Finally back on track...

My Dad always says that 'the only predictable 

thing about nature is that it will be unpredictable'. 

And it's so true. For example, summer in 

December? What's going on there?

My apologies for the gap. It turns out life is at least as unpredictable as nature. Between poorly children, broken down cars, and heavier work loads than I had anticipated my outdoor time has been severely rationed, but now I have a little bit of catching up to do. 

Winter has well and truly arrived... not. We had a single fall of snow back in November which lasted all of a couple of days, but it has warmed up since then and stayed warm. The last couple of days has been well into double figures: 15 degrees Celsius in December! What is going on? But I'm getting ahead of myself. 

The single snow fall so far this winter as viewed from my 'office' window.

Having cut my last working trip to Riddy Wood short I was able to come down again earlier this week. I snuck in for a few hours on Tuesday afternoon to check things over and see where we were at. The first thing I saw when I arrived was a pair of Marsh Tits (Poecile palustris) flitting around the camp area - while we knew they were there and have seen them once or twice they are not a frequent sighting for us and always nice to see. Although from a distance the woods look like they are in the depths of winter - no leaves on the trees now - inside they look more like early spring. Bulbs are shooting - I suspect the Bluebells (Hyacinthoides non-scripta), we don't have a lot of Snowdrops (Galanthus nivalis); Primroses (Primula vulgaris) and Dogs Mercury (Mercurialis perrenis) are pushing through. Insects are everywhere! Thankfully not the biting ones, they would be less welcome visitors. But bees, ladybirds, beetles, a Saw fly, moths and on and on. In both temperature and invertebrate activity it seems like winter has been put on hold. The question is of course what will happen when the frosts, if we ever have a proper one, arrive. Certainly this flush of growth is doomed to be short lived if we do have a proper cold snap, and I can't imagine going all through winter without it getting any colder than this!

I stayed with family near to the woods that night: I had a meeting the next morning and didn't think arriving smelling of wood smoke and dirty would have been the best plan. I stopped off for a brief look around the RSPB Ouse Washes reserve to kill a bit of time before my meeting was due to start, rather than trying to get into the woods for an hour then getting out again. With the wet weather we've had recently the track into the woods is at best slippy and in danger of becoming impassable with too much use so I won't drive it more than once a visit (the day before I stopped short and walked in).

On arrival at the reserve an entry on the sightings board caught my eye: "Short Eared Owls: Everywhere"! Short Eared Owls (Asio flammeus) are on my bucket list and I've wanted to see one for ages. I've been reading reports that there have been a lot in the Fens recently and was hopeful I'd see one on my trip down. Typically I didn't see one, or the Cranes (Grus grus) which were also listed on the board, although I have seen the Cranes there before. Highlights from my sightings included a Whinchat (Saxicola rubetra), Whooper Swans (Cygnus cygnus), Great Spotted and Green Woodpeckers (Dendrocopos major & Picus viridis), hundreds of Lapwings (Vanellus vanellus) and plenty of ducks including my favourite, Teal (Anas crecca). I know they are pretty common and small but I think they are up there among the prettiest ducks and its nice to have a favourite you can see regularly. 

For those who know the reserve you will remember how long it is: despite several visits I have never been to the extreme end of either side of the reserve. One side is a full 3 km from the access point which means a 6 km round trip trek and if I remember correctly a 3 km round trip in the other direction meaning 9 km of walking to visit all the hides. However there is plenty to see: I've seen Cranes, Kingfishers, Marsh Harriers, Egrets, loads of different duck and wader species as well as lots of farmland bird species from the surrounding land, and if that wasn't enough it is a part of one of the most important wetland sites in Europe for wintering water birds. Worth a visit I'd say. I'm pretty spoiled for choice in that my parents live in a village just a few hundred meters from the banks of the washes so when I'm there to visit I can be at the RSPB reserve in 5 mins or 15 mins the other direction is the WWT Welney reserve which is good too, although you have to pay to enter so I'm a far more regular visitor to the RSPB reserve. 

