Ecos issue 31 2 full issue

www.banc.org.uk

Summer 2010 issue 31(2)

Helping native species – the public view Managing dog owners on wildlife reserves Cost cutting – should conservation take a share?

ECOS A REVIEW OF CONSERVATION ECOS is the quarterly journal of the British Association of Nature Conservationists

www.banc.org.uk ecos@easynet.co.uk Managing Editor: Rick Minter 01452-739142 ecos@easynet.co.uk Assistant Editor:

Martin Spray Hillside, Aston Bridge Road, Pludds, Ruardean, Glos. GL17 9TZ 01594-861404 Acknowledgements This issue was edited by Rick Minter, Martin Spray, and Ian Rotherham.

Photos on front and back cover by Dave Pressland.

Front cover photo shows a red squirrel colour morph, with pale yellow ear tufts and tail in summer month colours.

The opinions expressed in ECOS are not necessarily those of BANC Council or of the Editors ECOS may not be reproduced, transmitted in any form or by any means, in whole or in part, in English or other languages, without the prior written consent of the publisher, BANC.

Subscriptions/BANC membership Subscriptions for ECOS are ÂŁ25 for individuals and ÂŁ80 for the corporate institutional rate. See inside back cover for further details. Current and previous articles and whole editions can be purchased on line at www.banc.org.uk

President: John Bowers Vice-Presidents: Marion Shoard Adrian Phillips

Chair: Adrian Koster Secretary: Ruth Boogert Treasurer: Derek Bensley

BANC is a non profit making company limited by guarantee, registered in England No. 2136042. Registered charity No. 327595.

ECOS is printed by Severnprint using Cocoon Silk 300gsm cover and Cocoon uncoated 100gsm text paper. Both papers have a 100% recycled content and are FSC certified. The electricity used during printing is generated from renewable sources.

The magazine is printed under the SylvaPack environmental print route using no alcohol and processless plates and a donation is made to Tree Aid to support tree planting in sub-Saharan Africa.

ECOS 31(2) 2010 Editorial

The great switch off?

Is the sky falling in? Just weeks after an election, the UK conservation world is reeling from the news of wholesale job losses and drastic budget cuts across the public sector. The age of austerity is upon us, and green activity is not exempt wildlife, environment, and countryside projects are taking a hit across government spending, alongside most else. The scale of cost-cutting and job losses, including possibly a third of the Natural England staff (c.800 redundancies), means policies, grants and projects switched off at a stroke. Generations-worth of effort in crafting policies and analysing and applying ‘what works’, risk being lost. Several quangos, including the Commission for Rural Communities, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, are due to be terminated abruptly and with no consultation. Mergers of the main agencies might be next.

The recession has already held back much wildlife work, and jobs in the sector are harder than ever to come across. As a career, the conservation sector looks a daunting choice. Now with uncertain times ahead, morale is at a low ebb. Already procedural measures to save budgets, like office rationalisations, are creating discomfort amongst agency staff.

Amidst the gloom, Tim O’Riordan in this issue urges the conservation community to stay determined – his message is to link the natural world to the fundaments of life, and make more use of health, education and other sectors’ budgets to help people engage with and protect nature. The NGOs are upholding the cause too Wildlife and Countryside Link, the RSPB and others are warning against an ‘austerity countryside’ and reminding government that nature is at the heart of our wellbeing and our economy. We will have extended comment on conservation’s future, from the emerging Environment White Paper, to the proposed planning reforms, and the effects of ‘Big Society’ in the next issue.

As for the main thread in this issue, think ‘slippery species’. Some authors disagree about garden daffodils in the landscape, others discuss managing sites for the awkward effects of dogs and wild boar – throughout these challenges we quickly learn that peoplemanagement is the key. Other contributors suggest positive outlooks on feral goats and on boar and big cats, looking at the roles they play both in their ecosystems and in our psyche. Whether the fox attack of children in Hackney this year was real or not, our backyard nature might be wilder than we think. As we grapple with our cocktail of wildlife, this edition shows the need for tailored measures rather than stock solutions.

Geoffrey Wain

1

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Conservation investment in England – keeping focused amidst the cuts The cuts emerging in the departmental budgets for environment and conservation activity in England arising out of the deficit hole in public finances will be severe. A more sensible process of investing in the natural environment lies ready for adoption, should ECOS readers champion it.

TIM O’RIORDAN Cuts in conservation – early and deep The fresh coalition government composed of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will have to survive for the whole of its designed shelf life of five years. This somewhat unruly alliance is likely to maintain discipline, because to break up would be to lose too much political capital. This gives the coalition a decent shot at mid range policy making, so it is not vital that immediate political gains have to be won.

The new ministers in the relevant departments (Caroline Spellman and Jim Paice in Defra, and Chris Huhne in DECC, together with George Osborn and David Alexander in Treasury) combine the two parties in key posts. The previous Tory Environment shadow, Nick Herbert, was a surprise omission, as he was well briefed by the appropriate lobbies. The new kids on the block will require an extended settling-in period, just as the cuts are cascading around their ears.

Early indications reveal an interest in a green investment bank, mostly to promote new technology, and a vague promise to create new green spaces and wildlife habitats. There is also to be a national tree planting campaign, protection of funding for coastal defence for the time being, and new incentives for recycling.

Already Defra will face £162m cuts in the first tranche of “efficiency savings”, with DECC receiving an £85m hit.

The autumn Comprehensive Spending Review has to find £20bn of savings. There will be deep cuts in the Defra budget, possibly as much as 20%. DECC will also suffer with low-carbon support spending in jeopardy. All of this does not augur well for the environment and conservation agencies and associated NGOs. It is very likely that the cuts will be savage and relatively indiscriminate, leaving many programmes with good people running them, without the adequate resources to run their programmes effectively. Agri-environmental programmes, funds for wildlife projects and the Wildlife Trusts and many schools outdoor schemes and centres may be affected.

2

NEIL BENNETT

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Nature’s services - mindful value for money It need not be like this. The conservation lobby needs to press for real value for money invested, to show it is both cost effective as well as being good for future wellbeing of citizens. The forthcoming United Nations report on The Economics of Ecology and Biodiversity, chaired by Pavan Suchkev, should be mind blowing. This will be the most comprehensive and justified statement of the fundamental values of protecting the very life support and cost saving services we take for granted in the old fashioned economy. Suchkev argues for payments to be made for people to maintain and enhance all manner of such services, such as carbon capture by soils, bogs, and woodland; flood reduction by soaking off drainage from buildings and hard surfaces such as roads into specially designed wetlands; removal of obstructions in flood plains (likely to be wider in the climate changed years to come when more downpours are likely) and the scope for green lungs of biodiversity and cycle paths in the opened river valleys, and soil conservation and water retention.

The recent Foresight report on the Future of Land Use introduced the same topic, as is the current National Ecosystem Assessment, spearheaded by Hilary Benn, the previous Defra Secretary, and due to report in 2011.

There is a case for creating a network of sustaining landscapes. These would be on an ecologically functioning scale, with stewarding covenants to cover landscapewide property rights, paid for by beneficiaries such as water companies, insurance brokers, highways authorities, and tourism interests. It is even possible to create sustaining landscape charities, where those who benefits in the private and public sectors contribute to funds for maintenance of healthy ecosystem and biodiversity enhancing services. In this way, marginal economic communities, notably in the uplands and on the coastlines, would receive new investment for landscape stewardship and new adaptable coastlines.

3

ECOS 31(2) 2010 To run these charities could be a new cadre of young people, the sustaining citizens of the coming decade. The cost-cutting economy will leave many young adults, even well trained, out of a conventional job. This could be a version of the Tory proposed National Citizen Service, but specifically designed to safeguard ecosystems and biodiversity, not just for the cost savings which they would create.

This would also entail passive and active enjoyment and management of the outdoor environment, giving vital spiritual, health and community benefits. Such outcomes would reduce likely future anti-social behaviour, cut future costs of depression and obesity, and so should also be funded by the primary care trusts and the criminal justice budgets.

Linking nature’s services with human wellbeing, in coherent programmes at a landscape-scale, may seem ambitious. But it is a better bet for the environment and community sectors to press for than seeing years of investment collapse under brutal and insensitive cuts.

Tim O’Riordan retired as Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in 2005. He remains active in policy and research initiatives. t.oriordan@uea.ac.uk

The Environment fails to register in Wales Despite electing Britain’s first (semi) Green MP in 1992, the environment was absent from the 2010 election debate in Ceredigion.

MICK GREEN The environment in Ceredigion – everywhere and nowhere Ceredigion is home to campaigning organisations such as Friends of Cardigan Bay and houses the Welsh Assembly Government’s environment department – but environmental issues were depressingly absent from this year’s election. Ceredigion is a large, thinly populated rural constituency with issues such as low farming income and overgrazed uplands. There are some large areas of internationally important designated sites such as the Dyfi estuary in the north, the Teifi estuary in the south, and Tregaron bog in the east. It houses one of the ‘strategic search areas’ for large wind turbine developments and already has several operating wind turbine developments across the County. Ceredigion is also in the centre of the Cardigan Bay coast and abuts the Cardigan Bay Special Area of Conservation which has been subject to threats from oil drilling and scallop dredging.

The sitting and re-elected MP, LibDem Mark Williams has been active on some environmental issues, even though in general ‘environment’ is a devolved issue 4

ECOS 31(2) 2010 dealt with by the Assembly and not Westminster. He has worked closely with local groups in addressing threats to Cardigan Bay and in one election leaflet highlights this fact. Plaid Cymru’s candidate Penri James, lecturer in rural sciences in Aberystwyth University, did not mention environmental issues in his election material. Even the Green Party’s leaflet majored on the economy and rural services and made no direct mention of environmental issues. The environment did not make it into the Labour or Conservative fliers either, nor into any of the election coverage in the local press.

The environment out of the reckoning - why?

The environment has always been a hot topic locally, with many active groups. The Centre for Alternative Technology is only a few miles north of the Constituency, and Aberystwyth University teaches several environmental courses. Ellin Jones, the Rural Affairs Minister in the Welsh Assembly has her Assembly Constituency within Ceredigion and has caused uproar with her decision to go ahead with a badger cull in Wales. So why is the subject not seen as an election issue?

It is probably partly a bit of a national trend – environmental issues were not debated in the leadership debates, and were not raised by the national press. ‘The economy and jobs’ were the big topics in national party manifesto’s and this seems to filter down to local leaflets. Apart from the occasional mention of climate change the environment did not exist. In the International Year of Biodiversity nobody mentioned the Government’s failure to meet its pledge to stem declines in biodiversity by the end of this year, let alone other promises under BAP to increase numbers of species and areas of habitat.

It may also be that, as mentioned, Environment is a devolved subject, and that our Westminster MPs have no direct say over the implementation of environmental policy in Wales. That said, I doubt if it will be a major issue in the 2011 Welsh Assembly elections unless things change dramatically – our environment just does not seem to be resonant it politics at present.

Mick Green runs the consultancy Ecology Matters. mick@gn.apc.org

5

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Managing wildlife and invasive non-native species – the public view This article summarises the findings of research commissioned by Defra in 2008-9 to consider what the public know, and how they feel about, managing wildlife and, in particular, the issue of invasive non-native species. For those seeking to implement government policy in this area, the findings are encouraging.

STEVE GRIGGS Grabbing the headlines - the media context “Curse of Japanese knotweed could be at an end as plans are unveiled to import its bug nemesis”1 “'Kill Crayfish on sight' appeal” 2 “Who's a pretty dead boy? Parakeets to be shot” 3 “£5 a head bounty for rescuing hedgehogs” 4 Whether it is Japanese knotweed, signal crayfish, ring-necked parakeets or the more humble hedgehog, issues of wildlife management and invasive non-natives have a habit of grabbing attention in the media. Despite this, very little seems to be known about what the public knows and feels about these issues.

Two Scottish studies are of interest. The first, published in 2003 by the Scottish Economic Policy Network,5 concludes that the strong views of animal rights groups on culling species are not shared by the public. For example, despite widespread media coverage of the opposition to controlling hedgehogs in the Western Isles, the authors found that over 75% of participants in their survey supported humane culling. They conclude that there is a need to broaden the debate beyond the self interest groups whose views often receive widespread media coverage.

The second paper, published in 2007 6, looks at the public’s views on attitudes towards managing wildlife in general, and invasive non-native species in particular, including the extent to which people supported different control strategies. The authors conclude that there is a “general willingness” to support conservation management and that public support is likely to increase if they understand the reasons why it is considered necessary.

The policy context Invasive non-native species (INNS), defined as “species whose introduction and/or spread threaten biological diversity or have other unforeseen impacts” 7, are identified as one of the 6

ECOS 31(2) 2010 main causes of biodiversity loss, not just in this country but worldwide.8 The Biodiversity Convention sets out a framework for tackling this issue; contracting parties (which include the UK Government) have agreed to achieve significant reductions in the current rate of biodiversity loss including those arising from the impact of invasive non-native species.9 The control of invasive non-native species is one aspect of the wider need to manage wildlife in the UK, whether this is for conservation purposes, disease control, protection of livestock, crops, infrastructure or human health. This often entails intervention such as culling or clearing, although a variety of other methods have been used depending on the circumstances.

In England, responsibility for strategic policy for wildlife management and non-native species lies with Defra. Following a review in 2003,8 and the establishment of the NonNative Species Secretariat, a strategy for tackling invasive non-native species within Great Britain was published in 2008 7. The strategy emphasises prevention over cure.

The cost of eradicating an established INNS can be prohibitive; indeed, in some cases, it may not be possible. For this reason the aim is, firstly, to prevent a non-native species from entering or gaining a foothold in Great Britain in the first place. Secondly, it focuses on those NNS already present in Great Britain and either known to be, or thought to have potential to become, invasive and to eradicate them before they become established.

The strategy recognises that “improved awareness and understanding of the issues surrounding invasive non-native species is key to wider support for the relevant policies and programmes, and for engaging the public in decision-making� .7 To this end, in the summer of 2008 Creative Research was commissioned by Defra to carry out a programme of market research.10

The research programme A comprehensive programme of qualitative and quantitative research was carried out among the general public, freshwater anglers and a sample of retailers of terrestrial and aquatic plants in England (see Box 1).

Box 1: Summary of sampling 10 three hour workshops structured by lifestage and socio-economic grade with 7-8 respondents in each workshop General Public 600 face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of adults in terms of age, gender, socio-economic grade and urban and rural locations. a two hour discussion with a group of anglers Freshwater Anglers 150 telephone interviews with a sample drawn at random from a list of adults in England who had indicated that angling was a leisure activity Horticultural Retailers 126 telephone interviews with a sample of horticultural retailers

Anglers were included as they have the potential to introduce and spread INNS either deliberately or by failing to adopt sufficiently rigorous bio-security measures, such as using net dips to disinfect their nets in between fishing trips.

7

ECOS 31(2) 2010 Horticultural retailers were included as they are able to influence public opinion both in terms of the products and the information and advice they offer.

Wildlife management Wildlife Management is not a term with which most members of the public are familiar. Nevertheless, when asked, most are able to put forward a reasonable definition. It is about managing, conserving and protecting wildlife and, to a lesser extent, habitats and the environment. The public conceptualise wildlife management very broadly and place more weight on managing human impacts on wildlife rather than the other way round.

We recorded broad support for managing wildlife. The highest level of support, not surprisingly, was when management is to protect human health and safety. There was more qualified support, and some resistance, when it is to protect habitats, crops, infrastructure and, in particular, new developments. Support for wildlife management was significantly higher among rural dwellers compared to people living in urban locations.

