Best Thing

Talking to the regular walkers on Blacka is worthwhile but as we all tend to value the chance to get away from the crowds the opportunity may not come often. So it was worth listening to the words of a regular walker on Blacka on Sunday morning. They should be shouted loud and written large. Nailed, perhaps, to SRWT’s display boards.

“They're the best thing that's happened to this place,” he said and he was referring of course to the coming of red deer we are sometimes privileged to see; and these very deer came, completely unplanned, with no human input at all. And I knew from the way he said it that he was pretty unhappy with most of the management-driven changes here over recent years. And that, for him like me, the chance of seeing really wild animals resident on Blacka was an important stimulus to our visits.

We should say this more often because there is a strand of discussion that goes on mostly beyond our hearing that is quite different. Some of it is simply disapproval but it’s bolstered by the relative indifference of the conservation industry. Our failure to celebrate genuine wildlife only encourages those who exploit or attack it.

The deer are central to the dialogue we should be engaging in about the value of this land and its future. Because these large animals help us to see what is good in the landscape and its vegetation.  The fabulous beauty of Rowan trees hanging with red fruit in September is enhanced further when deer are moving close by. Bracken even is seen to have value when we see an antler or the ear of a hind moving amongst the fronds. And the scrubby growth of young birch and rowan, instead of being undesirable,  becomes vital when you see a young deer with its mother browsing the leaves.

The trouble is that if we don't say this enough, other voices and views prevail. We know the wildlife charities have mixed feelings about the deer. We know they don't go out of their way to protect them. We know their insufferably prescriptive projects are designed to work in some sort of wildlife-free vacuum where pet projects, usually surrounded by fencing, mustn't be disturbed by the unpredictable nature of genuine wildness; it's about being in control even when they make a hash of it in their own terms. Hence their failure to even know about the presence of roe deer as evidenced in their draft management plan at the end of last year, and their unwillingness to take precautions that might discourage deer from straying onto farmland and being shot. This follows on from their earlier failures to even accept the presence of the deer. See this post. “ Beautiful Beasts of Blacka Moor” indeed!!!!

The petulance of the Chief Executive's response is thinly disguised, itself an admission of the validity of the original post; why else would he bother?  Because underneath his managerial posturing lies a prosaic, literal, philistine vision that lacks any kind of educated view of what’s worthwhile in our approach to the natural world.

With all the conservation industry and their stakeholders you get the sense they have little difference with the established landowners including the farmers: they would actually prefer it if the deer would go away and let them get on with what they like to think of as nature, i.e. managed farmland.
Now they are factoring into their plans ways of keeping deer off the land. In limited areas admittedly, but still entailing intrusive fencing in the woods; the reason, allegedly, is to measure the impact of deer on these parts and compare with parts which the deer do access. But why would you want to do that? Unless that is you might foresee some possible 'unwelcome impact' i.e. damage to your deskbound planning exercises. If you do find some difference what follows from that? Because if some action would follow we need to know now what it would be. Culling perhaps? If not why bother with this intrusion into the land, spoiling its appearance for those who prefer land that shows freedom from human interference? So this is upheld as an exercise or experiment, 4 metre by 4 metre squares in woodland bounded by posts and wire.  Another absurd and unnecessary waste of public money and another project that’s just there to justify a manager’s job and show they’re in control.

They will use any argument however weak that helps them to be blind to the positives about the wild deer and conversely helps them to feel comfortable about them being culled. Farmers have done this for centuries about their stock being sent off to slaughter.

I picked this up the other day when an experienced stakeholder, veteran of many hours listening to the gospels of the local conservation mafia, referred to the deer as “Chatsworth escapes”  - as if that somehow disqualifies them from being fully accepted into the realm of wildlife. Are we saying “Only”? Wild or feral? So what? Would you dismiss divisions of humanity on the same grounds? Legitimate or bastard? Why would they need to mention that? Can't they see the beauty, the nobility the vulnerability of native wild animals living wild day and night?

I sometimes lose my patience with the failures of imagination and the self-serving mind-closings that characterise those who claim to speak for the countryside. 

Wild Land

A very interesting piece by Mark Day, a local resident who was concerned when he heard of the deer cull on Bigmoor earlier this year.

http://markday.co.uk/rewilding/

Highly recommended.

In Business

Competition is good for us, so we are told. There's not much cooperation between stags when rutting time beckons. The prize to be won is the chance to pass on your genes. So when he scents the presence of another male in the air the nose goes up and whole demeanour changes.

It didn't come to anything this time but the willingness of the intruder to move away suggests there may have been a clash earlier.