After my satisfying detour and a productive meeting I returned to the woods and worked there for the next two days. Almost continuously serenaded by bird song and working in a t-shirt it really did feel more like summer or late spring than a week before Christmas. Woodpeckers (Green & GS), Red Kites (Milvus milvus), Partridges, both French (Red-legged) (Alectoris rufa) and English (Grey) (Perdix perdix) and flocks of Long-tailed Tits (Aegithalos caudatus) all paid visits during my stay and I got a distant glimpse of the woodland managers nemesis - The Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). Short-tailed (Field) Voles (Microtus agrestis) were scurrying around it seemed all over the place - I've not seen them before although I knew they were there; I'd found their tunnels. On this visit I saw three popping out from various holes and whizzing across the leaf litter to another hidden hole not far away. I also found a Tawny Owl (Strix aluco) pellet caught in a ragged tear left by a damaged branch. I dare say when I get around to teasing it apart I will find some voles bits and pieces in there. On the mammal front I also saw Hares (Lepus europeaus) and Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in the wood this visit, and various deer slots showed that at least one of the three resident deer species had been present recently.

Another Lesser Stag Beetle found among the dead wood stacked in the woods; we've found quite a few now.

Talking of Owls, my routine night time performance from the Tawny Owls was right on cue, it really wouldn't feel the same if I went a night there without hearing them. Moths followed my torchlight when ever I left the shelter to top up the wood burning stove, and while reading in bed a harvestman crawled up and over my book - lucky I'm not afraid of spiders or creepy crawlies isn't it? To make it feel even more like summer this morning, back at my parents for the weekend and helping to sort their winter wood supply by splitting some wood, a butterfly flew into the wood shed. I only got a split-second glance at it, but I think it was a Red Admiral (Vanessa atalanta). 

As many others, I will be away visiting family over the Christmas / New Year Period and my local pacth is likely to go unvisited for another few weeks yet, but I am lucky that both my parents and my parents-in-law both live on the doorstep of great reserves or areas of countryside allowing me to get out and about and see some interesting stuff. I've already described what my parents have on their doorstep. My in-laws live over on the Suffolk Coast, not far from Minsmere and a host of other coastal reserves which mean nature is very literally never far away when I am visiting family. I'll also be back in the woods for at least another few days before the end of the holidays, and while I'll be busy when I'm there I'm never to busy to enjoy the wildlife. 

Richard

Wildlife Articles: The danger of sterilising nature

Various things have transpired to prevent me getting out as much as I would liked the last few weeks, as such the 'sightings' element of my blog have been pretty sparse. Hopefully I'll get back to regular posts soon. In the mean time I have posted another article to the wildlife articles website. Its copied down below or read it in its original location here.

----------------------------------

To me personally, the unfathomable complexity of the natural world is one of its irresistible draws: when engaging with it I must therefore accept that there is more to it than I will ever personally understand or grasp fully, and I am OK with that. I know it is a cliche, but it is nevertheless true, that while I was studying conservation and ecology at University, the thing I learned better than anything else was how much I still have to learn, or to put it another way, how much I don’t yet know.

Picture postcard image of nature – everything is hunky dory.

Because we can not fully comprehend the natural world, it is fruitless trying to compare the lives of wild species with our own. Attempts to anthropomorphise nature are relatively common, particularly in non-wildlife specific media; almost as common are reminders from the scientific community of the inefficacy or irrelevance of this practice. Applying tags such as ‘cruel’, ‘harsh’, ‘vicious’, ‘horrific’ or ‘evil’ to individual animals or interactions between species is both missing the point and pointless.

These captions, based on human out-looks and emotions, simply do not translate across to animal behaviour, not even to the predators at which these comments are almost always levelled. No sparrowhawk perches up after it has plucked a Blue tit from a garden feeder and thinks, “Oh dear, I was particularly vicious that time… perhaps I have been a bit cruel… maybe such violence wasn’t warranted after all. Terribly sorry old chap.”