We identified three groups of people on the basis of their support for, and attitudes towards, wildlife management. Amongst the sample of 600 (representative of the adults of England), four out of every ten people (42%) were favourably disposed towards wildlife management. A further third (33%) offered qualified rather than full support; for example, they want to be certain it is being done for the right reasons and by applying the most appropriate methods. The remainder (25%) were not so much opposed as undecided and this suggests there is scope to persuade them of its merits. We did not find anyone who was against the idea of managing wildlife. For advocates of wildlife management, this is a very encouraging finding.

Native, non-native and invasive non-native species Three-quarters of the public are familiar with the term ‘native species’ (NS) and two-thirds have come across ‘non-native species’ (NNS) before. Moreover, most of them have a reasonable appreciation of what NNS means – species that are not naturally occurring in Great Britain but which originate in other countries. The term ‘alien species’, which is sometimes used as an alternative to NNS, is less familiar to, and deemed a less appropriate term by, the public.

However, knowing what the terms refer to is one thing, being able to distinguish between native and non-native species is an altogether different issue. Our findings suggest that other than when there is a strong clue in the name – such as Himalayan Balsam or American mink – most members of the public simply do not know which are which.

Not only this, there is a tendency to assume that the difference is based on how long established a species is, rather than how it became established in the first place. For example, some would argue that rabbits - first introduced to the British Isles by the Romans – should be considered as a native species because they have lived on these islands for the best part of 2,000 years.

8

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Volunteers at Cowall End Local Nature Reserve in Dudley, West Midlands, clear Japanese knotweed.

Photo: www.glendell.co.uk

In contrast, invasive non-native species (INNS) is not a familiar term - only 40% of the public in our survey had come across it before and one in every four could not offer a definition. Where a definition was offered, INNS was most commonly described in terms of species that can spread and have negative impacts on native animals and plants.

Once the term had been explained, six out of every ten members of the public could provide one or more examples of species they considered to be INNS, in particular, the Grey squirrel (64%), Japanese knotweed (38%), American mink (25%) and Signal crayfish (18%). However, leaving aside these headline species, awareness of most NNS was low so, not surprisingly, knowledge about which might also be invasive was even lower. Most people perceived INNS to be a less serious threat to the country’s biodiversity compared to other threats, such as loss of habitat or climate change.

The case for managing wildlife and controlling INNS Our research indicates that while there is broad support in principle for controlling INNS, the level of support for any individual case will depend on the actual circumstances – the nature of the problem and the perceived acceptability of the proposed solution. There was a high level of support for controlling INNS that pose a threat to human health. There was more qualified support for controlling INNS that threaten native species or cause economic damage – this was often because respondents were unsure about this rather than because they disagreed.

9

ECOS 31(2) 2010 Most of the concerns voiced by the public relate to the choice of control method and this is where most resistance is likely to be met. Ideally, most people would prefer humane methods of culling to be used as well as methods that are species specific. Nevertheless, there was a recognition that it is not straightforward and that various factors have to be weighed up and trade-offs may need to be made.

Box 2: Principles for choosing methods of control • The cost of the solution needs to be proportionate to the size and nature of the problem • Where appropriate, preventative measures should be adopted • Wherever possible, non-lethal control methods should be used in preference to culling • When culling is the appropriate method, wherever possible humane methods should be used that result in an instant, painless death and which minimise the chances of non-target species being culled.

The research highlights a number of principles that the public feel should be used when considering the most appropriate choice of method of control; these are summarised in Box 2. If the public perceive that these principles are being followed, this should result in higher levels of public acceptance.

Our findings suggest that public confidence in individual control methods can be further enhanced through: • knowing that there are rules and regulations governing who can use any given method, the circumstances under which they can be used, and the manner in which the method should be used; • knowing that there are codes of practice designed to encourage the appropriate use of various methods; • endorsements by recognised bodies, such as animal welfare groups; • explaining why a particular method is being used and why alternative methods are considered inappropriate.

Anglers The anglers in our sample agreed that INNS pose a threat to native fish and plants.

Awareness of INNS was higher among anglers but, as with the public, there are considerable challenges in terms of educating this audience. For example, some widely recognised species are not considered to be INNS (e.g. Common carp, Topmouth gudgeon), some species known to be INNS are not widely recognised (e.g. Chinese mitten crab) and some species are both poorly recognised and not known to be INNS (e.g. Bitterling, Sunbleak).

Many anglers claim they are already adopting appropriate behaviour, including air drying nets, landing mats and slings after every trip, using a net dip where these are provided and not moving fish between waters. They were also willing to consider changing their behaviour if it can be shown to help combat the threat posed by INNS. While they were receptive to the idea about not introducing to, or moving fish between, waters and not re-releasing INNS that they catch, this also 10

ECOS 31(2) 2010 represents a challenge. Not only will anglers need to recognise a fish they have caught as an INNS, in the case of coarse anglers, releasing their catch is the defining feature of their sport. We also detected considerable resistance from those who use ‘stink bags’11 to stop doing so.

Horticultural retailers There is almost universal awareness of the INNS concept among the horticultural retail trade, however awareness of the Horticultural Code of Practice – launched by Defra in 2005 to provide advice and guidance about invasive non-native plants was less than 50% of the sample and was particularly low among retailers selling just aquatic plants. This is clearly a cause for concern given the number of potentially invasive aquatic plants and suggests there is a need to continue to promote the Code especially among those selling aquatics.

At the time of the survey, only half the sample had a policy specifically relating to the sale of INNS and, with a few exceptions, this was an informal, unwritten policy.

This normally took the form of ‘We don’t sell INNS’ – but, as we see below, the retailers’ definition is not necessarily the same as Defra’s or NNSS’s.

Box 3: List of invasive or potentially invasive species Terrestrials Buddleia (Buddleia davidii) Cherry Laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) False Acacia (Robinia pseudocacia) Few-flowered Leek (Allium paradoxum) Giant Rhubarb (Gunnera tinctoria) Hottentot Fig (Carpbrotus edulis) Montbretia (Crocosmia species) Shallon (Gaultheria shallon) Skunk Cabbage (Lysichiton americanus)

Aquatics Curly Waterweed (Lagarosiphon major) Fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana) Floating Pennywort (Hydrocotyle ranunculoides) New Zealand Pygmyweed (Crassula helmsii or Tilaea recurva or Tilaea helmsii) Parrot's Feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) Water Primrose (Ludwigia peploides or Ludwigia grandiflora)

The majority of retailers in our sample had, in the previous 12 months, sold one or more species from a list of 16 considered by Defra/NNSS to be invasive or potentially invasive (see Box 3).

Part of the explanation for this was a disagreement over which species are considered to be invasive and, in particular, potentially invasive. Some of the trade question why retailers should be expected not to sell plants that are only potentially invasive where there is no evidence to show they are actually invasive. Clearly, retailers need to be convinced that the Defra and NNSS strategy of tackling the problem by preventing potentially invasive species from establishing a foothold is the best approach.

But this wasn’t the only reason why such species are being sold – on average, nearly half of all the cases involved retailers selling species which they themselves consider to be invasive or potentially invasive. This was usually justified in terms of ‘meeting customer demand’. Clearly, the horticultural trade have a responsibility to educate their customers by encouraging them to buy alternative species and to manage and dispose of any INNS plants properly. Indeed, two-thirds of retailers 11

ECOS 31(2) 2010 claimed they are providing information and advice about INNS to their customers.

Almost without exception, retailers are willing to consider displaying point of sale materials and labelling, especially if Defra was to provide these – something it is doing as part of the Be Plant Wise campaign (see below).

The way ahead Our research shows there is need to drive the issue up the public’s agenda on a number of fronts and the NNSS, amongst others, has taken steps to do just this.

Some examples are provided in Box 4.

Box 4: Examples of steps taken to inform the public Issue What INNS are, how they get here, that they are one of the most serious threats to biodiversity

How to recognise INNS

What role the public can play

about INNS Response Our findings have been used to help develop definitions and explanations of the key concepts; see, for example, https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/inde x.cfm?sectionid=15 Information aimed at anglers is provided by The Environment Agency; see, for example, environment-agency.gov.uk/ homeandleisure/recreation/fishing/108294.aspx A series of ID sheets have been developed to help people identify INNS; see, for example, https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/inde x.cfm?sectionid=47 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ homeandleisure/recreation/fishing/99055.aspx The NNSS website has a section that provides information and advice to local action groups https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/inde x.cfm?sectionid=26

Based on our findings, we suggested that a two-pronged approach is required; one prong targeting the public to raise awareness of the problem and suggesting what they can do to help tackle it, including which species they should avoid buying, and the other aimed at the trade to encourage them to ‘do their bit’ and to be seen as ‘responsible’.

The recently launched Be Plant Wise12 campaign sets out to tackle invasive aquatic plants in exactly this way. The website has a section aimed at gardeners and pond owners setting out why the issue is important, identifying which plants are INNS as well as possible alternatives, and gives advice on how to safely dispose of any invasive aquatics. Another section of the site is aimed at retailers and includes a range of free leaflets and posters they can use to educate their customers about the issue.

As with any behaviour change initiative, it is likely to be some time before attitudes and behaviour alter significantly, however, our research suggests that any efforts in this direction should be productive.

12

ECOS 31(2) 2010

References David Derbyshire, The Daily Mail, 24 July 2009, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article1201665/Japanese-knotweed-faces-nemesis-bug-foe-imported-East.html 2. BBC, 15 August 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/south_of_scotland/7564004.stm 3. Chris Gourlay, Sunday Times, 20 December 2009, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6962897.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000 4. Kirsty Scott, The Guardian, 27 March 2003, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/mar/27/animalwelfare.world 5. Philip LJ and Macmillan D (2003) Public perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the control of wild animal species in Scotland (summary report) Scottish Economic Policy Network, University of Stirling, Stirling 6. Bremner A & Park KJ (2007). Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biological Conservation 139: 306-314.

7. The Invasive Non-Native Species Framework Strategy for Great Britain, 2008 produced by Defra, and the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Governments.

8. Review of non-native species policy, Defra, 2003 9. Cited by the GB Non-Native Species Secretariat, http://www.nonnativespecies.org/05_Policy_and_strategy.cfm 10. A copy of the research report can be found at http://www.creativeresearch.co.uk/report_details.asp?ID=37 11. A stink bag is an air tight bag used to store nets between trips; nets may be put away wet and this creates ideal conditions for incubating diseases.

12. https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/beplantwise/ 1.

NEIL BENNETT

Steve Griggs is a director of Creative Research, a market research agency specialising in the public sector. The research was commissioned and funded by Defra. The views expressed are entirely those of the author. steve@creativeresearch.co.uk

13

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Garden Daffodils in the countryside – good for the environment?

The recent fashion for planting garden daffodils throughout the countryside could have impacts on our native flora, and on people's perception of the natural world.

Although not a prime conservation issue, is it something that should be addressed or simply ignored? The recent launch of a website shows that opinions can be sharply divided – but what do ecologists think?

ANDY TASKER Every March for the last 30 years or so I’ve noticed with increasing frustration a growing change in the countryside, as a bright yellow plague of garden daffodils bursts into bloom. What started out as some kind of gardening fashion to make cities, towns and villages ‘prettier’ has spread throughout the countryside, now invading road verges, woodlands and even nature reserves. On the one hand it can be argued that anything that makes our poor dull lives brighter after the rigours of winter is good for the human psyche, lifting our spirits with the thoughts of Spring around the corner. But how good is it for the environment?

As garden daffodils have spread and my concerns have grown, I’ve also become increasingly alarmed that nobody seemed to be saying that it was a bad idea. So the process has continued with more people now conditioned to thinking that somehow garden daffodils should be welcome everywhere in the countryside. So are garden daffodils a problem ecologically? I’d put the answer into three broad categories: pressures on native wildflowers, impact on the landscape, and issues with native daffodils.

Pressures on native wildflowers We know from many sources that wild flowers are under pressure in the UK. Natural England's Lost Life report1 shows that 20 vascular plants have been lost from England, 2% of our total flora. Plantlife's website2 claims: “the worst-hit counties have lost one native flower every year, on average, throughout the 20th century.” In addition, 24% of all plant species have depleted populations or are on the BAP list.1 Although garden daffodils clearly don’t fit the ‘aggressive invader’ role of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) or Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera), they do nevertheless have a local impact on native flora. The main effect is seen once they’ve become established for a decade or so, when their clonal spread ensures that they physically exclude all other plant species.

Depending on the initial planting density, this can transform significant areas into a monoculture of daffodils, and even in small areas it ensures no niche space for our native Spring flora. It may only be on a small scale, but in EIA terms daffodils must have some negative impact on the environment, even if it’s only a small one.

14

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Impact on the landscape An individual’s perception of ‘landscape’ is clearly a personal view, where one person’s nirvana could be another person’s nightmare. However it is a general feature of the natural world that it should be ‘natural’. We may forget that hedgerows were a functional item introduced for stock control, and that flower-rich meadows only became established as a by-product of domestic livestock farming, but nevertheless ‘naturalness’ is something to be sought. Even Ratcliffe3 included it in his categories of features worthy of conservation in 1977. With that background, garden daffodils are clearly in no way natural and are planted solely because some individuals like to see them. But should their view prevail? I’ve sought an analogy with other items of heritage, such as Old Masters. We know of the Mona Lisa as a painting that is famous for its subtle beauty, not its brash use of colour. Anyone seeking to make it ‘prettier’ by painting bright red lipstick on would be branded a vandal and accused of failing to value our cultural heritage. The wildflowers of the UK provide our countryside with a similarly subtle use of colour, to be appreciated through the seasons as they progress. Planting garden daffodils because we think they look nice is just like painting lipstick on the Mona Lisa.

Issues with native daffodils The native daffodil (Narcissus pseudonarcissus) is part of the British flora with a widespread distribution in the UK, although not common and currently declining.

Reasons for the decline include loss of woodland, changes in agricultural practice, and picking.4 Clearly for a species in decline any hybridisation threats are potentially significant. Evidence for hybridisation is often anecdotal, based on the proximity of wild and garden daffodils in isolated woodlands. However Rowlatt4 has shown recently that hybridisation does occur, and can be important at a local level. The irony is that the garden daffodil planters are unwittingly impacting on the wild daffodil that was the inspiration for Shakespeare when he wrote in The Winter's Tale, sometime before 1611: "... golden daffodils that come before the swallow dares, and take the winds of March with beauty”; And of course William Wordsworth’s famous lines, written nearly 200 years later, again refer to the wild daffodil, not the garden daffodils that are now widely mis-used in his name.

“I wandered lonely as a cloud That floats on high o'er vales and hills, When all at once I saw a crowd, A host, of golden daffodils; Beside the lake, beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.”

Today the Welsh nation and the Marie Curie Cancer Care Great Daffodil Appeal have both adopted garden daffodils as their emblem, emphasising this disconnect with the natural world – the native wild daffodil is just not brash enough compared with its large gaudy garden cousins.

Although garden daffodils clearly do not belong in the countryside, conservation organisations have not sought to challenge their increasing planting, presumably 15

ECOS 31(2) 2010 on the basis that there are far more pressing conservation priorities, and there could be a public backlash against arguing for their removal. One of the pleasant aspects of taking early retirement is that it provides the opportunity to do those things you’ve always wanted to. So when a producer from Radio 4’s Farming Today approached me looking for interesting stories about wildflowers in the countryside, I suggested a rant about garden daffodils mis-planted in road verges, woodlands and nature reserves.

