March Woods

One of the best months. Trees are just holding back allowing sunlight to penetrate to the floor where bracken is bronzed and frosted. Native birds are excited, their songs having no competition before the arrivals of visiting songbirds in coming weeks.

On a much smaller scale lichen and moss gardens are flourishing around bark crevices.

A good time to meet deer too. Stags are close to antler drop and have their favourite spots to spend long lethargic hours. Roe deer in contrast are lively enough to venture out into clearings.

Why Not Here Next?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/17/pine-martens-recorded-in-west-country-by-night-vision-camera

Female and Male

A mismatched  couple.

Squirrels, Deer and Predators

Apparently the island of Anglesey is now free from grey squirrels after a lengthy programme of eradication. We are hearing that the result has been an increase in numbers of red squirrels up to a total of around 700, from 40 twenty years ago. Those who subscribe to the Times newspaper can read about this. Others will have to take my word for it that it is reported. One interesting sidelight on this is that some reds have started to cross the Menai Bridge onto the mainland. Presumably the UK Border Agency does not patrol there.

Does the grey squirrel cull on Anglesey have anything to tell us about the red deer cull here? The first thing to say is that red deer are comparable with the red squirrel rather than the unwanted grey and not just because of colour; both are native animals while the grey squirrel is an imported alien. The closest parallel with the greys would of course be the alien sheep and cattle that still colonise the moors. They are not being culled, or, as far as we know from the untransparent RSPB, even reduced in numbers. So once again those looking for consistency will be disappointed. An interesting comment in the article reveals that the wildlife trusts were not in favour of the grey squirrel cull because they don't agree with culls. So, being members of Sheffield Moors Partnership what's their position on the deer cull?

One lesson that might be learned comes from a study carried out in Ireland where red squirrels appear to have the edge over greys because of the presence of pine martens. Pine martens prey on squirrels but the evidence suggests they kill far more greys probably because greys spend more time on the ground. The trouble is pine martens have been more or less killed off in England and Wales.

So once again it looks as if the argument is gathering strength for re-introducing native predators previously wiped out. The lynx is surely preferable to the gun for controlling deer. Yet there is no evidence that the very conservative local conservation industry has even talked about it.

Maggots at Work

The woolly maggots are currently roaming on Houndkirk Moor in parts where they've not recently been seen, in an area close to a lot of new fencing. They will be ensuring that the vegetation remains stunted and no trees get a hold on that section of the moor.

Lots of sheep graze the enclosure on Blacka doing a job that's never been satisfactorily explained to me unless it's to encourage the small number of birds that prefer devastated land, though they've not shown much commitment to it yet.

On the rest of the local moors there are fewer sheep than in many previous years.

The astonishing thing about grazing and the moors is that draconian measures are taken to reduce deer numbers at such short notice whereas for many years there were hundreds of sheep wherever you looked with barely a word spoken against them (apart from on this blog perhaps). The scale of the negative impact of sheep was also immense, while deer in much smaller numbers  spread over a far wider area have many positive effects - eating bramble as just one example.

Deer Cull Objections.

It's worth trying to pull together our objections to the RSPB deer cull on the Eastern Moors. So here goes:

The instinctive reaction must be the most vital, especially from those of us who have frequently looked the deer in the eye from close by and watched the way they care for their young over many months, how they live outside at all hours and in the most severe winter conditions. In a really wild landscape they would be at risk from determined and hungry predators. That’s one thing but at least it’s a kind of birthright for them and a threat their behaviour has evolved to counter. In that lies their dignity.

To be despatched with high-tech firepower by someone who will be sipping a pint in a warm pub a couple of hours later is another thing entirely especially when the shooters tell you how humane they are being – that’s maybe after having their photos taken smiling alongside the carcasses.

Other detailed objections (will be added to)

1 This is a wildlife charity shooting wildlife. It doesn't look good and it risks playing into the hands of the enemies of conservation (Countryside Alliance, Ian Botham, grouse shooting industry hardliners etc.) and various critics. These have been particularly vocal in recent times and are always looking to find a stick to beat RSPB with. Their motives are often pretty grubby but some are taken in by the publicity they can fund. One or two of them may have a point. I can just hear them crying “double standards”, when the RSPB campaigns against persecution of birds of prey for example.

2 Following on from 1 above, those of us who want more protection for wildlife don't want to see ammunition put into the hands of those who claim to speak for 'the countryside' but are actually apologists for the hunting and shooting lobby.

3 Lack of transparency. It is seriously wrong to keep this quiet. It means there can be no public debate and no open discussion of alternatives. The countryside is public land and to say or imply that the public cannot be trusted to have a say in a contentious issue because it is 'sensitive' is to make the same mistake as others who keep us in the dark in South Yorkshire - don't mention the R word, but now it's Sheffield too.

4 A proper public discussion would enable a serious questioning of the strategy and underlying assumptions behind the land management of Sheffield Moors Partnership which was not allowed to happen during their tightly controlled 'consultation'.

5 When it comes to shooting wildlife, for a wildlife charity this should only even be considered after the situation has become critical and numerous other approaches have been publicly evaluated and shown to have failed.

6 We were told in 2013 that there were not enough deer on the Eastern Moors leading to use of cows. The following year the first letter (which we didn't see until last month) was written saying that  there were too many of them. Either we were being deceived or statements are based on dodgy evidence. In the case of either that means there should be more public scrutiny because we can't depend that management is giving us accurate information.

7 For several years now a combination of farmers and conservation industry organisations dedicated to managing and intervening in the landscape has been telling us that we must have farm animals grazing the land everywhere. The story  put about was that long ago deer and other wildlife used to graze and manage the land so that there would not be too much woodland. When we complained we didn't want cows and sheep everywhere we were told we did not understand. Conservation grazing was the thing. Our pleas for a farm animal free zone were ignored and we had to put up with cowpats all over paths and around gates, barbed wire fences and other unsightly boundaries. Now, shortly after deer arrived in numbers suddenly the story has changed and the deer have to be shot. The question has to be put: is this something to do with farm subsidies for farm animals?

8 We know that deer are not safe from other threats, poachers and some farmers and landowners who cannot be prosecuted for killing much wildlife on their land. Knowing that a significant wildlife charity is saying there are too many deer and many need to be shot may well embolden others who have their own reasons for using their guns.

Scrutiny

It's always best to hesitate before engaging with newspapers. It's in their nature to distort and mangle or dilute your message. The letter in today's Telegraph is a case in point. An office skivvy has been given the job of editing our letter and in the process has contrived to emasculate it. The heading they've chosen to put over it is just about acceptable: The decision to hand over moors to these charities needs to be scrutinised. But a telling and significant section was left out altogether.

That read:

In July 2013 the senior RSPB officer defended their grazing of cattle and sheep on the Eastern Moors because 'there are nowhere near enough deer on the moors'. This was at an important Action for Involvement conference on the moors attended by conservationists and environmentalists including Dr Mark Fisher and George Monbiot from the Guardian. Just over a year later a letter from RSPB was circulated privately to a select group of local 'stakeholders' telling them they intended to shoot 25% of the deer, while having no plans to reduce numbers of farm animals. The stakeholders are anonymous making it difficult to gain accurate information or make representations. A request to see the names of those stakeholders consulted and the minutes of their meetings has been declined.