Ecologically there is no difference between a predator killing and eating its prey and a herbivore grazing: in simple terms they are both using the evolutionary advantage gained through distinct and specific physiological characteristics to utilise a food resource in order to accrue energy, allowing them to survive and ultimately reproduce; both carnivore and herbivore impact other species or organisms.

Unlike in human society, no animal will change its behaviour because of popular culture or political correctness, nor will it feel guilty or apologise in the face of public outcry if it doesn’t conform to expectations. I think this desire to compare, and the knock on effects, have associated, albeit subtle, dangers.

A few recent articles and comments have sparked this train of thought. The most recent was this news article about an example of cannibalism in Australian salt water crocodiles. The ‘attack’, labelled as ‘horrific’ by the headline entailed an act of within species predation; it was suggested that the smaller crocodile, the ‘victim’, may even have been dead already in which case it is just scavenging behaviour. In any event, why does this story have to be led with ‘horrifying’? Is it a gut reaction to the innate power and ferocity of one of the world’s largest living predators? Perhaps it is specific to this isolated incident because of the relationship between predator and prey? Or is it just because this particular occurrence of such behaviour happened to have a human spectator?

Surely ‘fascinating’ would be a better title, or ‘rarely seen glimpse into crocodile feeding behaviour’. I am fully supportive of efforts to educate people to the potential dangers of large and dangerous animals, creating a relationship of healthy and even cautious respect has and will continue to save lives, but there is a difference between understanding and caution and fear and vilification. This crocodile was just feeding itself, what is so ‘horrific’ about that?

The other case was a Youtube video from the channel ‘Simon King Wildlife’. It depicted a case of sparrowhawk predation in an urban garden and bore the (I thought) descriptive and unequivocal title – ‘Sparrowhawk Attacks a Pigeon – Eats it Alive (High Quality)’. I don’t know about you, but I was under no illusions of what I was going to see when I clicked to watch this video, a few months ago now. Despite this there were some who were less than satisfied. I have reproduced some of the comments below:

“This video should have had some sort of viewer warning, althou it’s nature it’s still pretty sad’

“Interesting footage but needs a stronger warning. Nature at its most vicious but necessary! Sad end to a life. Great footage though”

“some things are better left described in words, not to be graphically depicted. I know it is mother nature….but is it so important to see a creature being cruelly killed? Mankind has nothing to do with it,…so why the need to show it?”

(NB – I have reproduced the above comments, which were made publicly, in full so as not to take the original comment out of context – I have chosen not to include the derogatory responses to some of these comments. I have not included names because I do not intend this as a personal disagreement, simply as an indication of a common mindset in society. Sections of particular relevance have been emboldened for emphasis)

Male Sparrowhawk (Used under creative commons, published by Flickr user Allan Hopkins)

I understand that to many an animal death can be distressing to watch, but when you have been told clearly what to expect, why do you need a stronger warning? A warning implies something is potentially harmful, detrimental or damaging. Worse still, why censor it entirely to prevent anyone from watching it? Isn’t observation an intrinsic element of the scientific process by which we learn about the natural world? By this mentality will nature documentaries start requiring age certification, like the movies, for violence or sexuality? Depictions of the breeding season would never be aired inside the watershed again – Autumnwatch would be out of business, for a start, without the deer rut!

Research into the negative impacts of explicit and extreme depictions of human violence and sexuality regularly concludes that too much exposure to this type of material can lead to behavioural and relationship issues, including criminally violent or sexually abusive behaviours – without question something to be curtailed at all costs. I have yet to hear that nature documentaries have the same effect, regardless of how ‘violent’ they are. And yet we see films and games getting more and more violent, more and more sexually explicit with seemingly less and less restrictions, and nature being asked to ‘tone it down a bit’. I am the only one to whom this seems a little backward?