Publicity feeds on itself To encourage the BBC to record the piece I set up a website www.ihatedaffodils.org.uk and they took the bait. The website went live on 8 April, in time for the Farming Today piece at 5.30am the next morning, but unfortunately the radio piece made no mention at all of the new website. Luckily a colleague of a news reporter on the Mail on Sunday heard it and called his friend, who managed to fill an entire page with the story (on 11 April 2010). The piece was well written, putting the case for wildflowers instead of garden daffodils. The response was interesting, including those thinking I was insane and should be locked up, and one even comparing me with Hitler. However there were others who saw the point and emailed to say so. Next in the publicity sequence, Radio 4’s You and Yours on 12 April re-worked the Farming Today recording, but added a rebuttal delivered by a spokesperson from Gardening Which, who basically took the line that all daffodils were pretty, and a welcome sign of Spring wherever they were. The absence of any notification to me of this rebuttal led me to a right of reply, which was broadcast live on 13 April. Media attention grew with requests from local radio stations from Lincolnshire to Wales, a piece in the Welsh Western Mail, a double page spread in our local Coventry paper and an editorial in The Guardian. The maelstrom fortnight came to an end with a ‘response’ article in The Guardian of 23 April. From start to finish there had been over 4,000 page views on the website, with a maximum 1,200 in one day.

Preaching to the converted?

Apart from the initial Mail on Sunday vitriol, much of which seemed to come from overseas respondents, there was more positive response than negative. Even the professional daffodil grower on Radio Lincolnshire recognised that planting garden daffodils throughout the countryside was not good for the environment. Many of the emailed comments came from people who had tried to stop over-ambitious local planting initiatives, only to be over-ruled by others ‘on the committee’. It seems that there are people throughout Britain who don’t like the fashion of mass planting of garden daffodils, but have been powerless to do anything about it. It turned out that even Germaine Greer had written a piece abhorring the practice (in 20035): "There are too many daffodils about. There, I've said it. I have spoken against the Welsh national flower, but not because I'm anti-Welsh or even anti-daffodil. I raise my voice because I think the passion for planting verges and wasteland in village after village with a mixture of daffodil cultivars has gone too far. The result is hideous…"

16

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Garden daffodils in a Warwickshire ancient woodland.

Photo: Andy Tasker

A couple of modern day poets responded with their own takes on William Wordsworth’s ditty, my favourite being Acid Reign by Stephen Anderton6, which begins: I motored homeward with the crowd That sits on tails and queues up hills When all at once – I cried aloud – Another slab of daffodils; Despite the salt, beneath the trees, Where'er I looked, this bright disease.

On balance after the first month of the project there were many more people in favour of the campaign than against it, with several sending photographs of garden daffodils wrongly planted in their local patch, which are now available through the website on Google Earth.

Next steps Having begun as a personal rant, there now seem to be grounds for thinking that something should be done to stem the tide of the yellow monsters, and reclaim the countryside for wildflowers. The question is, what? Obviously individual landowners can be encouraged to remove garden daffodils where they’ve been planted in inappropriate places. Some of this happens already in an ad hoc manner, but a nationwide campaign may have some positive impact. At the other end of possibilities, more awareness-raising may help people realise that planting garden daffodils throughout every corner of Britain is not the smartest thing to do. One other intriguing possibility is to make the planting of garden daffodils in the countryside an illegal activity. The Wildlife and Countryside Act’s Schedule 9 lists those plants that it is illegal to introduce into the wild, and currently does not include garden daffodils. Presumably it could if a valid case was established.

17

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Garden daffodils covering a Durham road verge.

Photo: Rachel Houchin

So the answer at the moment depends on whether anyone else thinks it is an idea worth pursuing. There is the potential to make a real difference – albeit a very small one - but only if sufficient people want it to happen. If not, it will remain as my little grumble and a website, which showed some support but little else. I’m still convinced that garden daffodils in the countryside are another piece of evidence of the disconnect that exists between people and wildlife – evidence if you like of the failure of conservationists in the UK to really take their message to everyone. But what happens next depends on you, reading this article: do you want to help make it happen, or should I retire gracefully to my daffodil-free garden? I have noted that at least one practitioner is not with me, in what follows from Gavin Saunders.

Please respond to andy@ihatedaffodils.org.uk.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Natural England (2010) Lost Life: England's lost and threatened species, Natural England. http://www.plantlife.org.uk/campaigns/species_decline/ Ratcliffe, D.A. (1977) A Nature Conservation Review, Cambridge University Press.

Rowlatt, S. (2010) The wild daffodil in northwest Gloucestershire and survey 2007-2009, Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust.

Greer, G (2003). ‘Country Notebook’, Daily Telegraph, 12 April 2003.

Stephen Anderton (1991) ‘Acid Reign’, The Spectator, 14 September 1991.

Andy Tasker was Chief Executive of Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and Middlemarch Environmental Ltd until March 2010. He now works part-time as Development Director of Middlemarch Environmental Ltd and with his own consultancy Priority People Ltd. The views expressed here are his personal views, and certainly not those of Warwickshire Wildlife Trust or Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. andy@ihatedaffodils.org.uk

18

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Garden daffodils - a response GAVIN SAUNDERS Who needs to learn what?

Andy says that the presence of planted daffodils shows that nature conservationists are failing to get their message across. I suggest it’s the other way round – Andy’s response to the planting of daffodils shows that conservationists themselves are failing to get the message about what real human interaction with the natural world is actually like. Messy, misguided, culturally warped, and different from how some conservationists would like it to be. But real, nevertheless.

While describing what he sees as a problem, Andy is also, I suggest, illustrating a much bigger problem in the mindset of conservationists – the assumption that We Know Best and the Great Unwashed out there ought to know better. The suggestion that curing this transgression is simply a matter of educating the ignorant herd, is condescending in the extreme.

How about spending some time instead trying to find out a bit more about why people plant daffodils outside their gardens? Conservationists fail to give credit to people’s motivations for doing this and many other things. These people are (mostly) motivated by decent instincts, and are not just oiks who need an ecology lesson. If someone gets some pleasure from planting some bulbs in a verge somewhere, then for me that is well worth the ‘horror’ of a few square feet of ‘daffodil monoculture’ a few years down the line.

I challenge the negativity of the title Andy gives his ‘campaign’. It reinforces a view that conservationists are only about pointing out what’s wrong – what’s going extinct, what’s being polluted, and what’s being spoiled – rather than pointing to what is good.

Interacting with nature OK, so a proportion of the planting of garden varieties of daffodil is done by councils with municipal attitudes to blousy, ordered floral colour. But in many other cases the planting is done by individuals who feel they are doing something positive. That may be in the sense of ‘brightening up’ a verge, which I agree is a shame – a shame they are not prepared to recognise the inherent brightness of that verge beforehand. But it’s more than that. Planting means engaging – putting your hands in the soil, and getting a result. However misguided to some eyes, planting bulbs in verges or even in woodlands represents a fleeting dialogue with nature – one which allows the person to become a participant in the landscape rather than just an observer of it.

Engaging with nature is an intensely personal (or social) experience, which has its own rules and context for each one of us. It should not be for ‘experts’ to try and set the terms for that engagement by telling people what is the right way and what 19

ECOS 31(2) 2010 is the wrong way of appreciating the natural world. Point out the consequences of their actions, by all means. But denouncing them and the flowers they happen to enjoy, is both petty and patronising.

So in my view, not only are Andy and his fellow daffodils-haters barking up a monumentally irrelevant tree, compared to the welter of other genuinely important subjects they could be spending their time on. But more than that, they are reinforcing stereotypes about conservationists, and further cementing the division between ivory-tower perceptions amongst an educated profession, and the straightforward and sincere (albeit perhaps also messy, ill-conceived and ill-educated) actions of people who are responding in their own way to the natural world.

And if planting daffodils was added to the Act and made illegal I think that might be the last straw for me – time to abandon the nature conservation business entirely!

Gavin Saunders heads the Neroche Project. These views are his own. gavin.saunders@forestry.gsi.gov.uk

Misfit species – the debate The BANC web site is hosting a debate on alien species and misfit species – where they might fit in to our ecosystems and land management in Britain and where they definitely don’t, and how people form their perceptions on such species and their effects. The debate begins with a personal contribution from Charles Wilson of Natural England, who challenges points made in the Eco-xenophobia article by Ian Rotherham, in ECOS 31(1). Ian Rotherham justifies his position as a follow up.

From garden daffodils to Himalayan balsam, and from wild boar to eagle owls and parakeets. Your views, your experiences, and yes, your rants and your prejudices are all welcome! See debates at www.banc.org.uk

20

ECOS 31(2) 2010

In a nutshell – a defence of the grey squirrel This article challenges conservation strategies for controlling the grey squirrel, and asks conservationists to examine their own values about wild nature.

ANGUS MACMILLAN Dubious reasons for control In recent years a campaign has been waged by government agencies and red squirrel conservation charities against the friendly and amusing grey squirrel that is loved by many for its antics in parks and woodlands throughout the country. This crusade-like campaign is focused on three separate issues: 1.The concept of the grey squirrel being regarded as a ‘non-native’ or ‘alien’ species because of its introduction by humans to Britain from America in the late nineteenth century; 2.The claim that it transmits squirrel-pox virus to the supposedly ‘native’ red squirrel; 3.That when grey squirrels move into an area red squirrels move out.

The ‘solution’ to this perceived problem is the publicly funded, mass culling of thousands of these animals across the length and breadth of the UK. But like all crusades there’s an element of zealotism and enthusiasm that clouds reality. The daily demonising of grey squirrels appears to be an exercise in softening-up the general public to gain support.

It is well-known that the grey squirrel was brought from North America to England in the late nineteenth century. However, and importantly, it is less known that ancestors of the current population of red squirrels in the UK were largely introduced from various parts of Europe. Furthermore, they are taxonomically different from what is thought to be the indigenous population. Indeed, there is no evidence that the red squirrel has existed in Britain continuously from the time of the land bridge to Europe around 7,000 – 10,000 years ago. The red squirrels that have been introduced have evolved within a wide range of climatic and environmental conditions and associated with different flora and fauna encountered across the part of the range they inhabit, from Britain to China. In this case, for conservationists to argue that these influences are not important is to argue against their own criterion for the red squirrel to be regarded as a ‘native species’.

The criterion set by the ‘conservation industry’ for determining if a species is ‘native’ is that it should have evolved with all other species within its own ecosystem and 21

ECOS 31(2) 2010 not have been introduced or assisted by humans to arrive at what is regarded as its natural location. In short, it should have got to where it is by its own efforts and evolved naturally. If people assisted it, then it is regarded as ‘non-native’.

Indeed, this is confirmed in a government agency website with the following definitions: • Native species are presumed to be those that are present in Great Britain by natural means. In general they migrated (or were transported by other species) into Great Britain after the last Ice Age, without the assistance of humans.1 • Non-native species have been introduced to Great Britain, either deliberately or accidentally, by humans.1

The roles of people Of course this criterion of unassisted arrival is only genuinely credible if the actions of humans are wrongly regarded as outside of nature. There may be practical and pragmatic reasons for putting human actions to one side, but in the ethical sense the argument is weak.

From a human perspective there is no doubt in the animal world that we are pretty smart cookies. We have evolved to manufacture modes of air, sea and land transport, store extensions of our memories on computers, provide ourselves with heat and light, cut ourselves open to remove diseased tissue, and to grow our own animal and vegetable food. We can also destroy other members of our own species with unimaginable ferocity if they dare to compete with us for desirable objectives.

These are just a few of our unique capabilities. But none of this excludes us from nature. It only shows we have the mental and physical capacity to use tools and weapons made from natural resources to a greater degree than any other species on the planet. So as we are part of nature, it follows that if we transport fauna or flora to our homeland because we find them attractive, then the claim that these introductions are only acceptable if “transported by other species” is exposed as anthropocentric prejudice, masquerading as science, which serves to undermine the whole concept of native and non-native species.

In fact, the survival of some species depends almost solely on their joint attractiveness to members of their own species and to other species. The red squirrel’s attractiveness in Britain to those who will kill greys to ‘protect’ it is a prime example.

Squirrel-pox virus We are also told that grey squirrels are the ‘cause’ of the red squirrel decline through the transmission of squirrel-pox virus (SQPV) but there is no evidence to support this. It is merely speculation being presented as fact. Indeed, there are a number of ongoing grant-funded studies to try to determine the route of infection but this expensive research would not be required if the route was already known.

However it is known that the disease characteristics of SQPV are similar to other poxvirus infections. Most are resistant to drying, which means lesions or crusts can 22

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Photo: Dave Pressland

remain infected for a long time, thus allowing the spread of the disease throughout the forest environment by almost any creature that comes into contact with it. In fact, Scottish Natural Heritage admits it does not know the route of transmission and that ‘‘possibilities include being passed by ectoparasites, fleas, lice, ticks and mites which may transfer from animal to animal in the dreys’’ 2, most likely within the red squirrel population. SNH also acknowledges that the virus may be airborne spread. Research by McInnes et al. in 2006 acknowledges ‘‘the possibility that the virus is endemic to the UK and that other rodent species inhabiting the same woodland environment could be harbouring the virus”.3 If the pox virus is ‘endemic’ in the red squirrel population, it is much more likely to pass from red to red, rather than from grey to red. Even if greys were infecting reds, culling would be required ad infinitum as greys will re-colonise cleared areas within a few weeks. Add to this that early in the last century, out of 44 districts in England where red squirrels had the disease only four districts had grey squirrels present, it soon becomes clear that grey squirrels are victims of a campaign of unfair vilification. Almost daily we hear of the “march of the invasive grey squirrel”4 as though it is some foreign military power invading our homeland. This is emotive 23

ECOS 31(2) 2010 nonsense, designed to alienate grey squirrels in the eyes of the general public as it is much easier to cull species that the public are persuaded to dislike.

Squirrel culling ‘Tree rats’ is another common derogatory description of grey squirrels today. But those with forestry interests originally used the term against reds in the early twentieth century. In the Central Highlands of Scotland, the euphemistically named “Highland Squirrel Club” slaughtered 80,000 red squirrels because of alleged damage to trees.

So is culling the grey squirrel the ‘solution’ and is it going to make any difference?

Not a bit! Culling doesn’t work except in closed environments such as islands.

According to research it would cost £200,000 a year to control grey squirrels in Northumberland’s Redesdale Forest alone5 and would require to be carried out ad infinitum. It is well-known that culling can lead to an increase in population as those left alive enjoy a better habitat in a population vacuum and produce more young.

In March 2006, the Conservative peer Lord Plumb who has first-hand knowledge of culling grey squirrels, made the following statement to the House of Lords: “Squirrel culling is not a new phenomenon. Some 60 years ago the Ministry of Agriculture started to encourage people to kill squirrels, offering - I remember it only too clearly - a shilling a tail. I became a very wealthy young man at that time, as we had a lot of grey squirrels in the area and I did not need a lot of encouragement to do something about them. When the government at that time had paid out some £250,000, they decided that that was enough. There was no perceivable difference to the squirrel population”.6 In Merseyside, a buffer zone has been in place for a number of years where grey squirrels are routinely culled in order to stop invasion into a known red squirrel area. However, increased human exploitation of red squirrels for tourism and the frequent intrusion by conservationists for monitoring population levels was always likely to lead to stress and loss of condition of the red squirrel which seems to have increased susceptibility to disease. The recent announcement that the red squirrel population has declined by 90% in the past two years was hardly surprising. In short, fewer grey squirrels with more conservation and tourist intrusion have resulted in a massive decline in the red squirrel population and this was certainly not the predicted outcome. Moves now to remove the exotic conifers which provide sanctuary for the reds, in order to conserve sand dune habitat, add a further twist to this story.

Reds and Greys At first sight, there seems no doubt there is an element of truth in the claim that when greys move into an area, reds move out. There are some short-term examples where this is not the case and both species are known to have coexisted in the same forest for over 20 years at a site in Scotland. However, the most probable reason for this is that the political and identity-crisis fad of wallpapering the 24

ECOS 31(2) 2010 countryside with native broadleaves has the effect of favouring the greys’ expansion while the removal of conifers hastens the reds’ demise. This provides the illusion that grey squirrels are the culprits, and another interesting tension in government policies.

