Tag: Wildlife Management

Moles apart: a sorry sign of a split in our attitude to wildlife

A week passed, I had the pleasure of spending a full day in the uplands of Northumberland. A thoroughly enjoyable affair marked by the energetic courtship flights of returning waders, the go-back, go-back calls of innumerable Red Grouse and even the sight of a black cock or two. It was a joyous day, truth be told; though the collective, rather jubilant mood soon soured upon discovery of a grim sight: a stretch of fence adorned with the carcasses of countless moles. A sight witnessed again at a further two sites in close proximity to public roads during the remainder of our outing.

This is a sight I have seen before across the length and breadth of my home county. Mostly in remote upland areas it has to be said, but also in the lowlands – the practice of stringing up the corpses of deceased moles widespread across agricultural areas both here, in the North East of England, and elsewhere, right across the nation. It is something that I have always begrudgingly accepted, turned a blind eye to even, until now. This in spite of its tendency to turn my stomach.

Dead moles, lowland Northumberland – Hazel Makepeace ©

Now, it is no secret that some in the countryside sport a strong dislike of moles. While the practice of mole-catching is not as widespread as it once was, gardeners – peeved at the unsightliness of molehills on their perfectly manicured lawns – still do it, while farmers do so on a much larger scale. The latter, supposedly, in an effort to combat the spread of listeriosis bacteria into silage and to prevent the loss of arable land and grazing to molehills. Indeed, some sources claim that moles cost the UK economy some £27m each year through their subterranean antics.

This post is not intended to lambast the control of moles to protect human interests – although, on that note, I would urge restraint from some parties, particularly gardeners. No, I accept the need to manage wildlife in some circumstances and, quite frankly, do not know enough to pass comment on the sustainability, justification and overall impact of mole control. What I would comment on, however, is the ugly practice of suspending the bodies of unlucky moles from fences – a practice which reeks of the same Victorian disregard for wildlife that we, as a nation, have been trying (unsuccessfully in some cases) to escape for decades.

The practice of ‘stringing up’ wildlife is not a new one and with regards to moles, is conducted so that the landowner may gauge the success of the person(s) employed to control wildlife on their land. Supposedly, the practice exists so that those concerned receive just payment for their efforts; although, in the modern age, you would think a photo would suffice – I’m sure those responsible own smartphones. If not, perhaps a box of moles deposited on the threshold of those who sanctioned the killing would be a better way of going about things? There certainly is little need to parade your ‘success’ in the manner discussed. Besides, that is, to antagonise the odd “townie” who may stumble across your grizzly showcase of rotting bodies.

Like a great many people, I find the brazen display of slaughtered wildlife repulsive. An opinion which, when voiced, will doubtless result in the same tired old claims of nimbyism, animal rights fixation and detachment from the ‘real countryside’. Fair enough, perhaps I am guilty of all the above. Perhaps I am even guilty of hypocrisy for accepting the need, in some circumstances, to control moles but by voicing concern at the final result. Roll on the comments…

What bothers me most about such displays, however, is not their gruesome nature, rather the example they set. As a society, we are rightfully moving away from our traditional disregard for wildlife. An increasing majority of people now genuinely care about the natural world. We concern ourselves with ethics, sustainability and encourage the next generation to take a stand for and respect nature. Even rural folk, those often subject to the ire of conservationists, profess to ‘care’ about wildlife despite the need, in some circumstances, to manage it. These claims appear empty as long as some continue to parade (and seemingly celebrate) the destruction of that same wildlife.

I do not think wildlife management should be conducted in the shadows, rather openly, honestly and with justification. Equally, however, it should be carried out with respect. Something sorely lacking in this case.

RSPB criticised for protecting birds… fancy that?

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.

To their credit, the RSPB have acted with commendable transparency on this issue: releasing their annual report of vertebrates controlled on RSPB owned reserves and issuing a frank take on Curlew conservation, penned by Conservation Director, Martin Harper.

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.

Cover image: By Charles J Sharp – Own work, from Sharp Photography, sharpphotography, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42805097

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. 