It would appear I am not entirely alone – the recent popularity of BBC documentary,The Hunt, (I’m a massive fan by the way and have loved watching it) has shown that real animal behaviour, even the gory bits is still acceptable… to a degree. This documentary, which arguably represents the endeavours of ‘hunting’ animals more realistically than any other portrayal to date, still edits footage to ‘tastefully’ gloss over the worst of, for want of a better word, ‘the bloody bits’. Don’t get me wrong, it contains enough to tell the story in full, but the audience is still, to a small degree, sheltered, protected, from the full picture. Do I think this is a bad thing, or that they should have acted differently in the editing suite? Not entirely no – don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t choose to sit and watch 50 minutes of zoomed in close disembowelment, or macro scale dissection for the fun of it either. Doubtless more people have watched or continued watching the series as a result. I just feel in some small way that this approach, and this is by means a criticism specific to this series by the way, capitulates to those who wish to sanitise or censor the natural world to a degree with which they feel comfortable. And herein lies the danger, or at least the root cause of potentially dangers, and my point for this article.

When we get accustomed with the idea of depictions of nature, which we deem to be harsh or horrific being edited, or alternatively not depicted at all, to make us comfortable we get a rose tinted view of the natural world which doesn’t accurately reflect the conditions in the field. In this quest for comfortable viewers or readers where is the line drawn, where is a stand made, where the whole story, the truth, is more important that the audiences emotionally tranquillity. If it’s OK to censor a bit of blood in a documentary, then where do we learn about the horrors of illegal poaching and its impact on critically endangered species? If our reaction to a pigeon being eaten by a sparrowhawk, a daily occurrence no doubt off camera, is to turn the video off or grumble a bit about not being warned in advance, what will our reaction be when we are shown images of genuine brutality such as a half alive rhino with its horn sawn off or real unnecessary cruelty like tens of thousands of birds being shot in Malta in total disregard for international protection, just so ‘hunters’ can watch them fall?

Poached Black Rhino (Used under creative commons, published by Flickr user Sokwanele – Zimbabwe

It will make us uncomfortable, so we will turn it off, or stop reading, or switch back to the ‘nice channel’ where the garden is full of blue tits year after year and never changes? (This subject has been discussed recently by well known industry figure heads)? Occasional stern words can only do so much when they are consistently undermined by images of everything being swell. So perhaps we should ask ourselves if a comfortable audience is necessarily the right result for a documentary of this genre. Wonder, yes; Fascination, I hope so; Passion, certainly; Disgust, perhaps; Concern, probably; Anger; possibly; Inspiration; definitely; Motivation, crucially!

Comfort doesn’t inspire or motivate to action – comfort lulls us into a false sense of security and will have us sitting on our backsides watching ‘Eastenders’ or ‘The Kardashians’ (if there was ever a deserving candidate for censorship, look no further!) while all around the globe the real world picture of biodiversity is bleak. I have heard it said that ‘the duty of a speaker (or for these purposes media or writer or producer etc)is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable’. Perhaps with nature writing, filming and reporting this could be taken to heart.

I think this desire for a comfortable yet unrealistic world view stems, deep down at least, to a sense of shame. We as a society, at least western society, haven’t got over the fact that humans won the evolutionary race and then used that advantage to rape the natural world. We feel guilty about it. The tags we apply now to nature to justify our detachment are labels which in reality can only be applied to humans. ‘Horrific’ and completely unnecessary exploitation of other species and natural resources; ‘Brutal’ treatment of other people – ‘man’s inhumanity to man’ (R. Burns) – and animals. And on and on.