Red squirrels and grey squirrels have significantly different diets. A study published in the Mammal Review 7 showed that while both species fed mostly on seeds and fruit they could adapt to an abundance of other foods at times of seasonal shortages. In particular, the red squirrel was found to largely consume fungi and conifer buds when seeds and fruit were scarce. Greys, on the other hand, will eat young acorns and hazelnuts, which reds find difficult to digest, and a host of other foods. This may be as widely ranging as from deciduous shoots to roots, and perhaps the occasional discarded fast food take-away. Neither species is a serial predator of birds’ eggs or chicks but they won’t pass up an opportunity if it presents itself.

If conservationists want to assist the red squirrels to survive, they should be improving their habitat by planting suitable conifer trees in which they thrive.

Indeed, the need to plant trees that favour the red squirrel as a barrier to the greys’ expansion is well known to the Forestry Commission.

Humane approaches?

A favoured method of killing a grey squirrel is to remove it from a trap into a hessian sack and club it over the head with a blunt instrument. This is without doubt an act of violence and is being promoted and perpetrated nation-wide by government and red squirrel groups. Scientific evidence shows that those who have little regard for the welfare of animals are likely to have a similar attitude to their fellow human beings. It seems to me, that abuse breeds abuse, and in our ever-increasing violent society, what example is it to younger generations that violence and killing is an acceptable solution to a perceived problem of not being native to this country?

In reality, and diametrically opposed to what has become the profoundly prejudiced world of ‘conservation’, all squirrels born in this country are as ‘native’ by birth as we are. This is irrespective of their colour, background or success. To condemn these animals to death on the basis of their ancestral background is extremely hypocritical by a society that expects tolerance of differences within its own population, and only one step removed from racism.

It should be appreciated that squirrels, of any colour, are not ‘ours’. They are independent parallel populations that inhabit this planet the same as we do and should be afforded the same respect and consideration to live out their lives that we would expect for ourselves. So the next time you see a grey squirrel, enjoy its antics and think of it as an individual born and bred in this country with an ancestral heritage of up to 45 generations. This is much more than any of us can claim to have. Forget the prejudice of those who castigate it because it doesn’t fit within their agenda. You’ll feel the better for it!

25

ECOS 31(2) 2010

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/advisorynotes/112/112.htm www.snh.org.uk/ukredsquirrelgroup/pdfs/rs_disease.pdf Genomic characterization of a novel poxvirus contributing to the decline of the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in the UK Colin J. McInnes,1 Ann R. Wood,1 Kathryn Thomas,1 Anthony W. Sainsbury,2 John Gurnell,3 F. Joshua Dein4 and Peter F. Nettleton1 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5094189/Grey-squirrels-are-damaging-Britains-native-treeswarns-Prince-of-Wales.html Rushton, S.P., Ormerod, S.J. & Kerby, G. (2002) New paradigms for modelling species distributions?

Journal of Ecology, 41(2), 193-200.

House of Lords debates, 23 March 2006, 11:35 am http://www.wildlifeonline.me.uk/squirrels.html#food

NEIL BENNETT

Angus Macmillan runs two property businesses, leasing industrial property in the Glasgow and surrounding areas. He has a keen interest in animal rights and specialises in the close examination and rebuttal of claims made by those who seek to kill or maim wildlife. The plight of the grey squirrel in the UK is of particular interest and he is the author of the website www.grey-squirrel.org.uk

26

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Turning the grey tide – progress in red squirrel recovery This article describes lessons from the Anglesey red squirrel project and considers how it is helping revive the fortunes of the native red squirrel.

CRAIG SHUTTLEWORTH The North American eastern grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis is synonymous with bark-stripping damage in woodland habitats1 and is now known to have replaced the native red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris across most of England, Wales, and central Scotland.2 The impact of this non-native species upon other woodland rodents and avian species remains unclear, and although recent studies suggest that nationally the grey squirrel is not a driver of song-bird population dynamics, there is evidence of potential negative local impacts upon a series of species e.g. blackbird, robin and European jay.3 With careful planning, and systematic grey squirrel control, the tide can be turned in the red squirrels favour bringing both economic and ecological benefits.

Red squirrel decline The grey squirrel was first introduced to these shores in 1876, with additional releases continuing until the species was established in at least 12 different areas of Great Britain by the 1920s.4,5 It had been noted that red squirrel populations had historically fluctuated, and so it was initially believed that the loss of regional populations was independent of the presence of the larger grey squirrel.5 Further, historical extinctions of local red squirrel populations had led landowners to import and release animals from the Continent as a means of reinforcing or restabilising populations, and this fact added to a widely held view that red squirrels were susceptible to regional extinction as the result of disease or seed crop failures.

However, the singular failure of red squirrels to return to any of their former range following the arrival of grey squirrels increasingly focussed attention upon the role that the grey squirrel was playing. Research has now revealed a complex range of mechanisms which help explain the temporal and spatial pattern of local red squirrel extinctions following grey squirrel colonisation; a pattern that is resource and disease driven.

There is compelling evidence that red squirrels exhibit lower breeding rates and depressed juvenile recruitment when sympatric with grey squirrels.6,7 And although red squirrels are more arboreal than grey squirrels8, resource competition is an important element in the grey squirrel takeover, with field and laboratory studies both demonstrating that grey squirrels are better at neutralising acorn polyphenols and hence are more efficient at digesting the protein within acorns than their congener.9 The competitive advantage in broadleaved stands may be exacerbated 27

ECOS 31(2) 2010 by piracy of red squirrels' food stores. For example, in one study, grey squirrels were found to have exploited up to 66% of food hoards cached by red squirrels10, behaviour that was associated with a decline in red squirrel reproductive rates.

In parallel with dietary studies, it was observed that regionally red squirrel populations persisted for longer in extensive coniferous stands relative to adjacent broadleaved woodland despite the presence of grey squirrels.11,12 Within such habitats studies indicate that grey densities are often equivalent to those of red squirrels recorded in similar habitat elsewhere but in the absence of greys.11 Higher levels of mortality relative to broadleaved sites indicate that these coniferous stands can be suboptimal habitats for grey squirrels.13 These observations have led to the development of reserve based strategies for red squirrel conservation, efforts focused upon maintaining reds within upland spruce dominated habitats, forests that are often wholly unrepresentative of the historical natural habitat of the red squirrel. However, although long-term predictions based upon computer modeling indicate that extensive Sitka spruce dominated forests such as Kielder in Northumberland do indeed offer a degree of refuge, even in such sites grey squirrels can be found, and the permanent presence of even a small number of greys presents risks associated with squirrelpox virus (SQPV); a situation that greatly complicates management strategies.

Disease mediated replacement of red by grey squirrels occurs because the greys carry a squirrelpox virus (SQPV), an infection fatal to red squirrels.14 Grey squirrels that have been infected show no visible symptoms but cross-infection into reds creates severe skin lesions and secondary infection15 that almost always leads to death. A small number of red squirrel carcasses (8 out of 500) collected as part of national mortality surveillance studies were found with a squirrelpox antibody response but no symptoms, and it remains unclear as to whether the individuals were exposed to the disease and managed to survive, or whether they died from another cause and therefore before SQPV clinical symptoms could develop.16 At the Welsh Mountain Zoo, a free ranging red squirrel that had escaped from a captive collection was later found to have developed antibodies, and in this case no disease was ever noted.17 These findings have, in some quarters, been used as evidence to argue that grey squirrel control is unjustified because reds will naturally develop immunity and that the virus in naturally found in reds and transferred to grey squirrels rather than vica versa. The Red Squirrel Survival Trust believe that a balanced review of all the evidence paints a different picture. Outbreaks of pox-like disease in red squirrels were not reported until after the arrival of grey squirrels to a locality e.g. Southern Scotland where SQPV disease has emerged in red squirrels only after the first infected greys were detected.18 Also, even if some reds do show a resistance to the virus, in the face of uncontrolled sympatric grey squirrel populations, ultimately the red squirrel population is lost due to resource competition. The likelihood of natural resistance developing at a population level is therefore unlikely and, in the absence of a SQPV vaccine, the best pox management strategy is simply to isolate grey squirrel populations from reds.

28

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Red squirrel at the Newborough release site, Anglesey.

Photo: David Bailey

Turning a grey tide Statutory agencies and NGOs have advocated grey squirrel control as the cornerstone of red squirrel conservation, but up until the late 1990s there was a general reluctance in many quarters to widely publicize killing. Given the successful eradication of coypu and provision of pest control services by County Councils, the killing of animals clearly can have public acceptance; the fact that harvesting of animals for fur can arouse mainstream objection may help a little in explaining the historical policy with respect to publicly promoting grey squirrel eradication. The obvious action would have been to commission independent public opinion surveys to gauge public opinion and perceptions. Such research has revealed that today the large majority of people (85%) are in favour of red squirrel conservation, and also of the removal of grey squirrels to facilitate it (69%).19 Survey findings indicate a clear public mandate for grey squirrel control, a fact now reflected in the widescale publicity and information associated with squirrel culls.

Intriguingly though, there are still few examples of scientific studies demonstrating red squirrel populations positively responding to grey control. This is due to scientific research often focusing on interactions between the two squirrel species in mixed populations in an attempt to better understand the mechanism of replacement, and is also because many culling programs simply failed to record 29

ECOS 31(2) 2010 data of trapping effort or population demography.20 Work on Anglesey does show unambiguously that grey control can lead to positive response from native red squirrel populations and is an important ‘proof of concept’.

Anglesey red squirrel project In 1997 a proposal to eradicate grey squirrels from the island of Anglesey was put forward and regional press articles highlighting this were released. Direct approaches to woodland owners and householders revealed a widespread willingness to have grey squirrels removed as a measure to allow red squirrels to recolonise parks, gardens and other woodland habitats. The colonization of the island by grey squirrels during the 1960s21 had ultimately led to the extinction of red squirrels in all but a single site, the 240 hectare conifer plantation of Mynydd Llwydiarth.

Grey squirrel culling started in 1998, with an ambition of island-wide clearance.

However although a scientifically realistic aim, initially eradication was financially not a tangible objective, and so the project first focused upon clearing grey squirrels from stands containing red squirrels. Work focused upon the mixed pine and spruce stands of Mynydd Llwydiarth, a hilltop commercial plantation overlooking Red Wharf Bay in the south east of Anglesey. Grey squirrels were systematically removed and those red squirrels trapped were permanently marked using a tattoo in the right ear. Numbers of red squirrels were modest, 30-40 adults, and this remnant population was largely found within the more Sitka spruce dominated blocks. Grey squirrels were resident throughout the site, but with a concentration of animals in the pine stands where trees produce a seed that is significantly larger than those found in spruce.11,13 The removal of grey squirrels led to a numerical increase in the red squirrel population (Figure 1) and animals spreading out through the whole forest. At least 75% of the youngsters born in 1999 were known to have been present six months later in 2000, a high level of recruitment that assisted population increase; it is noteworthy that in established populations published studies show recruitment rates typically in the order of 20-50%.22 As the adult population expanded within the plantation the proportion of young recruited fell to 40% (2000/01) and then 16% (2001/02) as the population began to level out to reach a forest carrying capacity.12,23 The small study had clearly demonstrated that removal of grey squirrels led to a positive response by red squirrels. Further, in 2001, red squirrels were caught for the first time in broadleaved stands adjacent to the coniferous forest, stands where grey squirrels were also controlled. And at that time these individuals were the only animals in broadleaved stands anywhere in Wales because the remaining remnant mainland populations in Clocaenog, Aberhirnant and the Tywi valley all reside in spruce forest.

Land owner based and community driven Culling progressively intensified and encompassed broadleaved woodland across the island, and by 2002 the project cost £80k annually. It was however feared that the isolated nature of Mynydd Llwydiarth might greatly limited the scope for successful dispersal and recolonisation of woodland further a field, and so discussions with the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and the Zoological Society of Wales led to a 30

ECOS 31(2) 2010 Fig 1. Red squirrel population recovery following grey squirrel removal

reintroduction being proposed. The obvious site was a coastal coniferous plantation within the Abermenai Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The extensive Newborough pine forest had been home to red squirrels until 1997 when the population was finally replaced by grey squirrels following their colonization. A popular public recreational site, the forest offered a wonderful interface between local people and the red squirrel, there was however one snag: there had never been a successful reintroduction into stands occupied by grey squirrels.

Red squirrel reintroduction was viewed as being notoriously difficult given the experience of attempts in Regents Park24, Colwyn bay25, the Isle of Purbeck26 and the Thetford translocation.27 Although none ultimately led to the establishment of a permanent red squirrel population, each provided useful data to adapt and develop protocols and was an invaluable source of information during the development phase of the Newborough project.

The Anglesey study involved the translocation of both CITES defined wild and captive bred animals from zoological collections across the UK. Adult squirrels were typically permanently housed as mixed sex pairs or trios within five large (7m x 3.5m base area x 6m high) forest enclosures from which any successfully weaned young would be released into the surrounding woodland using a soft-release protocol. It was anticipated that a systematic trapping regime would eradicate grey squirrels from the woodland, and although over 500 were trapped, it is now known that small numbers of animals were present throughout the red squirrel reintroduction.28 In May 2004, a trial release of two adult males and a female red squirrel led to the production of two wild litters, whilst three of the remaining four captive pairs together produced sixteen young, many of which were released that autumn.

31

ECOS 31(2) 2010 Background adult mortality included cases of lymphosarcoma, chronic ulcerative dermatitis, with two cases where no cause of death could be established due to autolysis of the body.29

Adenovirus an emerging threat In the following year red squirrels were frequently caught within the forest whilst four enclosures held captive stock. Unfortunately within a two week period, of the seven adults and six weaned young present, six and four of the respective age classes had died, and by mid July only a singe adult and weaned juvenile remained alive. The cause of death was unclear but it was known that antibiotic and sulphadimidine treatments had been ineffective. Restocking of enclosures over the next 18 months led subsequently to successful captive breeding in 2007 and a small cluster of deaths that when tested proved to be associated with an adenovirus.30 Retrospective tests on tissues stored from the 2005 mortality, and those from a small number of wild deaths also showed widespread adenovirus association.29 Quite clearly in local circumstances viruses other than squirrelpox can be significant.

Intriguingly adenovirus antibodies have been found in grey squirrels31 and PCR screening of two grey squirrels trapped near the Newborough release cages in 2006 revealed the presence of viral particles.32 This begs the obvious questions, is the grey squirrel involved in the infection of red squirrels with adenovirus or vica versa? And can the infection kill grey squirrels? Currently, the paucity of data on infection in the two species means that it is impossible to draw any conclusions about infection pathways and the involvement of a common rodent or ‘murine’ strain producing pathological infection cannot be excluded. Surveillance and retrospective examination of archive grey squirrel blood samples is underway looking for viral particles. Despite the disease setbacks, it should be stressed that the Newborough reintroduction was ultimately successful with 78 adults caught in woodland in 2008 and 60 in 2010. Successful reintroduction following the control of grey squirrels, like the restoration of the existing red squirrel population in Mynydd Llwydiarth is further proof that landscape restoration of red squirrels can take place once grey squirrels have been removed.

Native reds into native woodlands Naturally, a focus upon red squirrel conservation in coniferous stands will benefit from the lower competitive advantage that grey squirrels have there. On Anglesey, the period 2006 to present has been punctuated with a series of reintroductions into broadleaved stands from which grey squirrels have been cleared. A change in release protocol has taken place in an attempt to limit the period during which the squirrels are in close proximity to one another and possibly with woodmice that might be a source of adenovirus. The red squirrels are now held in captivity for between three and four weeks before being released into oak, ash and sycamore dominated woodlands, and to date there have been no cases of adenovirus recorded from these sites.

The release of 6 red squirrel near Beaumaris in the winter of 2006/7 led to animals subsequently colonizing an 8 kilometer band of coastal woodland fragments, and in the 32

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Red squirrel at the Newborough release site, Anglesey.