Pondering those godawful ‘pigeon spikes’

Modern society is growing increasingly disconnected from the natural world. That, unfortunately, is a fact. And it will come as no surprise to learn that many, particularly (but not limited to) those living in urban areas, have come to view wildlife as a hindrance in daily life or, worse still, a mere obstacle to be killed, removed or deterred at leisure. The use of terms such as pest and vermin growing in use throughout modern times as we begrudge everything from gulls and foxes to rats, rabbits and, in more exceptional cases, raptors, deer and otters for getting in the way of our cushty daily lives, our hobbies and our livelihoods.

Now, coming from an urban background and recently studying an MSc in Wildlife Management, I know wildlife can sometimes cause problems. In some cases, rather substantial ones. Pigeons and rabbits can have a significant impact on food production, certain bird species can pose a threat to human life near airports, rodents spread disease in our homes and foxes, in some locations, menace livestock farmers. This, the ever-present conflict between man and beast, is a sorry side-effect of modern life: an unavoidable symptom of our continued alteration of the landscape. And, like it or not, a measured response is sometimes required. I do not dispute this.

While I believe that, within reason, people should be allowed to take action to protect what is there’s, I also believe that such a response should be proportionate (and reasonable). And wholeheartedly believe that, wherever possible, we, as the dominant species on this green (yet greying) earth, should exercise a live and let live mentality wherever possible.  Something which is clearly not the case with the recent placement of pigeon spikes around an affluent district of Bristol.

For those that have not yet heard, the spikes to which I refer have been erected around Bartlett Court flats in Clifton, Bristol in an effort to deter pigeons from the trees outside some, particularly lavish homes. The management company responsible for their placement citing the damage caused by pigeon droppings to cars as the catalyst for action. Yes, you read that correctly, whereas most people would simply wash away the faeces, these people have opted instead to prevent birds from occupying the area in the first place. Citing a lack of washing facilities as justification for their actions.

A pilfered image of the offending spikes…

Now, pigeon droppings (or those of any other bird) on cars are something I am sure most people reading this blog will have had to deal with. They are an inconvenience, nothing more; an ever so slight nuisance that, except looking a tad untidy, does little to disrupt daily life. They do not threaten life or livelihood and, by all accounts, represent a problem easily solved with a little soap and water. Thus the addition of spikes to the trees around Clifton appears to be nothing short of overkill. The decision to degrade yet another piece of urban habitat taken based not on any tangible threat, but on the unsightly nature bird shit. Plain and simple.

If birds are not allowed in the trees, where else can they go? We already do our best to deter them from man-made contraptions, rightfully in some cases, not so much in others. Shouldn’t urban wildlife be allowed to occupy the select few areas of our towns and cities we have not yet altered beyond recognition? The trees and valuable green spaces spared the developers blades. Some, evidently, would say no, whereas reasonable individuals would say yes. It really is only fair – allowing birds to persist where they still can seems only moral.

Perhaps the uproar over these particular spikes has overdone it somewhat. Pigeons, after all, are not at immediate threat of extinction (far from it, in fact) and the addition of the ugly metal prongs to trees in Bristol is unlikely to have any significant impact upon our wildlife. Still, to me, it serves only as a startling indicator of societies growing disconnect from the world around us. A brazen reminder of the uphill battle faced by conservationists as we try to win the hearts and minds of the wider public. A battle growing more difficult by the day based on this kind of blind, unthinking ignorance.

I think Jennifer Garret highlighted the issue perfectly…

Dwelling on Deer: Culls and Control

There is no way around it, our small island is positively bursting with deer. So many in fact, that the issue of overpopulation and its subsequent implications are up there with the other great threats facing our countryside. And, arguably, of much greater concern than other issues prone to dominating the headlines – many of which, though emotive, result in a much more limited fallout. The issue of overpopulation is under-reported, and when it is tackled in the media, more often than not, coverage is met with a barrage of scornful comments from those who hold Bambi to heart, peeved at the notion of widespread and systematic control. The polarised views of those on both sides of the “deer debate” spilling out again this week when it was announced that the City of London Corporation had decided to allow stalking in Epping Forest.