All done with no bellows and quite civilised. And four hinds may be a modest lineup but it means he's in business.

The two are of similar age, ten to twelve pointers. No sign of the really big 16 point stag nor of another larger animal seen earlier this year.

We needed to be reminded how good it is to see wild animals in a nearly wild setting. The few hinds have been seen a number of times over the summer but the sight of stags in good condition on the woodland edge with trees splendid with bright red rowan berries is spectacular. Why it is not valued more by the local managers and their unimaginative stakeholders beats me. Every mention of them is at best a qualification of the value of deer. And that value should be proclaimed both for the animals themselves and for the benefit brought to humans who see wildlife. Surely the first thing to be said about them is how beautiful they are yet I know those who jump in quickly to tell you that they do damage and that they are 'escapes' from Chatsworth, as if that diminishes their value. Of course it doesn't. And talk like that leads to an attitude that grows into seeing them as superfluous to the landscape, rather than an essential part of it; in fact we should be seeing this exactly the other way round, nourishing a landscape that serves the deer along with badgers, foxes, birds of prey and other inspiring wildlife.


Another younger stag was also around on the fringes of this morning's activity. If they have come over from Big Moor they would be best advised to stick around, lest they return and get 'managed'.

Stakeholders and the Donkeys

Who could be more qualified to be a stakeholder than those employed in the business? According to the papers presented to Sheffield's Cabinet this week there are 'safeguards' now built into the leasing of the huge area of Sheffield's land to be given to RSPB/NT on a 25 year lease.

There will be a Stakeholder Forum and a Partner Forum. Well we know that Partners are the cronies in the various organisations that are already hand in glove so we don't expect the public's interest to come first there. Sheffield Moors Partnership operates first in the interests of those employed in the local constituent conservation groups. And as for stakeholders, this is a word that is used shamelessly to suggest that things must be all above board and accountability is in good hands. Yet when you look behind the word you find out that it means a group appointed by the managers who ensure there's nobody there who might frighten the horses. 'Yes men/women' all, or encouraged to show some gentle and mild dissent for form's sake that offers up no real challenge.  Devise some over diluted process  that can be presented on paper to look like a form of accountability and the local politicians will relax and go back to reading something less demanding. Their job to scrutinise? No, let the officers do it.

But a bit of close reading might raise some queries. The local Sheffield paper has front page headlines about this land disposal in its September 10th edition. This arose from a press release of course. It was sent to the paper by the usual suspects who are named towards the end of the article with quotes from them. Both have claimed in the past to be interested members of the public. Fair enough up to a point. But are they therefore also stakeholders with a stake in the enterprise? One of them has certainly appeared as a 'member of the public' in a public forum among 'genuine' consultees. The question is to what extent should somebody have a say in policy making that benefits their own job? It's a question of transparency again. We can all make a case of course for our own interest but our interest should be declared. Without this would this be allowable if the disposal was, shall we say, connected to financial services?

Knowing where the comment is coming from is vital. We learn whether its is truly independent. Such is the local press's use of press releases these days, often printed near verbatim which in the case of the conservation industry delights them. It's not even subtle, but probably doesn't need to be to persuade local councillors and those of similar critical faculties. Remember how much money is sunk into the publicity, spin and public relations departments of these groups nowadays; in fact it's been suggested that many are overweight in PR with a sideline in practical projects.

A famous quote comes to mind:

'The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society'*

Remember also that the EMP has a stakeholder group who have decided their names should not be divulged nor the minutes of their meetings. Thus the RSPB/NT makes its claim to take over more of Sheffield people's land and those in positions are supine enough to wave it through. Remember, too, that those responding to recent consultations who were quoted as in support of plans were anonymous! As were the 20 people who wrote to the council saying what a spiffing idea it was to give Houndkirk and Burbage to the fox-and-deer-shooting RSPB/NT consortium. None of those might possibly have been connected to the industry could they? Did anyone ask?

Are we led by donkeys?

_________________________

*Edward Bernays (pioneer of Public Relations), writing in 1928.

Reading Primer

Sitting beside a two year old with a picture book and hearing "Wossat say?" repeatedly, affects the way your mind works.