Photo: David Bailey

spring of 2010, 23 adults including 8 lactating females were caught in one area. In parallel red squirrels have returned to many private gardens and parks and are a regular feature of the woodland landscape; the increasing frequency of road casualties (10 in 12 months to June 2010) is testament to increased distribution and population size.

The project ‘Achilles heel’ has continual modest but unwelcomed reinvasion from Gywnedd where around 60% of grey squirrels are sero-positive for SQPV antibodies, indicating that pox infection is present in a proportion of the animals.

The fact that only anti-bodies levels rather than virus presence is routinely assessed means that we cannot be sure as to the precise number of animals that are infectious (antibodies may reflect exposure to the virus and not always that it is present) and hence the Anglesey project will increasingly use PCR tests to determine actual virus presence. This will be done in parallel with continued grey removal with eradication anticipated in the next three years.

Community-wide benefits The project has been been widely embraced by visitor attractions and holiday complexes such as at Plas Newydd, Plas Coch and Henllys Hall. In addition to 33

ECOS 31(2) 2010 displacing the native reds, greys frequently cause damage to woodlands which is a major disincentive to the planting of those broadleaved species that are particularly vulnerable – eradication creates conditions favourable to foster woodland creation.

Red squirrels represent added value to the island’s visitor attraction base, complimenting niche and green tourism markets and the project has enabled local people to see red squirrels within the broad spectrum of woodland habitats in which historically the species would have been found in Wales, including that captured so wonderfully in the Tale of Squirrel Nutkin.

The Anglesey project has been challenging, but has ultimately restored the fortunes of the native red squirrel. The current adult population of 300 is the largest in Wales and the lessons learned are being applied to other parts of the UK helping to ensure that conservation efforts are realistic and scientifically robust.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

34

Mayle B., Ferryman M. & Pepper H. (2007). Controlling Grey Squirrel Damage to Woodlands. Forestry Commission Practice Note 4 (Revised). Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Gurnell J., Lurz P.W.W. & Halliwell E.C. (2008) Red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris. In: The Mammals of the British Isles: Handbook 4th Edition. Harris S. & Yalden D.W. (Eds).

Newson S.E. et al. (2010) Potential impact of grey squirrels Sciurus carolinensis on woodland bird populations in England. Journal of Ornithology 151, 211-218.

Middleton A.D. (1930) The ecology of the American grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in the British Isles.

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1930, 804-842.

Shorten, M (1954) Squirrels. Collins, London.

Wauters L. A., Lurz P.W.W. & Gurnell J. (2000) Interspecific effects of grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) on the space use and population demography of red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in conifer plantations.

Ecological Research 15, 271-284.

Gurnell J., Wauters L., Lurz P.W.W. & Tosi G. (2004) Alien species and inter-specific competition: effects of introduced eastern grey squirrels on red squirrels population dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 73, 26-35.

Kenward R.E. & Tonkin M. (1986) Red and grey squirrels; some behavioural and biometric differences.

Journal of Zoology 209, 279-81.

Kenward R.E. & Holm J.L. (1993) On the replacement of the red squirrel in Britain: a phytotoxic explanation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 251, 187-194.

Wauters L A, Tosi G. & Gurnell J. (2002) Interspecific competition in tree squirrels: do introduced grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) deplete tree seeds hoarded by red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris)? Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 51, 360-367.

Lurz P.W.W., Garson P.J. & Rushton S.P. (1995) The ecology of squirrels in spruce dominated plantations: implications for forest management. Forest Ecology and Management 79, 79-90.

Shuttleworth C.M. (2003) A tough nut to crack: red squirrel conservation in Wales. Biologist 50, 231-235 Kenward R.E. et al. (1998) Comparative demography of red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) and grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) in deciduous and conifer woodland. Journal of Zoology 244, 7-21.

Rushton S.P, Lurz P.W.W & Gurnell J. (2000) Modelling the spatial dynamics of parapoxvirus disease in red and grey squirrels: A possible cause of the decline in the red squirrel in the United Kingdom? Journal of Applied Ecology 37, 1-18.

Tompkins, D.M. et al. (2002) Parapoxvirus causes a deleterious disease in red squirrels associated with UK population declines. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. London B 269, 529-533.

Sainsbury A.W. et al. (2008) Poxviral Disease in Red Squirrels Sciurus vulgaris in the UK: Spatial and Temporal Trends of an Emerging Threat. Ecohealth 5, 305-316.

Peter Litherland, Senior Keeper, Welsh Mountain Zoo, personal communication.

McInnes C.J. et al. (2009) First cases of squirrelpox in red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) in Scotland. Vet Record 164, 528 - 531.

ECOS 31(2) 2010 19. NEMS Market Research (2009) on behalf of Red Squirrel Survival Trust & NEMS Market Research on behalf of ESI. 20. Parrott D. et al. (2009) Review of red squirrel conservation activity in northern England Natural England Commissioned Reports 019, Peterborough.

21. Jones, W.E. (1968) Natural history of Anglesey. Anglesey Antiquarian Society Llangefni, Gee & Son, Denbigh.

22. Shuttleworth C.M. (2004) Grey squirrel, Sciurus carolinensis, control as a tactic in the conservation of the red squirrel, Sciurus vulgaris: a positive outcome. pp 151-168 In: Advances in Vertebrate Pest Management vol III, Feare C.J. & Cowan, D.P. (eds), Filander Verlag.

23. Shuttleworth C.M., Bailey M. & Knott H. (2002). Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L.) conservation on Anglesey, North Wales: A report of the first five years of the Anglesey Red Squirrel Project. Unpublished Menter Môn report.

24. Bertram B.C.R & Moltu D.P. (1986) The reintroduction of red squirrels into Regent’s Park. Mammal Review 16, 81-86.

25. Jackson N.L. (1999) The Reds Return – Two trial releases of captive-bred red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) to a woodland site in Colwyn Bay, North Wales. pp 67-78 In: 3rd NPI Red Alert Forum for Red Squirrel Conservation: Forum Proceedings, Scottish Natural Heritage, Perth.

26. Kenward R.E. & Hodder K.H. (1998) Red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) released in conifer woodland: the effects of source habitat, predation and interactions with grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis). Journal of Zoology 244, 23-32.

27. Venning T.A., Sainsbury A. & Gurnell J. (1997) An experimental study on translocating red squirrels to Thetford Forest. pp. 133–143 In: The conservation of red squirrels, Sciurus vulgaris. People’s Trust for Endangered Species, London.

28. Shuttleworth C.M., Kenward R.E. & Jackson N. (2008) Reintroduction of the red squirrel into Newborough forest on the island of Anglesey, UK. Pp163-166. In: Global reintroduction perspectives IUCN, SSG (Soorae P.S. ed.), Abu Dhabi, UAE. 29. Shuttleworth C.M., Kenward R.E. & Jackson N. (2009) The reintroduction of the red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris to Newborough forest, North Wales: A five year project review. Report to Countryside Council for Wales, Wildlife Trust, Forestry Commission Wales & Grantscape.

30. Everest D.J., Stidworthy M.F. & Shuttleworth C. (2008) Adenovirus-associated deaths in red squirrels on Anglesey. Vet. Rec. 163, 430.

31. Greenwood A.G. & Sanchez S. (2002) Serological evidence of murine pathogens in wild grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) in North Wales. Vet. Rec. 150, 543-6 32. Everest D. J. et al. (2009) PCR detection of adenovirus in grey squirrels on Anglesey. Vet. Rec. 165, 482.

Craig Shuttleworth is the National Operations Director of the Red Squirrel Survival Trust and advises woodland owners and red squirrel conservation groups across the UK on grey squirrel control. craig.shuttleworth@rsst.org.uk

35

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Hindsight in the management of Britain’s wild boar The reality of co-existing with wild boar has hit home with the first known dog casualty. Dogs need to be controlled in the presence of boar and the various messages on public information signs need careful thought. Meanwhile, perhaps the Forestry Commission should adopt a consistent line on management of wild boar...

MARTIN GOULDING Cara the Greyhound has the unfortunate distinction of being the first known domestic dog to be killed in Britain by a free-living wild boar.1 With a shoulder shattered beyond repair “the damage was just unbelievable – it looked as if a sledgehammer had gone into her”, the local vet had no choice but to put Cara to sleep.1 Circumstances that stopped Cara’s owner from intervening “she was just screaming and screaming, it was this awful noise but I had the other two dogs so I did not dare go in after her” 2 were a blessing in disguise, otherwise there may have been a human casualty too.

Cara was being exercised on Forestry Commission land in the Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, and her owner was reported to say “If I had thought the boars were a danger, I would never have taken her to the Forest in the first place”.2 This I find the most disturbing aspect of this very regrettable, but completely preventable incident. Wild boar are a potential threat to domestic dogs, and this has been known since 1998 when the Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA), in their past life as part of MAFF (one life before DEFRA, two lives before FERA) first confirmed the presence of free-living wild boar in England “...the question of safety can also be extended to domestic animals as wild boar are recognised as a potential danger to domestic dogs”.3 So is this information not being delivered where it matters? Ominously, the vet that treated Cara had just patched up a Golden Retriever attacked in the Forest of Dean just days earlier.1

Warning notices The Forestry Commission does post warning notices around the Forest of Dean advising the public of the presence of wild boar, and the need for dog-owners to keep their dogs on a lead. I visit the Forest of Dean frequently and see the notices, and see the dogs, but rarely do I see the dogs on leads. The notices are not being noted. The message has become diluted or lost amongst the myriad of other notices around the forest advising on parking charges, penalty parking tickets, the need not to leave valuables in your car, gate-locking times, things to do and see in the Forest, your opinion of the forest, the latest open-air concert, the new Go-Ape climbing experience, cycle hire, etc, etc. Perhaps it is time the Forestry Commission had a policy rethink on how best to communicate important messages about the 36

ECOS 31(2) 2010 wild boar, such as those they recently quoted to the press: “There's a need for dog owners to understand that when they're in areas where there might be wild boar, particularly at this time of year, that they're going to have to keep their dogs under quite close control”.1 The message is correct, but the Forestry Commission need to find the correct mediums to deliver it – and it would be wise to assume that in every area of the forest there might be wild boar.

Road Traffic Accidents Cara’s fait begs the question ‘Are there other issues concerning Britain’s wild boar where forewarned is forearmed?’ Where, if we act now, future injuries, tragedy, hassles or unpleasantness can be avoided? Yes there are, and the potential of wild boar to cause a road traffic accident (RTA) immediately springs to mind. Warning shots have been sounded; wild boar RTAs have occurred on Britain’s roads “friends of mine, with whom we had just had a meal that evening, were first on the scene of this accident, and comforted the driver who was dazed and had struggled from his car to the gutter, until the ambulance arrived” (pers comm.). It is now only a matter of time before a person is seriously injured or worse in a wild boar-related RTA. The clock is ticking.

A German automobile association recently carried out crash-tests by ploughing a Volkswagen hatchback into life-size models of wild boar at 80 km/h.4 Emerging from the wreckage was the reassurance (for VW drivers at least) that although the front of the vehicle was damaged, the passenger cell remained stable. The association’s practical conclusions to tackle jay-walking wild boar were: • Don't swerve to avoid animals - trying to spare the animal's life by moving into the opposite lane carries a far greater risk of smashing into an oncoming car; • Dip headlights to give animals a chance to run away - they get fixated by a strong light beam; • If a wild boar appears suddenly apply the brakes as hard as possible, keep a tight grip on the steering wheel and stay in the lane-in the worst case scenario, a collision with the animal has to be accepted; • Drive slowly to minimize the risks.

This advice is also relevant to Britain, and if it can save just one person from serious injury or loss of life, then we should be shouting it from the rooftops, or at least the Highways Agency should be. This government agency is responsible for ‘managing traffic, tackling congestion, informing road users, improving safety, minimising adverse impact on the environment and more’.5 The Forestry Commission’s current advice to drivers around the Forest of Dean to “drive at a reasonable speed in the Forest at night - boar can cause great damage to vehicles if hit” 6 can now be usefully embellished, supported by the German research.

Vorsprung durch Technik.

37

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Urbanisation Wild boar venturing into urban areas always cause a fuss, even in countries such as Germany, where the general public and local authorities are far more familiar with the species than we are in Britain. Wild boar have a propensity to become urbanised. They quickly twig they are less likely to be shot at by the houses than in the woodlands, and they find abundant food in vegetable patches and rubbish bins - some residents even deliberately put food out for them. However, not everyone is pleased and urban wild boar are accused of being a traffic hazard, attacking dogs, rooting up prized lawns, frightening residents, and bizarrely, office staff seated at their desks - just the kind of story the press delight in: “Armed police had to gun down a wild boar that broke into offices in Hamburg when a herd of the animals went on the rampage in the city's centre. Officers armed with sub-machine guns were called to the consultancy in Hamburg on Friday night after one of 12 boars smashed through a window to enter the building. Stunned staff were evacuated as it crashed through open-plan office causing thousands of pounds of damage. It was shot dead next to the office photocopier”.7 Here in Britain our wild boar are now venturing into urban areas. The rural Gloucestershire town where wild boar were recently photographed scavenging amongst bin bags awaiting collection at the end of someone’s driveway8 doesn’t quite equate to the bright lights of Hamburg, but it is the first step on the road to urbanisation. Are we paying heed to the advice that we should not be feeding these wild boar that are boldly going where none have gone before? It appears not. The local vet who euthanased Cara lamented “It is becoming more evident that people are feeding the wild boar, encouraging human contact”.9 The Forestry Commission stresses: “Do not feed the boar - feeding encourages them into closer contact with humans where the scope for less desirable activity increases”.6 Regrettably, this advice is often ignored, as people indulge in the novelty of feeding the wild boar anything from fruit to confectionary.

Livestock disease The Forestry Commission have a difficult time trying to manage the wild boar on their turf. Some people and organisations want the Forestry Commission to shoot all wild boar, some a few, and some none at all. Sightings of wild boar have recently been reported from Thetford Forest, Norfolk, which is managed by the Forestry Commission, and boy are they up-in-arms about it. Interviewed on Radio 4’s Farming Today programme, the Forestry Commission’s Head Ranger for the area described with gusto their zero tolerance policy towards wild boar in Thetford Forest:10,11 “We will resist a wild boar population establishing on a public forest estate in any way we can, be it with shooting, trapping or any legal method to stop them establishing a population here. We have men on the ground all times of the day and night who are trained for wildlife duties, controlling deer, rabbits, hares, that sort of thing. They are out at night as well. So there are eyes on the ground all the time. My men have instructions to shoot wild boar on sight, if safe to do so. If wild boar got into the forest they would be detrimental to the Breckland ecology.

38

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Some of the basics of wild boar behaviour are explained at visitor sites in the Forest of Dean.

Photo: Martin Goulding

Where is the mandate for the Forestry Commission to take such sweeping action, and what is the justification for this unilateral voice of hostility from the Thetford Head Ranger? The accusation that wild boar are a threat to the area’s ecology is puzzling. Wild boar are a former native species, and our woodlands would have grown up with wild boar rooting amongst them. However, the forestry tracts of Thetford Forest stem from post first world war timber production, so perhaps this particular woodland’s ecology is so far removed from a natural state there is no place for wild boar. Although, as Thetford Forest Park is a public forest estate, were the public asked what they thought before the Forestry Commission declared themselves judge, jury and executioner?

The Forestry Commission’s wild boar management policy at Thetford Forest does have support from the National Pig Association (NPA),10 a group that represents domestic pig farmers. The NPAs concerns are for the several large-scale outdoor domestic pig units within wild boar-commuting distance from Thetford Forest. Wild boar will freely mate with domestic pigs producing hybrid offspring that will throw any unit’s economic forecasts to the dogs. More sinisterly, contact between free-living wild boar and domestic pigs could provide a transmission route for the spread of diseases. A transmissible disease becoming endemic in the wild boar population could continually re-infect the domestic pig stock, with considerable economic consequences.