If this is true, and I may be dead wrong, then the time to stop hiding behind this sense of shame is now. The ecological sins of our parents aren’t on our heads, unless by our inaction we perpetuate them. Instead we should step up to the mark, volunteer for accountability, because perhaps then we will shoulder responsibility and begin to act effectively. In no way do I intend to belittle or ignore the actions and efforts of thousands of conservationists, ecologists, biologists and environmentalists over the last few decades the world around – but I think they would all agree, there aren’t enough of them.

The danger in sterilising our perception of the natural world is not that we become desensitised to the harsh realities of a wild and unforgiving ecosystem, but that the vulnerabilities which are threatening to irreparably alter the biological world as we know it are hidden and disguised to allow a largely ignorant public to remain comfortable while biodiversity collapses around their ears.

Labels: misleading, inflammatory & unproductive

Below is a article I wrote for wildlifearticles.co.uk, a recent platform for sharing, you guessed it, Wildlife Articles. Replicated below, but you can read it in it's original setting here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is my first post and I figured I’d jump in at the deep end! Why not?

I am a self labelled conservationist. While that title isn’t official (it only is for a very few) I think I’ve earned it. I’ve studied in and around the topic officially for 4 ½ years at University - if that doesn’t indicate my financial commitment at least I don’t know what will. I’ve regularly volunteered for several years for a well known conservation group, as well as a local, less well known one. I’ve been employed on and off as a surveyor by that same large conservation group for several species groups. I submit species records (although not as often as I should do or intend to) to National and / or Local biological recording schemes. My current main occupation (‘job’ would imply it pays the bills, which currently it doesn’t!) is as a Project Manager for an Ancient Woodland Restoration and Environmental Education project. And I am a keen, although very amateur and poorly equipped, wildlife photographer. While there are many who have done, and do do more to earn the title, I’m not sure what else I could tell you to further quantify my claim, which I am sticking by, that I am a conservationist.

However… something else I do will probably have some people screaming ‘Hypocrite’!

I shoot. That is an ambiguous term isn’t it? Shooting.

There is no shortage of people heaping up criticism, vitriol and down-right hate, right up to and including death threats (clearly a charming bunch) on ‘the shooting community’ in recent months. Yes, damn those gold-medal winning Olympic trap shooters for blowing away all those clay discs! Sorry Peter Wilson (MBE - Olympic Gold Medal Winner), we don’t care how well you represented Team GB - you are part of ‘the shooting community’ because you own a gun and are therefore untrustworthy scum and intent on doing everything you can to illegally kill scarce birds of prey at every opportunity.*     

I hope you will excuse my sarcasm (especially Peter Wilson, if he reads this), but this is exactly what it sounds like, to me at least, every time somebody in the media or on social media blames ‘The Shooting Community’ as a whole for the actions of a CRIMINAL representing a TINY MINORITY of those who could be considered to be part of said ‘community’. The Scottish Highlands are well known as a sparsely populated place - if every single one of the over 1 million Shotgun Certificate holders in this country (not to mention Firearms Licence holders or air gun owners) was up there shooting Hen Harriers somebody would have noticed by now.

It seems like in every other aspect of world wide society this sort of generalisation implicating entire communities in unacceptable behaviour based on the actions of a few is considered abhorrent. I hope you will excuse me for looking at current geopolitical turmoil for a comparison, where SMALL MINORITIES of EXTREMISTS are seeking to cause harm wherever they can. These extremists claim to be, in many cases, or at least the most publicised cases, Muslim. But would anyone in the mainstream media get away with substituting references to the ‘so called Islamic State’ in their official publications with ‘The Muslim Community’!? Or even just insinuating that the wider Muslim community condone, support or celebrate the actions of these extremists? Of course they wouldn’t, because they would be wrong - mistaken or ignorant at best; prejudiced, narrow-minded, sensationalist, war mongering, conflict-seeking and idiotic at worst. Editors and other journalists would be queuing up to disassociate themselves from this sort of sweeping and unjustified generalisation, and it’s not out of the question that criminal charges would be laid at the feet of those responsible for inciting racial hatred or some similar offence. And yet when it comes to ‘the shooting community’ this rule doesn’t apply, and these untrue and unfair generalisations seem not only to be accepted without question, but encouraged?! Somebody please explain this to me? (Please take that as a rhetorical question).

