people for a whole range of justified reasons. We already know that conservation fails to attract people from a diverse range of backgrounds – so do they want to provide funds to create a dynamic and vibrant future staff base or for fancy visitor centres and “rebranding”? Another point to make is the job market – once you have finished the year options are limited – all these warden type internships do is to reduce the number of paid opportunities available once you have finished. It’s time they were consigned to the dark ages and people should be more vocal about it. How can you be expected to work for long periods of time for free to come out into a limited job market and then fund your personal long term security? Common sense suggests that this is totally unrealistic, especially when the organisations doing so pay some people as much as the prime minister!
Background: went to university; joined conservation society (hedge planting, scrub clearance etc.); got hooked; graduated; moved home; volunteered some more; landed twelve month traineeship with Yorkshire Wildlife Trust; twelve months chasing a fantastically knowledgeable man around Yorkshire; bow saws, chainsaws, pesticides, spades, rakes, rain, sunshine, wind, rain (yep, rain again), pond nets, training courses, physical exertion, laughter. There were three main positives for me: -I had a fantastic time -I learnt a lot, about the practical work I wanted to do, in a short space of time -The cliché of ‘networking’ (wink-wink, nudge-nudge, any jobs going?) I wouldn’t say there were any negatives, but just some things to think about: -I was lucky. I could afford it; my parents (and a pub job filling in all the gaps in my diary) supported me. I don’t think it’s possible to go unpaid if you haven’t got someone backing you up -Doing an internship doesn’t guarantee you a job straight away. It took me six more months of volunteering after my internship to get a job in the sector. And that wasn’t a permanent one. I certainly don’t regret it; best time of my life.
I’m of the opinion that unpaid internships are around for a reason; they exist because there is a need for them! Habitat management requires specialist skills and knowledge, which unfortunately for some people, cannot be gained from a degree. At school we’re told to go to uni and get a degree to get a job but are not told what working in conservation actually involves. Graduates start applying for jobs but have no experience of using a chainsaw or spending all day in the pouring rain battling through chalk to install a fence post. Most conservation work is done by NGO’s who struggle for money and they just cannot afford to employ someone who doesn’t have the skills to look after a reserve. Unpaid internships are a way for people to gain this valuable experience and often expensive qualifications to land themselves a job. Maybe if we had better careers advice at school for people who wanted to work in conservation, so they did practical courses and gained skills that could get them a job, rather than spending three years in a lecture theatre, unpaid internships wouldn’t need to exist. Sadly that isn’t the case and if we want our nature reserves to be looked after by competent people then we need them!
I couldn’t afford to do one. I needed paid work during all the holidays and breaks of my undergraduate degree so I could pay my rent. Not only could I not afford to not work for free, I could also not afford to travel elsewhere to do an internship. Would have loved to do one later but with a young family it was doubly impossible! If I could do it again I would have spent a few years working/saving and volunteering in cycles – but how much longer would that delay starting a career? Long, full-time unpaid internships are discriminatory.
Cats have featured heavily in the media this week, though not for the usual reasons. Indeed, following the publication of Cat Wars, a new book by American author Peter P. Marra, our feline friends have found themselves at the epicentre of a heated debate regarding their supposed ecological impact. With British conservationists downplaying the authors comments that “all free-ranging cats should be removed from the landscape by any means necessary” due to their impact on native fauna.
In his book, Marra highlights the negative impact of free-ranging cats the world over, from New Zealand and Australia – where they are responsible for the near extinction of a number of endemic species – to his native America, and has since gone on to criticise the inactivity of British conservation bodies when it comes facing the problem in our own back yard. Echoing the earlier views of popular naturalist Chris Packham in calling for cats to be kept indoors, neutered or, in some cases, euthanised.
These views appear directly at odds with the popular line that despite being fairly numerous (7.4 million), and killing upwards of 55 million birds a year, that cats are a relatively harmless figment of the British landscape. With both the RSPB and John Bradshaw, director of the anthrozoology institute at the University of Bristol, claiming that cats are not a problem. Instead championing habitat loss as the main cause of bird decline in the UK.
As a cat owner, a cat-lover and also a naturalist, this is a debate which greatly interests me. And has done for a long time. Despite my cats being relatively housebound, and kitted out with enough bells to rival Santa’s sleigh, I have been unlucky enough to witness the effect of cats first hand on many occasions. Not often from my own, mercifully, yet only last week I pulled a moribund juvenile Greenfinch (a declining species in the UK) from my neighbours cat, and this summer witnessed a cat toying with the corpse of a Tree Sparrow – a ‘red list’ species of conservation concern. Such things have caused me to give considerable thought to the issue at hand.