To-date in Britain, most interference between wild boar and domestic pigs has occurred in smallholdings or petting zoos. Male wild boar are not choosy, and the 39

ECOS 31(2) 2010 breeds of domestic pigs receiving unexpected nocturnal visits from an amorous suitor have included Kune Kune, Oxford and Sandy and Black, and Berkshires.12 Again, we have been forewarned that the day will come when a testosteroneloaded male wild boar will break into a large free-ranging domestic pig unit, and then the fun will really begin. I doubt whether shooting all wild boar on-sight is a feasible preventative measure. The ranger’s men may well be out at night, but the wild boar will have the greater staying power, and especially on those long, cold, windswept, pitch-black nights.

As well as being a disease liability regarding domestic pigs, a wild boar in Britain has recently been confirmed as being infected with the zoonotic disease Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis),13 the causative agent of tuberculosis (TB) in cattle.

M.bovis had previously been diagnosed on two captive wild boar farms in the Southwest of England, in 2000 and 2006 respectively,14 and it was only a matter of time before a free-living wild boar was identified as infected too. Wild boar now join an eclectic mix of mammals susceptible to bovine TB infection including deer, pigs, sheep, llamas, camels, alpacas, and domestic cats and dogs. The epidemiology of bovine TB is not completely understood, but badgers are of course the most infamous animal regarding the transmission of bovine TB to cattle, but on the continent wild boar are also implicated as a potential reservoir for, and transmitter of, bovine TB.15,16 I suspect this will not be the last we hear about bovine TB and Britain’s wild boar.

Eco-tourism A more ‘desirable activity’ of wild boar is their potential to generate income for local people through, for example, the sale of shooting rights, meat, and ecotourism. The first eco-tourism holiday to focus on Britain’s wild boar is now being advertised.17 A farmer near Rye, East Sussex, is the first to tap into the potentially lucrative market of wild boar watching holiday-breaks by renting out their holiday cottages to ‘the serious wildlife lover’. On offer are day and night guided trips to view wild boar in their natural habitat, a visit to local woodland to view boar signs, dinner at a local inn, and back to the farm to experience the nightly visits of the boar in safety. It will be fascinating to see if this enterprise is a success - I wonder if the Forestry Commission would ever contemplate something similar to increase awareness and understanding of the species.

Hindsight In Britain we have the fortunate opportunity to manage our fledgling wild boar populations with the benefit of hindsight gained from how continental Europe manage their populations. Potential areas of conflict involving domestic animals, people, or livestock can be foreseen, and the necessary corrective action or contingency plans put in place, ready to be actioned. However, this opportunity will be lost if appropriate advice is not being heeded.

The death of Cara the greyhound exemplifies how advice from the Forestry Commission is not getting through to people who need it the most. All of us who have an involvement with Britain’s wild boar, such as the Forestry Commission, 40

ECOS 31(2) 2010 government agencies, local authorities, private organisations, hunting enthusiasts, and interested individuals, need to ensure that these messages do get through.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

BBC News (2010). Warning to Forest of Dean dog owners after boar attacks http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/8711014.stm Accessed 29 May 2010.

This is Gloucestershire (2010). Warning after wild boar savages rescue greyhound http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/Warning-wild-boar-gore-dogs/article-2218148detail/article.html Accessed 29 May 2010.

Goulding, M.J., Smith, G. & Baker, S.J. (1998) Current status and potential impact of Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) in the English countryside: A risk assessment. Central Science Laboratory report to the Ministry of Food, Fisheries and Agriculture.

Spiegel Online International (2010). Wild Boar Crash Test Highlights Growing Accident Risk http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,690156,00.html#ref=nlint Accessed 29 May 2010.

Highways Agency (2010) http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/about.aspx Accessed 29 May 2010.

Forest of Dean Tourism (2010) Wild Boar Information. http://www.visitforestofdean.co.uk/outdoors/wildboreforestofdean.aspx Accessed 29 May 2010 Mail Online (2010) The ultimate office boar: How herd of wild pigs went on rampage in Hamburg. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1259772/Relieving-office-boar-dom-The-day-wild-pigsrampaged-Hamburg.html#ixzz0qO3szSg4 Accessed 7 June 2010.

Telegraph.co.uk (2010) Wild boar ransacking rubbish bins. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6973152/Wild-boar-ransacking-rubbish-bins.html. Accessed 07 June 2010 This is Gloucestershire (2010). Don't feed wild boar, warns dog attack vet. http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/Don-t-feed-wild-boar-warns-dog-attack-vet/article-2258963-detail/article.html Accessed 29 May 2010 NFU (2010). Feral wild boar in East Anglia? It would be A catastrophe http://www.npa-uk.org.uk/Pages/newsNPA.html Accessed 29 May 2010 Farming Today. Radio 4. BBC iplayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nd1c8/Farming_Today_27_10_2009/ Accessed 29 October 2009.

BWBO (2010). Domestic Livestock and Wild Boar Confrontations. http://www.britishwildboar.org.uk/index.htm?Livestock.html Accessed 8 June 2010.

Foyle KL, Delahay RJ and Massei G. (2010). Isolation of Mycobacterium bovis from a feral wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the UK. Vet Rec. 166(21): 663 - 664.

DEFRA (2010) Bovine TB: TB in other species. http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/abouttb/otherspecies.htm Accessed 8 June 2010.

Serraino A, Marchetti G, Sanguinetti V, et al. (1999) Monitoring of Transmission of Tuberculosis between Wild Boars and Cattle: Genotypical Analysis of Strains by Molecular Epidemiology Techniques. J. Clin.

Microbiology. 37 (9): 2766-2771 Vicentea J, Höflea U, Garridob JM, et al. (2006) Wild boar and red deer display high prevalences of tuberculosis-like lesions in Spain. Vet. Res. 37: 1–11 BWBO (2010). http://www.britishwildboar.org.uk/ Accessed 8 June 2010.

Martin Goulding is an ecologist who has been involved with Britain’s free-living wild boar since the first populations were recognised in the 1990s. Martin has a PhD in wild boar ecology and has published numerous articles and books on the species. Martin authors the www.britishwildboar.org.uk website.

41

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Britain’s hidden leopards – nature’s secret or ours?

Leopards are the most obvious exotic large predator that could survive in Britain, and yet while sightings of British big cats increase, so does scientific scepticism. How do we investigate if there are a handful of leopards, pumas, or even adapted feral domestic cats, visiting our golf courses, woodlands, commons and nature reserves?

MARK FLETCHER My worse fears nearly became reality a few months ago, in Spring 2010. According to the Daily Mail, two girls, fifteen year old Kim Howells and her eight year old cousin Sophie Gwynne, were followed by a massive black wild cat in the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire, just after sunset. Six months earlier I had visited the same spot near Cinderford, filming an interview for a leopard film. In the end, we didn’t use the footage, or any of the other interviews I had about mythical leopards and pumas living in the UK. The story of the two girls’ encounter of the large feline has reminded me of the dilemmas we went through in considering foreign big cats living in Britain - the rollercoaster of belief and scepticism. It is perhaps time to tell some of that story.

Kim Howells described the 'panther' as about the size of a Great Dane, with big eyes, paws and a long tail: “We cut through the brambles and just started running.” The girls fled home. Their feet were all cut and Sophie was in tears. They feared they had had a lucky escape, though I don’t believe the cat, if it was a big cat, was actually stalking them, or meant them any harm.

Six months earlier I had been warned about the ‘mythical black beast’ that apparently chased them. He was called Boris by a local I met. I’ve never seen him, though I have seen fuzzy photographs. He is described as a panther, which just means a large black cat, and, if he exists at all, may be a simply enormous domestic tom cat, or possibly, and more alarmingly, a leopard, or some such alien species.

Fawn coloured big cats are also seen – many of which, from their appearance and their sound, and if big enough, seem likely to be puma (also called cougar). Other contenders are lynx, bobcat, caracal, jungle cat, or any one of many exotic felines.

Since my interest was leopards, it was that angle that interested me most, and it was with leopards in mind, that I had decided to investigate.

The invisible predator My leopard film for the BBC turned out to be a character study of leopards worldwide, but mainly focusing on Kenya. Leopards are the commonest big cat, rarely seen, wary of people, and living often in secret from Africa’s Cape to Siberian Russian and down to Indonesia. As well as reserves, they also live on farms and in 42

ECOS 31(2) 2010 cities. While lions, cheetahs, and tiger numbers are falling fast, the leopards seem to be adapting to our world, holding their own, even possibly increasing in numbers across the world.

Nairobi, Kenya’s capital city, is home to urban leopards, but they never seem to attack people, only occasionally dogs. An old colonial gentleman I met filming in Kenya had wonderful stories of fighting off a Nairobi leopard with his walking stick to defend his dogs. Some of the shantytowns too are home to leopards, living in drains or under bushes, creeping out at night to steal food from the bins of the local abattoir. Yet despite the number of vulnerable children running around day and night, no one knew of anyone who had been badly hurt by a leopard. Dogs, and the odd goat, seemed the only victims.

The leopard’s rap sheet is thin, but not totally clean. In 1925 a White Hunter, Jim Corbett, caught and shot a ‘man-eating’ leopard in Northern India. For eight years the leopard of Rudraprayag, unable to hunt after an injury from a gunshot, had supposedly taken 125 victims. Corbett also bagged a tiger that had killed almost 500, injured also originally by a botched hunt. Tigers still kill dozens of people a year, despite their rarity, whereas leopards, hundreds of times more common, kill and injure almost no one. Yet even ‘almost no one’ is worrying. Mumbai had a rash of deaths and injuries a few years ago and leopards were blamed. However, in the same year in Mumbai, more people were apparently killed by falling fridges, certainly many more injured by domestic dogs, so I would say that the evidence is that leopards living undisturbed, even very close to people, are not as dangerous as you might imagine.

Many leopards from Asia and the Middle East are small, about the size of a greyhound. A few are black, a form derived from a recessive gene like blue eyes or red hair, though the black form is rare in the wild. All are very hard to find, as elusive as shadows. I talked to scientists working in Oman with Arabian leopards.

They follow the clues, spoor and scat. They set-up cages where they know the leopards travel, with live bait (an illegal practice in Britain), and wait, sometimes for weeks. When they catch them, they radio-collar them, release them, and following the leopard then becomes easier. Yet even with the radio collars on, and knowing where the leopards are, they still almost never see them in the open. The leopards always stay out of sight, over the brow of the hill, invisible even with binoculars, and the radio locator.

Leopards across the world are wary because they have often lived with larger and more dangerous predators. In Africa, leopards fear lions and hyenas. In India, tigers, wolves and bears are all stronger than leopards. Wild predators usually kill each other given half a chance, and this helps explain why urban leopards kill dogs so often. They are rival predators rather than just food. Leopards generally feed on small deer, rodents, or birds and even insects. It is their adaptability, and their secretive nature that helped them become the world’s commonest and most widespread big cat.

43

ECOS 31(2) 2010 We seem to generally frighten leopards in Africa and Asia, despite our vulnerability and huge numbers. To understand why leopards are so wary of us, and almost never prey on us, I looked at leopards and chimpanzees in the African rainforest.

Chimps hunt leopards ruthlessly, given half a chance. I think our ancestors would have hunted them too, probably even more successfully. Leopards are still very afraid of chimps, especially if they stand upright. I think large primates terrified leopards, and they still carry that fear. In our case, it is in fact completely justified.

Leopards are persecuted whenever they come into contact with people.

Leopards in Middle England?

While studying leopards across the world I soon realised that a leopard could easily survive in Britain. If they can cope with Himalayan winters, live on rats on Indonesian rice paddies, or stray dogs in Mumbai and Bejing, they can easily live in rural parts of England. In Namibia they find each other over hundreds of miles, roaming huge territories, so why not here? We would be rash to dismiss the possibility that they might not try and survive, and in surviving perhaps breed. There is no evidence that the big cat sightings across Britain are of leopards, but they are certainly a strong candidate.

The question of how leopards could have got to England is surprisingly easy to answer. For hundreds of years travelling menageries and private collections of leopards, pumas, bears and cheetahs were often considered the ultimate status symbol. Some may have escaped, and records of sightings of leopard-like cats increased from the eighteenth century onwards. But from 1976 the law on keeping big cats as pets was tightened, and keeping a leopard in your garden became harder and more expensive. Because it was previously unregulated, nobody knows how many big cats were once kept in the UK, but it was not that unusual. My grandparents, living near Farnham in Surrey, bought a bear from Harrods in the 1930s, but found it didn’t play nicely with their two toddlers, including my mother.

The receipt read ‘Harrods - One Bear – Returned’. Even now, according to local authority licences, dozens of leopards and pumas are held totally legally in private hands, and some of them are black leopards. It remains unknown how many are kept unlicensed.

Kicking out your pet leopard (also called puma) into the woods to avoid paying the licence is hardly something to be proud of, but a few documented cases do exist, and empty cages have been found. Certainly from the 1970s onwards the sightings increase radically. In the eighties it was about half black to brownish big cats, possibly suggesting a balance of black leopards and pumas, but since then the proportion of large black cats has increased. From a biological point of view, the increase in possible leopards makes some sense. Leopards are better at living alongside people and habitation, more adaptable than pumas. Now there are an estimated 1,000 reported big cat sightings a year in the UK, mostly to the local papers and to big cat groups, from Dover to Mull. The sheer quantity of the sightings amazes me. It is more than in areas where leopards are known to live, like Oman or China.

44

ECOS 31(2) 2010

The officials’ verdict In order to balance out the story for my leopard film, with at least a brief look at the possibility of a UK leopard at the end of the film, I lined up the Wildlife Liaison Officer at Gloucestershire Police, Inspector Mark Robson. He would dismiss the stories once and for all, I thought. We set up the interview in a smart office with police crests all over the wall.

He began stiffly, but what he said was extraordinary. Yes, most of the big cat sightings are apparently leopard-like, and they follow the sightings on maps, like tracking criminals. He filters out the mistaken moggies with questions about tails, head size, gait, speed, and so on. If the description is right, and there are other local sightings around the same time, they are recorded. There are two hot-spot areas in Gloucestershire, the Forest of Dean and around Stroud. He liaises with other police wildlife officers in the adjoining counties he said, and some also tell a similar story. Then he took a deep breath. Around Stroud are many disused railway lines and cuttings full of caves, away from footpaths, but enough local walkers had seen clues to convince him cubs have been raised there.

I was very surprised, but not wholly convinced. In order to regain my balance, I contacted Gary Mantle, head of the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, my own home county.

The local papers run occasional stories of big cats seen in Wiltshire, and several villages, including Lacock, have had their own ‘beasts’. I told him of the tales from Gloucestershire. He became very serious. “What do you want to achieve?” he asked. I couldn’t answer that. “I have never said this before”, he continued, clearly wrestling with what to say, “but we get enough credible sightings for me to believe that we have large cats in Wiltshire too. We suspect they are in very low numbers, but we know a breeding population is possible.” He said he had always denied the existence of a ‘beast’ to the local press. ‘I usually dismiss it publicly, and not all reports are credible, but I believe there are big cats out there.’ He then came towards me, a bear of a man, very serious. “I must urge you to think hard how you tell this story. How do you think it would play out in the tabloid press, and to local farmers? The cats would be hunted down. Little good would come of it.”

In the end, the film I was making played down UK big cats. “As sightings have increased,” the film’s narrator read, “some people have quietly concluded that there are a few big cats living undercover. It sounds like a tall story to me! But knowing what I do about leopards, anything is possible.” It was a muted ending, but seemed suitably measured. I knew that there was a risk that if any proof did come to light, particularly if anyone was hurt, we could be accused of failing to warn the public of the possible dangers. Until a few months ago, and ‘Boris’ raised his head again, I felt the risk was justified. Now I’m not so sure.