Like a great many people, I, personally, adore deer. The sight of a Roe buck bounding through a thicket representing one of the most inspiring sights in British nature. I do, however, also believe in deer control, for myriad reasons. Not least due to the impact of overpopulation on the countryside. I believe action must be taken against deer, on a large scale, and fully support ongoing efforts to bring down numbers across various areas of the country – despite my admiration of the beasts themselves. As such, and after catching wind that Muntjac – an invasive deer species from Asia – have been sighted in my local area for the first time in recent memory, I thought I would explain my views on the subject in a little more detail here.

The UK deer population is widely believed to be at its highest level for a millennia, with some sources claiming that numbers have effectively doubled since 1999. With numbers of our native red and roe deer soaring due to the extirpation of their natural predators – the bears, lynx, wolves and so forth which, historically, would have kept numbers in check. And numbers of our non-native species, Fallow, Muntjac, Chinese Water Deer and Sika, also on the up. The overall positive trend in deer numbers attributed, by the Deer Initiative (the body which promotes sustainable management of deer): to milder winters, changes in agriculture, increased woodland cover and greater habitat connectivity. In addition, again, to a lack of natural predators. All in all, there are estimated to be some two-million deer now residing in the UK, though given their elusive nature, there could well be many more.

But what does two-million deer mean for the ecological make-up of Britain? Surely such a monumental increase in native species – in the case of the red and roe, at least – should be celebrated? Well, no actually, it shouldn’t. At least by those who hold the best interests of our countryside to heart.

Deer, much like Beavers, are ecosystem engineers. They shape their habitat through grazing, something which would not pose a problem under normal circumstances, but can have a major impact on woodland ecosystems in the present. Selective browsing by deer hindering the growth of saplings and preventing the natural regeneration of trees. With oak, ash, hazel and rowan often hardest hit, yet not alone. And in Scotland, browsing by Red Deer has been shown to directly impact upon the growth of Scots Pine.

Deer, however, do not just rely on trees as a source of nutrition, and can impede the growth of many woodland shrubs and herbaceous plants. With Muntjac – perhaps the most problematic of our deer species – shown to directly reduce the coverage of species such as bluebell, wood anemone and dog’s mercury. The tendency of deer, when present in numbers, to quickly degrade a woodland, not very good if you are a forester, a rewilder or indeed, a conservationist seeking to restore the state of an SSSI.

Deer do not just impact upon botanical assemblages, however, and through feeding can pose a direct threat to other fauna. Through the removal of habitat, they also threaten invertebrate populations which depend on favoured plant species for food and nectar. Something which, in turn, may lead to a decrease in the number of insectivorous birds within a woodland. With deer also capable of removing the breeding habitat of many more bird species, particularly those that nest close to the ground, in thickets and low-growing shrubs. Indeed, many such birds, including the Nightingale, Willow Warbler and Wood Warbler, are facing substantial declines at present.

Finally, and through similar means, deer also decrease habitat suitability for small mammals. Which, when coupled with the other implications listed above, highlights a clear need for action to combat the problem of overpopulation. Culls are not pretty, they are not enjoyable and they are certainly not something to look upon with pride – we upset the balance after all – but they are necessary when all else has failed. And in the absence of other viable means of control.

There is more, however, and the control of deer populations may also directly benefit the deer themselves – something often claimed by sportsmen, yet dismissed by many disapproving of their antics.

Under normal circumstances – meaning in the presence of predators capable of managing deer populations – many deer would not live through to old age. The sick, the decrepit and often, many of the young taken by carnivores before they can mature. Without such predators, however, deer are living longer, often to the point of tooth erosion as a direct result of their hearty diet. This process happening over time, but ultimately, leading to the loss of said teeth and thus the drawn-out starvation of deer who, otherwise, would have met their end much earlier. With many diseases and infections also bringing about similar results. Control may, in fact, help reduce the number of deer meeting such a grizzly demise and thus benefit their welfare, who would have thought?

Control may also, and this part is solely speculation I hasten to add, provide an answer to the welfare problems predicted when Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) arrives in Britain. A disease I blogged about quite recently, which for many years has swept unchecked across America, and now, has been confirmed in Norwegian Deer populations. The disease – which isn’t really a disease as such, caused instead by a misfolding protein – resulting a prolonged death as the deer effectively “wastes” away, unable to feed. CWD spreads in a number of ways, through the soil, direct contact and via the ingestion of contaminated food items, and spreads rampantly when deer live in close quarters. Thus, culling – with the aim of thinning out populations – may help reduce the risk of a pandemic, should the disease ever arrive on our shores. Which I sincerely hope it does not. Less deer is better than no deer, right?