Before I go further I must address the question many of you will be asking: Do I consider myself part of the shooting community? If I said ‘No!’ those of you who have been reading this muttering ‘Flipping Hypocrite!’ (or worse) under your breath for the last few paragraphs would have a point. So yes, I do. And yet I have never set foot on a grouse moor with a shotgun, or any other weapon for that matter. In fact to the best of my knowledge I have never set foot on any moor which was at the time of my visit actively managed for grouse shooting. Nor have I ever shot anything for ‘sport’ or as a ‘trophy’; nor have I paid for the opportunity to shoot anything. My shooting consists mainly of two activities which I consider separately: 1) pest control: predominantly rabbits, rats, grey squirrels and pigeons, occasionally corvids, and 2) deer management, that is to say, culling.

Of the animals I kill, it is only the rats and crows I do not eat. Therefore if anyone still muttering ‘Hypocrite’ under their breath ISN’T a vegetarian… then right back at you! If you are a vegetarian then please feel free to continue your muttering, I commend you for standing by your convictions and I respect your right to both hold and express your opinions. I sincerely and genuinely mean that, but with all due respect, we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

For those muttering obscenities who do eat meat but prefer to let someone else do their dirty work; to buy animal protein from a source where they have no contact with the animal itself; with no indication or idea of how it has lived its life; to separate themselves entirely from the reality that all meat is the result of an animal death… I will allow you to draw your own conclusions on what I think of your attitude towards animal life, but I will continue to take the moral high ground over and above your views as at least I take ownership of my consumption and involve myself in the process.

Because I consider myself a part of ‘The Shooting Community’ I must therefore condone the actions of EVERYONE SINGLE OTHER PERSON in said community, right?

WRONG! An unequivocal, resounding, oft repeated NO! In the case of the most recent uproar and in case you didn’t catch it when I capitalised CRIMINAL previously, I do not condone the illegal killing of birds of prey, whether it is a Hen Harrier or any other species, regardless of the reason - it is a CRIME and should be punished, far more severely than is currently standard practice in fact.   

Strange, because usually in a community everyone agrees with everything the others do?*

By that logic everybody in the ‘Conservation Community’ or the ‘Animal Rights / Welfare Community’ believes the SMALL MINORITY of CRIMINALS who have terrorized and intimidated the families of farmers in Gloucestershire because of the Badger Cull trials (link) should be decorated as heroes? Or that the group of protesters who desecrated the graves of the family members of employees at Huntingdon Life Sciences (link) should be applauded? David Attenborough, David Bellamy, Prince Charles, Bill Oddie, I could go on, all well known members of this community, were probably down there wielding shovels and spray cans themselves!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you will forgive my somewhat opinionated style to this point, and the sarcasm - I know, I know, it’s the lowest form… . If it has come across as a rant, then that is not what I intended although it makes me no different, but I hope at least slightly more balanced, than many who post on these topics from both sides of the argument.

I find myself sitting in no man’s land for many of the disagreements between ‘the shooting community’ and ‘the conservation community’, being a part of both and yet often unable to wholehearted support the policy or attitude of one or the other. I often end up metaphorically looking at both sides in turn thinking ‘Seriously? That’s the stance you’re going to take?’

Let me give you, anyone still reading, an insight into my frustrations in the latest round of controversy that has, and is still, causing such divisive, and dare I say it, largely unproductive dialogue between the shooting and conservation groups. Grouse Moors.