I was also captivated by the possibility of a large predator, like a leopard, living here, and also intrigued by the people who believe so passionately in their existence.

There are strange stories of people finding road kills, later scooped up by the authorities, and denied. I heard hints that Defra and others were afraid that Freedom of Information requests would reveal they knew more than they had previously admitted. A year before it was apparently an FOI request that uncovered two admissions of strange sightings by forest rangers in the Forest of Dean, while using heat sensitive night vision equipment for their deer census work.

45

ECOS 31(2) 2010 However, the stories of big cats are more akin to urban legend, not scientific conjecture. Repeated hearsay and exaggeration become myths that spread, retold in pubs, by firesides, and on websites. Looking for the solid evidence of big cats living in the UK, the cracks soon begin to appear. I looked at all the footage I could find, and read many eye-witness accounts. The footage is mostly terrible, and unconvincing. A lot of it is clearly a large feral domestic cat. There was almost nothing that looked to me like a leopard or puma clearly walking in English countryside. The stills are not much better. Some look like stuffed toys, (some actually are stuffed toys), and others like cardboard cut-outs. Some are unlikely colours, grey, or with white bibs, nothing that looks like any big cat I’ve ever seen.

Many hair samples have been DNA tested, and none have proved positive. The evidence began to look like the clutching of straws by well-meaning people.

Professor Steven Harris of Bristol University was even more sceptical of the evidence. ‘Black always looks bigger in the dark’, he said. His worry is that there are a million feral cats, domestic pets all gone wild, living in the countryside. That is more than all the foxes and badgers added together. Some live far away from people, and in the twilight, and when you are not expecting a domestic cat, it’s easily confused. Add to that stray dogs, sheep killers to the core, from lurchers to pit bulls, and you need look no further. Clearly the British countryside is not as I imagined. Ex-pets are living wild in huge numbers. There are parrots and pythons, crocodiles and capybaras. The odd leopard perhaps seems irrelevant in the face of this onslaught. It seems equally possible that feral domestic cats, living wild for many generations, may have become larger, large enough to become leopard-size.

In March this year Natural England published a Government report of all the sightings of exotic species sent in to them, including big cats. Racoons - yes, chipmunks - yes, wild boar - yes, but big cats – inconclusive, says the document.

Defra looked at all their records, and found only three cases in 2009. Between 2001 and 2007 they received 60 sightings, but only 2 were ‘supported’, but not ‘confirmed.’ Defra and Natural England’s current position on the subject is as follows: “We receive occasional reports from members of the public of alleged ‘big cats’.

However, none of the sightings of ‘big cats’ have ever been confirmed and the evidence of all the sightings we have been asked to look at has either been unsubstantiated or has been attributed to other causes. From time to time big cats do escape from zoos or other collections and are usually recaptured very quickly.

We are confident that there is no breeding population of big cats in this country.”

The people’s verdict The Natural England report seemed very thin, less credible suddenly than the thousands of witnesses that have come forward to tell their stories, to tell the truth in what they saw.

The tide of belief in my mind was turning back. I remembered scientists in Oman who never saw their leopards, and the accounts from Asian farms and cities, of leopards living undercover. Leopards are very secretive, and leave little evidence.

46

ECOS 31(2) 2010

A sign of defiance from a Bodmin farmer.

Photo: Chris Johnston

That is their nature. Any sightings are fleeting, rare and distant. The cats live in the shadows, hugging the contours of the land, moving quickly back to cover. The lack of physical evidence and photographs matches leopard behaviour across the world.

Nevertheless, I believed there was more evidence to be found.

Rick Minter and Frank Tunbridge invited me to one of their regular talks on the subject, this one being in the Stroud valleys at Chalford. The village hall was packed, with standing room only. The talk was of local sightings, and leopard and puma biology. Then they invited questions and comments. One after another people stood up and said they had seen a big cat. No, it couldn’t have been a large domestic cat, or a dog, each confirmed. Often several people had seen it at once.

It seemed to me we had more sightings in one village than Natural England had collected in nine years across the country. Rick then asked everyone what should be done. The great majority said to leave the cats alone, they are not dangerous.

Some said they should be investigated, but not one said they should be removed.

Defra and Natural England have some good reasons for not wanting big cats to be confirmed breeding in the UK. Apart from the former native lynx, they would be regarded as alien, being potentially dangerous in some situations, and the authorities might have to find them, and cull them. A systematic search and cull would be difficult, and controversial. There is a fear too that some people might start putting out poison, or claiming compensation for lost dogs.

47

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Truly wild I can also see Gary Mantle’s point – better to allow the myth, knowing perhaps the last thing we want is conclusive proof. It seems to me better that people are aware that there may be something out there, but that it remains a magical secret in the shadows. The authorities should remain on the fence, sceptical. The cats could face fatal consequences if they moved from mythical tabloid ‘beast’ to biological fact.

Our record of living with large animals, however rare and beautiful, is not good.

If the authorities can be encouraged to do nothing, it leaves me, and other scientists and film makers able to lift the lid a little on some of our more exotic neighbours, without risking losing them. It is right that people should know what they might meet on a Sunday walk and be prepared, so that, unlike the two girls in Cinderford, they are not terrified, and do not hurt themselves in their bid to flee.

Seeing a leopard in the wild anywhere in the world is very rare, and I would consider it a great honour. A leopard, or leopard-sized cat, if that is what it was, is most unlikely to have attacked them. If cats like leopards were that dangerous, children in Africa and India would be regularly disappearing. After three and a half decades of big cat sightings in Britain, no one has fallen prey to giant felines of any sort. By contrast, cows and sheep kill several people each year on average.

There is something very exciting in the possibility that a mythical creature may be real. And now, if you find yourself with the feeling of being watched at dusk, and the hairs on the back of your neck start to rise, listen to your instincts. Maybe an ancient scent has caught your nostrils. Don’t panic. Turn, and look very carefully around you. You may see a mother cat slinking away with her cubs, or you may see nothing. Either way, the British countryside will have an extra excitement for you, and twilight, a new magic.

Further reading 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Beier, P, Riley, S, Sauvajot, R (2010) Mountain Lions (Puma concolor) in Gehrt S D et al (eds) (2010) Urban Carnivores - Ecology, Conflict, and Conservation, John Hopkins University Press.

McGowan J (2007) Big Cats in Dorset: the evidence and implications ECOS 28 (1) 73-78 Minter, R. (2009) Big Cats in our outdoors: Just a few escapes or a breeding population? International Urban Ecology Review, 4, 70-73.

Minter, R. (forthcoming) Big Cats in Britain – a review of the evidence and the implications. Paper presented to 2010 Mammal Society conference. Mammal News (2011).

Taylor, P (2002) Big cats in Britain: restoration ecology or imaginations run wild? ECOS 23 (3/4) 56-64

Mark Fletcher is a zoologist and an award winning wildlife film maker, working mostly with the BBC Natural History Unit. He is currently making a one-hour Natural World documentary about the Himalayas, narrated by David Attenborough. His leopard film was broadcast on BBC 2 in January 2010, narrated by Jonathan Scott. mark.fletcher@bbc.co.uk

48

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Send a Goat - are we overlooking the value of feral goats?

The feral goat is a non-native species that can have both a beneficial and a detrimental impact on habitats. Their successful management by wildlife managers should take into consideration the values of local people. This article provides an overview of benefits and potential conflicts, illustrated by two examples showing where management appears to have balanced both.

JUDE SMITH Goats always provoke lively debate. In less-developed countries, they are seen as ravagers of savannah lands and creators of deserts, or alternatively as life-savers for families surviving on the edge. How many readers have responded to charitable appeals to help the lives of the world’s rural poor by ‘sending’ a goat?1 We must not forget that goats were an important component of our own peasant heritage, for in Sir Walter Scott’s time, the goat was the ‘poor man’s cow’, and there was also considerable demand for the consumption of goats whey for medicinal purposes.

It comes as no surprise that goats are not native to north-west Europe or most of Africa. The domestic goat’s ancestor is the wild goat (Capra aegagrus), now largely restricted to rocky, mountainous areas of Eastern Turkey, Armenia, the Caucasus and north-west India, where they happily endure the cold winters and hot, dry summers. Its numbers are dwindling, and according to the IUCN, the conservation status of the wild goat is ‘Threatened’.

Feral goats are domesticated goats (Capra hircus) that have escaped husbandry and are now living in the wild; this they have probably done in Britain and Ireland for millennia, surviving with relative ease, although they require shelter from wind and rain and can perish in prolonged winters with freezing temperatures. Our first records of domestic goats in Britain and Ireland date back approximately 3000 years to Neolithic times. However, most of the feral herds surviving in remote corners of these islands are likely to have established at the turn of the 19th century when the old domestic goat breed became less useful following the arrival of new improved Swiss goat breeds with higher milk yields and an increased interest in sheep. Some of these herds, in total estimated to number some 10,000 to 20,000 animals2, may contain some genetic material from domesticated goats of much earlier times, but we just don’t know for sure. Today, there is a renewed interest in the value of feral goats for a number of reasons: in part this is because they may represent old ‘more hardy’ breeds and an historical link to an older rural economy, and they may be seen as a ‘valuable addition to our impoverished largemammal fauna’ in part for their usefulness in the management of nature sites to help preserve valued semi-natural grasslands by controlling scrub.3 49

ECOS 31(2) 2010 Contrary to popular opinion that goats will eat anything, these ruminants are selective feeders, but will browse and graze according to availability. They are able to browse and bark strip more than any other livestock; various studies have shown that 40 to 70% of their diet is woody. So it is easy to see that in situations where goats are truly feral, this can create conflict – whether in commercial forestry, short rotation coppice biomass or in native woodlands of high value for conservation. On the other hand, this ability to browse means that they can be a great tool in the control of unwanted scrub in grassland or heathland of high nature value.

Following the milder winters of recent decades, goat populations have increased rapidly, impacting most significantly on semi-natural broad-leaved woodlands. Here there is strong reason for conservation bodies or land-owners to control populations. However, their control often evokes strong views from a wide range of people. Issues to be addressed include ‘what is the meaning of natural or wild?’, ‘should we control numbers in wild or breeding populations?’, ‘should we eliminate goats entirely?’, ‘if control is acceptable, what is a minimum viable population?’ and ‘if control is acceptable, how do we do it?’

Goats, no goats or a balancing game?

A quick web search produced the following wide range of views and quotes about feral goats: Free-ranging feral goats are an integral and valued part of some of our ‘wilder’ landscapes and of our culture: “Aren’t we killing the wildness of nature when we are culling these goats?” 4 A five hour hill walk around the White Coombe and Grey Mare’s Tail in Moffatdale is described... “the path rapidly gains height under the craigs of Deacon Snout, on the slopes of Bran Law. The waters cascading down the waterfall are a constant draw. Look out, too, for feral goats grazing on the edges of the gorge”.5 Feral goats are an important link to the past, with valuable genetic links to earlier unimproved goat breeds: “The goat was an essential part of the landscape and people's existence, providing meat, hair, horn, hoof and milk….

We’re not pro- or anti-culling, but it can be very hard to tell the difference between damage done by sheep and goats… We may be reducing the breed too far. These are some of the least known populations”.6 Feral goats damage farmland and natural habitats of high conservation value: “Something has to be done. The population has exploded. In the Rhinogydd area above Harlech, they're doing untold damage”.7 Feral goats enter people’s gardens: “They'll just go anywhere they can to find something to eat. They're a pest and there's no doubt about it”.8 An attempt at a rounded approach? “Locals complain some of the goats can be a nuisance, but we believe the council is responsible for finding a better solution; one that doesn’t involve killing healthy goats on an annual basis”.9 50

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Cheviot billy goats tucking into scrub at East Weares, Isle of Portland. Horns, shaggy coat, lack of toggles, pricked ears, coat with patches of slate-grey or dark-grey colour, and an almost universal facial pattern of either a pale crown or pale muzzle are characteristic of these particular goats but are not typical of other herds in the English or Scottish Borders region.

Photo: Lyn Cooch

“My garden is small enough to defend but on a landscape scale fencing is not a viable option. Transportation and contraception are impractical and alas culling by a marksman is the only practical option. But surely not my goats?.. For the time being there is an acceptable balance of nature in this part of Snowdonia - thanks in part to my garden fence”.10

Escaped goats - is it their fault?

Even where goats are used in grazing management, controversy abounds. Where goats have escaped their enclosures they may easily become uninvited guests, perhaps entering commercial forestry, or consuming rare wild plants that are ‘icecream’ to goats, such as endemic Whitebeams (Sorbus spp). Even then, are the goats to blame? To quote an angry local resident when goats were shot after escaping from a National Trust site in Purbeck: “It is just outrageous, it wasn't their fault they could escape.” 11 51

ECOS 31(2) 2010 Are feral goats invasive?

The last edition of ECOS included several interesting papers about non-native ‘aliens’. Where are goats pitched in this debate? The Non-native Species Secretariat website includes a list of a hundred non-native species that have been prioritised for the completion of risk assessments ‘to enable effective rapid responses and for underpinning decision-making’ . Whilst the list of 100 does not include the feral goat, similar ruminants, the muntjac Muntiacus reevesi and sika deer Cervus nippon are there. The Secretariat12 gives no indication of how these plants and animals have been selected, but it can only be presumed that they are particularly invasive.

So what is a non-native invasive species, and should the feral goat be labeled such? For ecologists, the best definition of ‘invasive' may be “Those species that have been transported with human aid, beyond the limits of their natural geographic ranges and which continue to expand their distributions by displacing species indigenous to the invaded areas”.13 This makes no reference to economic nuisance which obviously underpins the selection of invasive species listed by the Non-native Species Secretariat: “An invasive non-native species is any non-native animal or plant that has the ability to spread causing damage to the environment, the economy, our health and the way we live”.

In order to understand the position of the feral goat, given the first definition by Peter Calow, it may be useful to ask whether or not they are ‘transformer’ species; those that can change or transform ecological communities, possibly irreparably. For goats, the answer depends on the habitats in which they are found. Free-ranging feral goat populations, of the open, farmed uplands or coastal areas of Britain cannot be said to transform these habitats if they already have been impacted by sheep, cattle, deer and rabbits! But, on the other hand, introduce goats to relatively pristine island habitats, and the result will be the extinction of endemic animals and plants - many examples can be cited, probably the most notorious being the islands within the Galapagos Archipelago. The same view could be muted for the small pockets, ‘islands’, of highly-protected biodiversity in Britain and Ireland, and in particular our western oak woodlands, although these semi-natural woods are dependent upon a degree of browsing by large herbivores (domestic and wild), the question remains how much should be tolerated in the absence of natural predators?

So, like many non-natives and some of our native species, feral goats can be ‘invasive’ in some circumstances, but not in others.

Whilst no management schemes can be perfect, the following two examples, in which I have been involved in, show that goats and humans (their views and expectations) can be managed relatively successfully. The first describes a freeranging feral goat population in the north of England, the second is a conservation scheme in the south.

Cheviots example - Management plan for free-ranging feral goats in the north Cheviots, Northumberland National Park 2005 – 200914 Feral goats may have been present in the north Cheviots since at least the 18th century; as such they may claim to be one of the few populations that are closest to the phenotype of our earlier ‘primitive’ goat breed.15,16 Available records since 1946 show that their numbers have fluctuated wildly (this and the fact that goats may rarely reach their carrying capacity in these habitats makes predictive modelling of populations very difficult). There were peaks in 1976, 1988 and 2004, whereas in long, severe, winters when goats suffered high mortality, coupled with culls, total numbers dropped to around 30 and remained relatively stable for around 30 years between the 1940s and the early 1970s.17, 18, 19 Between 1992 and 2004, and despite several culls and translocations, between 140 to 300 goats were believed to be present.