In terms of the very public bickering going on between both sides, I actually find myself agreeing with both. I agree that cats are a terribly destructive force around the globe and, despite my fondness for them, find myself agreeing with control measures implemented by countries such as Australia, aiming to protect native wildlife from what is, above all else, an alien predator. I also agree with the RSPB that habitat loss is the number one cause of bird declines in the UK, that cannot be disputed. I am, however, a little dubious of their decision to dismiss the issue outright. Fifty-five million birds is, after all, a somewhat staggering number.
The RSPB are quick to point out that cats tend to prey on sick or injured birds. This may well be true, on occasion, but what about their tendency to raid the nests? Juvenile birds are neither sick nor injured, merely defenceless. Remember the nest of Wood Warblers on Springwatch a few years ago? Such behaviour is likely hugely under-recorded but who is to say it is not a problem? While most predators show a preference for easier targets, one must remember that cats, despite their appeal, are a superbly adapted killer, and like any other predator, have the potential to prey on healthy animals when the need be. Particularly in gardens where food is placed out absent consideration, as is often the case.
The other commonly voiced opinion with regards to cat predation is that they tend to predate, majoritively, common and widespread species. A statement recently echoed by Dr Mark Avery, who later went on to state that “cat control is far from a top level priority” insisting that we should work to combat issues such as climate change and raptor persecution first. Well, I agree with Mark on the second point, but as for the first, I remain sceptical, to say the least at least. The Springwatch Wood Warblers very publically showed that cats do indeed predate rare birds. Something brought home by my own encounter with the Tree Sparrow. Of course, it makes sense to believe that cats would consume common species – these are, after all, those most likely to be encountered within the ecosystem, though it is clear that this is not always the case. An important thing to remember given the depleted, often fragmented state of some rare bird populations. Could cats tip them over the edge? I suspect so.
The RSPB state on their website that the species suffering most from cat predation are likely (and in order): House Sparrows, Blue Tits, Blackbirds and Starlings. These species are indeed some of our most plentiful birds, but three of them are currently suffering declines in the UK. And in the case of the House Sparrow (red listed) and Starling (red listed) declining catastrophically. With House Sparrows, in particular, shown to be particularly prone to cat predation (Churcher & Lawton, 1987).
Of all of our birds, it is our embattled sparrows I fear for the most in regards to cats, with and a number of studies hinting at the potential role of cats in their decline. Indeed, Baker et al (2005) suggest the need for future research due to their own observations, and Crick et al (2002) highlight the fact “that cats (both domestic and feral) accounted for 26 million dead House Sparrows in Britain during 1997, of a total population of 49 million”. Does it not then stand to reason that cats could, at least in part, be blamed for the decline of this once common bird? I suspect it does, especially given the often shared habitat of both. Obviously many other factors pose a threat to House Sparrows – food supply, harsh winters, window strike, take your pick – but the deaths of 26 million that may otherwise have lived to “chirp” another day surely gives cause for concern? There is, however, a distinct lack of scientific evidence for those wishing to answer this question definitively.
I, personally, would like to see this issue given much greater consideration, particularly from the scientific community. It may only be an opinion, but with fifty-five million birds a year falling victim to cats (not counting for those undiscovered), it does raise alarm bells. As Mark Avery says, many factors have contributed to the declines of British birds and these are often of more pressing concern. It does, however, seem rather preposterous not to consider the impact of cats, especially given the woeful declines of some of their favoured prey species. And, of course, the trends observed elsewhere in the world. Yes, House Sparrows and their like are not endemic, nor on the verge of extinction, yet. But surely alleviating one source of pressure would be a good thing? It would not be easy, but it could be done.
As for the reluctance of conservation bodies to even broach the issue of cat predation, in my opinion, this relates directly to one thing. Membership. Many paying members of conservation bodies such as the RSPB likely own cats, a great many no doubt. These people directly fund the amazing work done by such organisations and would be peeved, let’s say, should said bodies demand their beloved tiddles be confined to the house. Many would likely pull their support for that organisation as a result of this, removing a substantial amount of income in the process. Just a thought, but if this is true, which to an extent I suspect it is, it is both understandable, yet entirely shameful at the same time.
I, personally, find myself agreeing most with Chris Packham on the matter. Cats should be kept indoors, much as my own are, and owners should be liable for the damage done by their marauding moggies when they are not. I would need to see a lot more evidence before I condoned lethal control of cats, but would like to see efforts to educate owners ramped up by those who claim custodianship of our environment.
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.
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.
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:
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.