These are my opinions and as such, regardless of yours which I respect, I am entitled to them. I do not pretend that this is by any means exhaustive, I am well aware that it neglects to mention entirely some of the bigger issues which ride entirely on different people’s opinions of what is morally right and wrong, including the concept of killing for sport - not claiming to be a philosopher I will not attempt to tackle that, nor even to express my own moderate feelings on the subject. I also do not pretend my views offer a perfect solution, because there is no such thing. Whenever somebody from one side or the other of the argument makes a statement along the lines of ‘in a perfect world’, ‘if I had my way’ or any other version thereof, what they really mean is ‘if anyone who disagrees with me had their freedom curtailed’. Last time I checked that didn’t qualify as a democratic society and as such there are a fair few changes at high levels that need to happen before we get to that scenario.

Firstly, a frustration. It frustrates me no end that the organisations within the shooting community, such as BASC (The British Association of Shooting and Conservation) or the NGO (National Gamekeepers Organisation) are not more vocal in their condemnation of the CRIMINALS giving the industry a bad name. Very recently and slightly off topic, but a relevant illustrative example and the same could be applied to pretty much every case of Harriers, Kites or Eagles turning up shot or poisoned, there was the rare case of a Red-footed Falcon in England. Very exciting it was too, having such a rare vagrant roaming the Midlands, right up until some idiotic CRIMINAL shot it in Cambridgeshire (link).

Rightly so, various conservation bodies, particularly those directly associated with avian conservation wasted no time in decrying these actions. The shooting groups: nothing! Not that I heard anyway. And this really annoys me, because they would have known about it, they would have heard. In this day of immediate and almost unavoidable communication they would undoubtable of been aware, but they did nothing to condemn these actions. This to me is unacceptable and does nothing to contradict the incorrect, but nevertheless frequent allegations that these actions are condoned by the shooting world at large.

Before those in the conservation side of the stadium get too comfortable, here is my second frustration. Predator control. Leaving aside the ILLEGAL persecution of raptors, which occurs OCCASIONALLY as the result of CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Legal predator control - foxes, corvids, mustelids. One of the most frequently quoted objections to grouse moor management strategies, and indeed other parts of the game shooting industry.

My first point - why isn’t there a petition to shut down sheep and poultry farms? Because collectively across the country a lot more foxes, and I suspect although I don’t have any statistics we are talking more by several orders of magnitude, are killed to protect lambs and chickens than on grouse moors. But I haven’t seen innumerable links on social media to petitions to boycott Bernard Matthews or Mr Jones the Welsh sheep farmer, or Marks & Spencers Wool Blend suits or Christmas jumpers for that matter, because foxes are killed to protect the livestock. Why? I can only assume that actually what those citing this issue have against grouse shooting isn’t the predator control. If that is the case, OK, that’s fine, you are still allowed to disagree - but please have the guts to admit it and tell us the real reason for your disapproval rather than cherry picking an element that you believe to be distasteful and most likely to garner public support. Otherwise we are getting into the grounds of hypocrisy again.

Which leads me to my second point. I was contacted a few years back by a large wildlife organisation (who shall remain nameless) representing a co-operative of big title organisations from the conservation world, to ask if I would be interested in performing a season of surveys for them. Certainly I said! I was a postgraduate student at the time, the offer of relevant employment which fitted around my studies, was relevant and valuable experience and pays was quite literally the thing of dreams! It transpired the surveys would be for predatory mammals, intriguing. The overall purpose of the survey? To ascertain predator population density to determine whether an upland (moorland: not actively managed for Red Grouse, but they are present) breeding bird conservation project would need to undertake predator control to make the project viable. That’s right, one of the things most condemned about the management of grouse moors by ‘The Conservation Community’ is also practiced by conservation bodies. As is, by the way, selected heather burning, for those who list that among the negatives of grouse moor management.