Lesson One   Rowanberry

Lesson Two  Cowberry

Won't Move, Can't Move

Certain policies become so entrenched that organisations cannot change them without losing face. 'Conservation grazing' is a shibboleth of the charities that claim to speak for wildlife around here. The management of the sheep enclosure on Blacka is particularly indefensible. It can't be called a nature reserve and certainly not a public recreation area. It is managed so purely to get farming subsidies yet there is a covenant on the land saying it is for recreation and it has been designated SSSI for nature. In both respects it is a ghastly failure. Yet they are immovable; justifications keep being attempted however feeble and strained. The current argument is that the sheep are there to promote waxcap mushrooms. Well there are waxcap mushrooms on my lawn and no sheep graze there to my knowledge. There are 80 acres and more of this land and the waxcap mushroom interest occupies less than a couple of acres. Meanwhile sheep eat all the wild flowers and leave a disgusting surface of cropped grass and faeces making it unsuitable for any pleasant human activity, such as picnicking for example.

They only started claiming the conservation interest of the waxcaps in the last few years, much later than its original SSSI designation which didn't mention them. But they will always invent a new reason for what they do because they have spent such quantities of public money here, more lately on a long boundary wall to keep the sheep in. You just know that even if sheep grazing was shown conclusively to be detrimental to waxcaps they would invent another spurious reason for their 'conservation grazing'. A species of dung beetle perhaps?

Why Do Farmers Shoot Deer?

Tempting to use the Mallory response. But it's a serious question.

It's necessary to say that there are farmers who would never shoot deer, or any wildlife come to that. It's also worth stating that many farmers see themselves as frustrated with the way their market works and that can lead to an embattled mindset. The convoluted systems of payments and subsidies and supermarket contracts and the bureaucracy and paperwork associated, don't help. Yet other groups of workers also have frustrations and insecurities without some of the compensations a life on the farm can bring. There are farmers who choose to forget this. In their narrative sometimes the public (overwhelmingly 'townies') is seen as hostile and those cuddly animals misguidedly liked by townies get on the wrong end of this. But there are many reasons for what happens. These are just a few:

The short answer to the headline question is: because they see them as vermin. Vermin to farmers and gardeners is the animal equivalent of weeds, organisms living, however temporarily, where the person responsible doesn't want them. Don't give an inch.

This view of deer has been bolstered by irresponsible news headlines in recent years, even in the non-tabloid press, giving suggestible readers the impression we are being swamped by deer. And some less scupulous academics have sold their long term credibility for media coverage in the short term Even people who've rarely or never seen deer may be forgiven for believing the scenario. It's as if deer are swarming over the Med, storming the fences at Calais then coming  up country and eating up all our woodland. The truth is quite different. There are very few places in the whole UK where deer are at unsustainable levels, the most significant of course being in the Scottish Highlands where deer are encouraged in various ways by landowners and their gamekeepers who want people to come and shoot them; deer populations there are too high. In fact many parts of the country, and this is one of them, have not enough deer. It's sheep and cattle that are over abundant. Where deer  make a nuisance of themselves, in specific localised areas, it's usually a response to misguided land management and the failure to implement sensible preventive strategies.

Another answer to the question why farmers shoot deer is that they do it because they are allowed to; farmers have been given the right after extensive lobbying over the years to shoot many wildlife species which are not protected, deer being one. Another answer is that most farmers have guns and like to use them if they can find an excuse, a certain satisfaction coming from the exercise of power over life and death. There may also be an economic value in the dead animal, assuming there's an arrangement with a local butcher or supplier.

Another reason I've heard mentioned (by someone in the conservation industry!) is that shooting them sends a message that they are not welcome: a lesson to be learned apparently. Come here and this is what happens!  How you learn any lesson at all after you're lying on the ground expired I don't pretend to understand, but it's been said.

But after all this we shouldn't underestimate the power that property exerts on human psychology. This is my property. Gerroff my land ......... or else. I felt something similar when I saw what somebody's family pet had left on my drive yesterday morning. It never occurred to me, however, to react further than a silent curse. 

You can only shoot deer if they get onto your land and for deer it can be tempting. They like grass and when they see a large area of it especially when it's unoccupied and easy to access you can see their point. But how much 'damage' do they do? That is the big question. For example many of the fields on the edge of Blacka are just there to support a couple of horses. Are those horses starving?
Whenever I walk this way I see mostly empty green fields.

There is one field, not easy to find, a cornfield, probably food for horses, where damage could have been the result of deer getting over the wall.

But it's the wildlife trust who are responsible for maintaining this boundary and the delapidated stone wall.

One feels for SRWT; they are too busy filling in forms and sending off grant applications to be bothered with this. Protection of the largest and most impressive wildlife on their land is hardly a priority. So the result is that magnificent animals of the kind we would never have thought to be living inside the city boundaries are casually killed.

What more can you say? Apart from "Run, Jump, get away quick! There are nutters around with guns!"