I am not anti-deer by a long shot, and I would hate any of those reading this post to interpret my words as such (doubtless some will regardless). I am, however, definitely of the opinion that deer, in their current populous state, require management. And implore anyone opposed to such to read further before giving in to bouts of blind range. Actions such as this, which often appear to be working to the detriment of conservation and welfare, are often far more complicated than they first appear. And in this case, I fear sustainable (yet nationwide) management, may be the only option.

Perceptions of Wildlife: the Urban Humanist

Following on from a recent blog post where I looked at my own perception of wildlife and the management of opinion-splitting species, I decided to start a new series of guest blogs. Posts which, I hope, will begin to look at the differences in stakeholder attitudes towards wildlife.  With the aim of comparing outlooks between different groups with a stake in our countryside and incorporating the views individuals from a whole host of backgrounds. As such, I have asked a number of people to give a brief summary with regards to “what wildlife means to them” and offer some thoughts on the management of five often polarising species.  Though in this case only four were tackled.

First up we have the lovely Tayla May who freely identifies as somewhat of a humanist with regards to wildlife, and dwells in an urban setting. For more from Tayla, you can check out her personal blog here.

It is only when you are asked to sit down and really think do you begin to unpick what something really means to you. What is wildlife to me? How do I perceive it and its importance in my life?

It turns out it has a whole lot more value to me than even I had anticipated. I have always had a deep appreciation for nature and the wildlife that our world encompasses, a fondness that has grown and grown. For me it’s not just about the mammals, is the complexity of the plant life, the rich soil full of activity, the beautiful birds stretching across the canopy and every single little thing within that. For this I completely see myself as having a purely humanistic perception towards wildlife, but I have educated myself in the importance and necessity of conservational ways of thinking and management. I am currently an inner city dweller, having lived in the countryside most of my life, I am attempting to adapt to the seemingly lack of urban wildlife, I mean I know it’s there, but I’m trying to learn to spot it!

I know for well that the landscapes, ecology and species ratios we have here in the UK are purely the result of careful management, and although the persecution of species or numbers of, doesn’t quite agree with my moral ideologies as a humanist, I see it is currently the only way in which to manage the habitats and ecosystems we know. (Unless of course we were brave enough to step back from our dominionist approach and to just see what would happen).

Now, the management of Deer within the UK is honestly not one I have put much thought to, I grew up in the area of the beautiful Wyre Forest (Worcestershire) Deer were not uncommon in this location, but always a somewhat enchanting sight to see. Perhaps this is because even for us, the chance to see a Deer in the wild is still a very thrilling and rare occurrence. But I understand that the close management of Deer herds is important, not only for the health of the habitat they are in, but for the animals themselves. The idea of management is to be sustainable, and in this case, I believe our work to control them are beneficial in the long run.

The prevalence of the Brown Rat within the UK is another troubling invasive species, coming from a few years’ background in the catering industry, I know just what is at stake for us. But there is much more in the balance, once again the Brown Rat has made it near impossible for other species, such as the Black Rat to live in harmony. The management of these species I can agree with a lot more (perhaps hypocritical I know) Brown Rats, and others, of course, are carriers for bacteria that are significantly detrimental to our health, and thus should be dealt with to ensure the spread of harmful disease is kept at a minimum. (Well, that’s my opinion anyway!)

The protection of badgers and theirs sets under UK law is, in my opinion, one of best advances in wildlife management for some time. When the Badger often has no natural predators (other than competition between sets) and yet numbers are dwindling, we must be able to hold our own hands up and accept responsibility for the damage we have caused. And in the creation of laws to protect this UK mammal is evidence that we can step up to a problem and try to fix it. I feel that the Badgers are a prime example of the consequences of over ‘pruning’ of troublesome species, will the Deer and the Grey Squirrel meet the same fate?