I realise that few have continued reading to this point, and even those may be flagging by now, but before I wrap up, there is one more pet peeve I want to get off my chest here, and it is back in the shooting corner. Trophy hunters referring to themselves as conservationists. Massive personal annoyance. They are not, as a rule (and we all know there are exceptions to every rule). How can you claim to be a conservationist, i.e. directly involved in conserving a species or habitat, when the only interaction you have with that species in your entire life is to pay to shoot the best one you can find? That isn’t conservation! If the system of controlled hunting you use to facilitate that hunt is a good one, and I mean a very good one, then some of the fee you paid may go to help conservation efforts. In which case, good, because goodness knows funds for conservation are hard to come by. If it is a good system then you will be culling an old animal which is beyond useful reproductive age and is going to die soon anyway. That doesn’t make you a conservationist anymore than I am a humanitarian aid worker because I bought a bar of fair trade chocolate. An unreasonable claim for sure. Does this mean no hunter can claim the title? No it doesn’t, but that is a whole new topic on its own.

I think perhaps even just labelling ourselves as belonging to one community or another is a root cause of the problem. Before we have even began there is the implication of competition or enmity. Often these spurious community boundaries are illogical anyway. If we consider the ‘shooting community’, which many people deem to be anyone involved in any sort of shooting, or other methods of killing animals, (for the purpose of this example we will ignore those who shoot purely recreationally, i.e. targets or clay pigeons) then we must include in that community the RSPB, and other national conservation organisations who employ or contract the services of people to undertake various sorts of animal control, including but not limited to deer control, mink control and other predator control tasks. This means that the ‘pillars’ of the arbitrarily defined ‘conservation community’ are actually double agents, also a part of the equally arbitrary ‘shooting community’! What about the ‘farming community’? Another group currently and publically at loggerheads with ‘the conservation community’ or at least the ‘animal welfare community’ which I recognise are two quite different camps by the way. How many nature reserves include grazing as part of their management regime? Quite a lot, especially grassland habitats, heathlands often, wetlands and reedbed habitats, the list goes on. So again, these communities overlap substantially.   

Why do we need these ‘communities’ or more specifically these labels, anyway. What do they accomplish? Nothing productive that I can see. Why can’t we ditch the labels; agree that those who live outside of the law on all sides are universally shunned, shamed and punished for their illegal actions, and that everyone else puts aside their differences, recognises there is no silver bullet, no win-win-win solution to every situation and instead have reasoned, mutually respectful conversations to reach the best possible compromise. This is after all exactly what happens in a functioning social community.

Is everyone going to leave every meeting or forum feeling their personal agenda has been satisfied? No. But do you at present? At least in this way you have an opportunity to voice your opinions reasonably and constructively, and hear the reasoning of others directly, rather than after it has been skewed, misquoted and taken out of context by biased media entities.

The real world is all about compromise, rather than ignoring that by trying to shout louder or stoop lower than someone else to gain a perceived but ultimately irrelevant advantage, let’s embrace it, recognise it. I have friends and associates on both sides of the ‘shooting vs. conservation’ divide. I agree with some of what they aspire to, and disagree with others of their goals. Let’s lose the ‘community’ tags and instead act like a real, cohesive, diverse but functioning and overall successful community (without the ‘inverted commas’ this time).

In many ways of course what I am describing is sadly as unrealistic an expectation as the ‘perfect world scenario’ of even the most biased commentator from either side of the front line. I realise this isn’t going to happen in it’s entirety, probably at all, but at least not overnight, but it’s an aim, a direction - I daresay a more productive and beneficial direction than we seem to be heading in at present. I make these comments without any pretension of grandeur or particular sense of impeachable rural righteousness. I recognise that my opinions are not shared by many and that doesn’t bother me. A world full of mes would have too many people in the countryside! I am fully aware that there are many more capable and qualified than me to be making comments of this nature. I also recognise that the majority of people involved in these discussions on both sides are reasonable, sensible people who simply have different opinions, and hopefully these people, if they have read this are now nodding in agreement, whether full or partial, whichever side of the fence they frequent.

*: In case anyone is wondering, I have italicised sarcastic comments to save confusion for those who may try and take this more seriously than it is intended.