I complained of the tree cutting and the littering of the area with piles of logs and brushwood from the destroyed trees. They are unsightly and draw attention to human intervention unnecessarily when the site was supposed to be managed with minimal intervention. They also get in the way of progress for those of us who don't stick to paths, even becoming a hazard. I mentioned the deer who jumped over a wall last year and broke both front legs landing in piles of cut timber that had been thrown carelessly over the wall along the main bridleway. This is the relevant part of the reply to my letter:
I don't feel generally sentimental about wild animals. I have a couple of robins fiercely scrapping within inches of my face most mornings. Deer to remain wild should ideally have to face predators and some will be killed. What I found needed to be said was that the death seems to have come from similar careless workmanship or policy arising from management decisions. That makes it seem different. Under 'minimal intervention' it would have been less likely. The question of SWT's response to my call shows just where I remain puzzled by the practices of a wildlife trust. I've seen all sorts of concern about cattle and sheep, and arrangements when things go wrong with' conservation grazing'. But here was a young wild animal in a position where it could be vulnerable to tormenting by dogs which are frequently walked along the nearby track and I would have expected at the very least for someone togo along to check what was happening or contact me to ask for more information. I had asked for a message to be got to the reserve manager and fully expected to be called back. I wasn't. Once again I find I'm asking the question is this a wildlife trust or a farmlife trust? What would those 6,000 members think? Many of them will have been recruited by some kind of appeal embracing sentiment.
The apology is accepted.
No comments:
Post a Comment