The Grey Squirrel has met some harsh criticism recently, and with good reason, it is a species invasive to the UK, stripping habitats and out-competing out beautiful native Red Squirrel. But this is out of consequence for the introduction of this species to the UK as a ‘fashionable addition to estates’ I feel this just goes to show how the meddling of vulnerable eco-systems is just riddled with doubt. I feel that this guilt should lie on our shoulders. Lines must be drawn somewhere though I suppose. And I said in a blog post I recently posted on the Grey Squirrel, ‘I’m not sure where I stand on the slaughter of wildlife for the sake of conservation’.

The management of the Pheasant within British Woodland, or perhaps the intentions of, seem somewhat vapid, we now understand the importance of the conservation of this species, considering the ideal habitat to ensure their survival. And all this work is researched, and implemented, mostly to keep the age-old tradition of shooting them alive. Seems a bit ironic, right? (Or maybe that’s me and my wildly humanistic beliefs surfacing again!) Now I am not one for hunting for sport, especially for one of a beautiful, often overlooked UK bird.

Of course, these are just my views, but like I said, I’m still not sure the way to ensure conservation involves the mass butchering of specific species, or ya’know any species.

Chronic Wasting Disease: A Major Threat To Europe’s Deer?

2016, unfortunately, saw the first verified cases of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) outside of its native range in North America, identified back in March in  Sogn og Fjordane county, Norway. Proceeded by confirmed cases of infection in wild Moose around Selbu, located 300km North of the first case. With the Norwegian Veterinary Institute confirming a fourth case in wild Reindeer soon after. The emergence of this disease in Europe rightfully alarming conservationists who now intend to test some 15,000 cervids (moose, roe deer, red deer and reindeer) in order to assess just how far the disease has spread. The problem, if left unchecked, likely to become one of the most pressing issues in the realms of wildlife management and conservation in the very near future.

CWD is, in every sense of the word, a rather terrible affliction, involving the gradual degeneration of the brain in infected animals. Something which, over time, inevitably results in emaciation, abnormal behavior, loss of bodily functions and, in each case, death. Comparable to Myxomatosis in the drawn-out manner in which it claims its victims and thus deplorable from an ethical standpoint. As are many wildlife diseases. CWD, since it was first detected in a herd of captive Mule Deer in the late 1960’s, now having spread across much of North American, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. And causing significant damage to both wild deer populations and commercial interests.

What truly sets CWD apart from other diseases, however, is the manner in which it spreads. Passed from animal to animal through the feces, urine or saliva. Something which, in itself, should be easily controlled, if it was not for the diseases resistance to environmental factors. With infected agents released into the environment through the natural bodily process of deer, or the decomposition of a carcass, persisting in the ecosystem for many years. And therefore, easily picked up by additional deer through feeding on infected pasture. Something which presents a significant problem for those wishing to eradicate the infection. It’s spread only hastened by the natural movements of wild deer – known to travel large distances – and the movement of domestic stock or infected materials.

The means by which CWD spreads and the amount of time it can remain in the environment pose a significant problem for wild deer populations in Europe and further afield. Though problematic in North America, the disease has, until now, been restricted to the few species of deer inhabiting the continent. It’s spread hampered by natural geography. Now, however, following its emergence in Europe, CWD has the potential to spread over a much greater geographical area, to a plethora of new ungulate species. With Eurasia, as a whole, boasting the highest diversity of deer species found anywhere in the world. Including vulnerable species such as the Barasingha – native to the Indian Subcontinent. The spread of the disease, though it will likely take many years, almost inevitable absent proper management. More so given the fact that, unlike people, wild deer know no man-made borders.

In a UK context, it would appear that our beloved deer are safe, at least for now. And Britain’s status as an island may well work in our favour if CWD takes hold. It would, however, only take the accidental import of infected animals or contaminated materials to bring the disease to our shores. And I am sure that both conservationists and deer enthusiasts here will be watching events on the continent very closely indeed.

For more information about CWD, you can visit this page by the Chronic Wasting Disease Alliance, and for information on Norweigan affairs relating to it, you can follow this link.

https://huntfish.mdc.mo.gov/hunting-trapping/wildlife-diseases/chronic-wasting-disease-cwd

Exploring My Personal Perception Of Wildlife

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do I personally perceive wildlife?

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

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

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

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

Conclusion?

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

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

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

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