52

ECOS 31(2) 2010 The history of the north Cheviot goats is colourful - according to local hearsay, the present day feral goats originate from stock turned loose on the mainland by monks from the priory of Lindisfarne when it was dissolved in the 16th Century.

Walter Scott reported goats at the stedding in Langeleeford (about a mile south of the present goat home range) in 1791, and that his uncle regularly ‘drinks the whey there’.20 However, according to the historian Whitehead, goats were brought into the College Valley area of the Cheviots in c. 1860.21 It is likely that the origin of the present feral goats is largely due to the liberation of goats in the 18th and 19th centuries following a decline in popularity of goats’ whey.

Changes in land-use Recent funding for new native woodland has encouraged additional planting in the College Valley Woodlands SSSI and slopes near Yeavering Bell (an ancient hill fort roughly translated as ‘Hill of the Goats’) and Newton Tors. In addition, because of poor financial returns from forestry, a major land-owner decided to replace conifer plantations with broad-leaved woodland under an agri-environment scheme. Thus, a land-owner who had once tolerated the goats when they were tightly hefted (herded) on the neighbour’s hill fort, now found that goats were increasingly entering the new broadleaf areas on the valley-sides, pulling out tree tubes and browsing and killing some saplings.

Management plan For a number of reasons, including the problem of black grouse flying into fences, the use of deer fencing to keep goats out of the new plantations wasn’t seen as an option by one land-owner, and therefore another solution had to be found. In 2005, the Northumberland National Park Authority (NNPA) commissioned a management plan, a significant element of which was consultation and involvement of all the key stakeholders. This work included a literature search, identification of and interviews with the key players, who ranged from land-owners and farmers, NNPA staff, Natural England (then English Nature) and the British Feral Goat Research Group.

A day-long, facilitated workshop was conducted with the objective to agree, by consensus, the objectives for the plan, and to produce a set of principles or policies which would guide an action plan. Workshop participants were asked to identify important issues relating to the goats and then to rank them. This encouraged a wide ranging debate about the goats. A structured account of the issues and concerns associated with the goat management was drawn up, and included the following points: Selection of findings from the workshop Broad-leaved new woodland: There was an impact on new broad-leaved woodland until its establishment after c.15 years.

Dry heath for grouse: There was believed to be a negative impact here from the goats.

Gene pool for primitive breed goat: Believed to represent one group of only a handful of populations with significant breed characteristics of ‘primitive’ British goats.

53

ECOS 31(2) 2010 Education and scientific: The goats afforded the study of behaviour and ecology of large mammalian herbivore.

Impact on walls / fences: Costs of fencing repair were seen as a concern. Deer fencing was used by some landowners but was regarded as unsightly and impractical, and grouse can fly into them.

Impact on available grazing: Reduced sheep numbers means an impact on productivity of sheep, but overall the goats’ effects are neutral.

Tourism potential: Adds to interest of area but probably doesn’t pull tourists in.

Spread of disease: More a fear than an issue? For example, concern about possible contagion with Caseous Lymphadenitis (CLA), a chronic, non-notifiable bacterial infection.

It became apparent that there was no desire to remove the goats entirely, as they were valued by all for scientific, amenity and historical reasons.

The main issue was that with the number of feral goats on the increase, the negative issues would come to dominate, and so it was agreed by everyone that the goats would have to be reduced to a number acceptable by all, compatible with the main land uses of the area.

So how to determine a viable population that is small enough not to impact negatively on land use? As mentioned earlier, given that researchers have found that the lack of density dependence makes modelling of goat populations very difficult, educated guesses as to what can be predicted are likely to be as important as mathematical models of the population.22, 23 Several aspects of the ecology of feral goats are important in this context: • Nannies (females) live at least twice as long as billies (males) with an average age of 6 once they survive the first year; natural sex ratio is 1 billy: 2 nannies.

• Goats form matriarchal home ranges, hefts that tend to be led by older, more experienced nannies.

• High twinning rates are indicative of good conditions and provide for high rate of increase in populations.

• In the Cheviots, female hefts do not generally exceed around 45 animals.

Very rarely had the population counts included details of age and sex. In terms of management this information is extremely useful because it aids the prediction of changes in population size. It is the number of females in the population that limits population growth. High numbers of females, particularly yearling or young nannies which can contribute offspring for the largest number of years, cause 54

ECOS 31(2) 2010 NEIL BENNETT

populations to increase rapidly. The converse is true for populations dominated by males. Where the previous summer and winter have been warm and there is plenty of food, birth rates and often twinning rates will be high, again contributing to population increases. It only takes only one or two billies to serve a heft. With an objective of controlling population increase, reducing (but not eliminating!) the number of billies will have no long term impact on future animals numbers, whereas if young nannies are targeted, this will depress numbers in the following years.

Solutions Following a further lengthy discussion it was agreed that the goats needed to be controlled, but that a viable population should be safeguarded as they are (a) regarded as part of the history and culture of the Cheviots and (b) believed to represent an anciently feral genetic stock (also referred to as ‘British Primitive goat’24 ).

It was decided to set limits to the numbers of female goats in each of the two hefts, and to have a ratio of billies to nannies of 1: 6 (minimum 5 billies to each heft). In order to achieve this, a number of options were discussed. It was agreed that there would be total exclusion of goats from the young woodland plantation areas, but that a level of damage to trees of 15% would be accepted. Goats would be removed, or at last resort, culled when found in these woodlands (there was already a similar policy in place concerning roe deer). This would only work if operational ground rules were agreed. These include conducting population censuses (including male: female ratios, where possible ages as identified by hornrings), welfare, capture methods and contingency plans. General points that could apply to populations elsewhere are: 1.Develop and keep communication channels open between land-owners, farmers, goat enthusiasts, researchers and the community. Produce a question and answer sheet for use with the community.

2.Best time for population counts is in October, when animals form tighter groups during the rut. Sighting animals is also easier when vegetation has died back in November. This is also the best time for round-ups / culls.

55

ECOS 31(2) 2010 3.Get to know individual goats by coat colour and pattern, horn detail etc.

4.Zero tolerance for goats in sensitive areas. In effect, stalkers will be permitted to cull goats in these areas at any time of year except, for welfare reasons, in February to April when kids are born as they may be orphaned.

5.Reduce numbers of nannies, targeting young to middle aged nannies – 1-4 years old, since they determine growth rate of population.

6.Maintain older (long-horned) nannies, as these may be matriarchs that transmit hefting behaviour.

7.Maintain ratio of 1 billy to 6 nannies. Target surplus yearling and two year-old billies for culling. Maintain 30 – 40 adult nannies in a heft.

8.Keep records of culled or removed goats 9.As well as annual meetings, periodic reviews need to consider ‘is it working?’

Five years on Students at Newcastle University were funded by one of the land-owners to monitor the animals. Using photographic techniques they were able to identify nannies, billies, yearlings and kids annually. The twinning rate is very high, and the targets set in 2005 may not have taken this into account. Armed with this knowledge, a total of 189 goats were translocated in 2005 and 2007 in a joint effort by the National Park and the land-owners. The goats were re-homed by members of the Feral Goat Research Group, many to conservation projects, such as the Isle of Portland in Dorset, described below. In addition, a small number of animals found in zero-the tolerance areas had to be culled by land-owners. The population appears to have remained stable at around 200 animals, although at present the number of adult nannies is below the plan target.25 In recent years there has been more movement between the two hefts that are present; it has been suggested that this may be due to the fact that goats are being deterred from the broad-leaf woodland areas and that in hard winters they seek shelter and food on lower ground, including valuable in-bye land. One solution may be to provide sacrificial coniferous plantation for the goats.

Portland example - Portland goat grazing trial, East Weares, Isle of Portland, Dorset26 East Weares is part of Isle of Portland SSSI, a species-rich area of limestone undercliff with valuable areas of calcareous grassland, moss lawns and a dense blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana), ivy (Hedera helix) and Cotoneaster wind-pruned scrub (the scrub is important habitat for bird populations).

In 2003, (the then) English Nature commissioned a feasibility study 27 for introducing grazing to East Weares, a 40ha (and with Penn’s Weare 80 ha) sub-unit.

56

ECOS 31(2) 2010 Unsurprisingly, given that scrub was coming to dominate areas of the undercliff, landslip, scree slopes and upper shore, goats were recommended as the most appropriate grazers and browsers. Following a further detailed action plan28, 10 castrated feral billies from the Cheviots population, in the first case study, were introduced as a trial project in 2007, funded by a consortium including Natural England, Weymouth and Portland Borough Council and Dorset Wildlife Trust and run by the Portland Ranger, Dorset Countryside Service at Weymouth Borough Council.

Prior to their introduction, care was taken to ensure that the welfare of these animals was paramount, and a ‘grazing risk assessment’ exercise undertaken to ensure that animals would enjoy the ‘Five Freedoms’.29, 30 Because there were natural boundaries (often vertical cliff) and shoreline and the habitat was deemed to be very suitable to goats, no fencing was erected, although there was always a fallback to fence should goats roam outside their designated area. Two gates were built along public footpaths. However, just as important as the physical groundwork, the Ranger informed and involved the local community about the goats at the earliest opportunity. The result is that now, in a short space of three years, ‘islanders’ look upon the goats as their own. Testament to all this hard work, there has always been a team of eight local volunteers and Volunteer Rangers, ‘goat-herders’ or ‘lookers’ who are trained to check on the condition and location of the goats every day. Kingston Maurward College students also monitor and study the goats. Lyn Cooch, the Ranger emailed me shortly after the release of the goats: “We … seem to be managing them really well… with the help of a great bunch of 'Lookers'. They have been such an attraction and everybody, locals and visitors, loves them! They are hefting to the old rifle range area but also to a cliff just below the Coast Path near Broadcroft Quarry… so easy to drive as a herd, to the northern end away from the Quarry”.

Three years after the successful introduction of the goats, the project is now looking to double the size of the herd.

Some take-home points

Know your goats and involve your local community: • Understand the importance of goats to people (for example, how the goats are perceived in the area’s local identity and culture, and how they are considered to have shaped the area’s history) as well as their contribution to biodiversity (their role in maintaining the stock of an ancient domestic ‘breed’).

• Identify and involve key stakeholders at an early stage in establishing principles for managing the goats.

• Have a plan of management; for conservation schemes this should include an exit strategy.

Review the programme periodically, including the perspectives of all interested parties.

• Produce a sheet of questions and answers for the concerned public, and invite additions to these.

57

ECOS 31(2) 2010 In free-ranging situations: • Feral goats ‘belong’ to the owner of the land that they occupy. This means that legally they can be culled, gathered or tagged at any time by land-owners when they appear on their land.

• Assess impact of goats on vegetation (separate from impact by other herbivores).

• Understand goat foraging habits, and therefore potential impacts on important animal species.

• Goat population dynamics: - is the population going up?

- what is the male to female ratio?

- what has been the impact of severe winters on populations?

- what is the extent of the female and the male home range?

- are any ancient feral phenotypes (physical characters) present that should be preserved?

In conservation schemes: • Evaluate your proposed site: - Are there any habitats of high conservation value and what are the potential grazing / browsing impacts?

- is there sufficient forage for the animals (forb/grass to scrub/ tree ratio should be about 40:60) - is there sufficient shelter and water?

- is there scope for fencing of 1.8 to 2.0 m high with stock-proof gate-ways?

• the goats need to be in an already formed social group, originating from the same place.

• start stocking rate low - e.g. 1-2 goats per ha on minimum area of 5 ha (if too high and insufficient forage or shelter, feral goats will try to escape).

• should a breeding herd be kept - if so how are animals to be controlled?

Practical solutions for mitigating against undesirable impacts have included: • Exclosures (fencing goats out) • Shepherding, frequently pushing animals away from sensitive areas • Translocation (removal of selected individuals to conservation schemes and goat enthusiasts) • Culling (at last resort, selected individuals).

58

ECOS 31(2) 2010

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

http://www.presentaid.org/invt/goat?gclid=COrV9fb0zKICFYEU4wodW0qRyA Bullock, D.J. (1995) The feral goat – conservation and management. In: British Wildlife, 6. 3; pp 152-159.

CCW, SNP, WAG, Gwynedd County Council, Snowdonia Society, NFA & Farmers’ Union Wales. 2010.

Management of goats in north Wales. Internal multi-party position paper.

Mark Fisher’s blog http://www.self-willed-land.org.uk/ with reference to feral goats at the Valley of the Rocks in Devon and in Snowdonia. http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2008/09/18/2294#cmnts#cmnts A researcher with the British Feral Goat Research Group quoted in Vidal, J. Goats have roamed around Snowdonia for 10,000 years, now they face secret cull. The Guardian Newspaper 13 Nov 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/wales/4800209.stm Lynton resident re goats in the Valley of the Rocks quoted in http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/devon/4495085.stm Lynton Town Council quoted in http://www.buttercups.org.uk/feral_goat_appeal.html. Website of the Lynton Feral Goat Preservation Society. There is a second website representing the Friends of Lynton Goats.

Huw Jenkins, My Feral Goats in Natur Cymru.

MailOnline, 23 March 2007. https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/home/index.cfm Calow, P. (1999) Blackwell’s Concise Encyclopedia of Ecology. 11th Edition. Blackwell.

Smith, J.E. (2005) Plan for the management of feral goats in the North Cheviots, Northumberland National Park. Report to Northumberland National Park Authority.

Werner, R. (1988) Preserving the British native goat. British Feral Goat Research Group. Unpublished paper.

Smith, J.E. & Bullock, D.J. (1993) Phenotypic characters, conservation and management of the feral goat in northern England and southern Scotland. Internal report to the Rare Breeds Survival Trust.

Data from Whitehead, G.K. (1972) The wild goats of Britain and Ireland. David Charles, Newton Abbot.

Smith, J.E. & Bullock, D.J. (1993) Ibid Northumberland National Park Authority, internal records.

In Tegner, H. (1952). Wild goats of the Borders. Countrylife.

Whitehead, G.K. (1972) Ibid.

Bullock, D.J. (1982) Aspects of the ecology of feral goats (Capra domestic) in the Southern Uplands. PhD thesis. University of Durham.

Pickering, S. P.C. (1983) Aspects of the behaviour and ecology of feral goats (Capra domestic). PhD thesis, University of Durham.

Werner, R. (1988) Ibid.

Garson, P., Webb, Z & Lill, S. (2009) 2009 Feral Goat Census, north Cheviots. Report to the Feral Goat Management Group produced by Newcastle University. http://www.chesilbeach.org/PCG/index_files/Page559.htm Portland Goat grazing trial.

Shepherd, D. (2003) Isle of Portland grazing feasibility project. Dorset Wildlife Trust, Draft report to English Nature.

Smith, J.E. (2005) Action plan for introducing goats to East Weares, Isle of Portland. Report to Natural England.

Grazing Advice Partnership. See A guide to animal welfare in conservation grazing. www.grazinganimalsproject.org.uk See http://www.grazinganimalsproject.org.uk/breed_profiles_handbook.html (2001) Also Smith, J.E. & Bullock, D.J. 2000. Feral goat profile and information sheet. Full version of paper used in the breed profiles handbook. Obtainable from the author on request.

Acknowledgements Thanks to David Bullock for his invaluable help in suggesting improvements for this article. Lyn Cooch, Peter Garson, Mary Goch and Shirley Goodyer all provided valuable updates on the goat projects.

Jude Smith is a consultant ecologist and botanist with a special interest in goats, bats, wetland restoration and the resolution of nature management issues and conflicts. jude@wildworksecology.co.uk

59

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Dogs and wildlife - a people management issue The success of managing wildlife sites where dogs may have an impact rests on addressing the priorities and motivations of dog owners themselves.

STEPHEN JENKINSON, JO HALE, PADDY HARROP Seek first to understand The daily need for exercising the UK’s six million dogs presents challenges for managers of many wildlife sites across urban greenspace, the coast and the countryside. Irresponsible behaviour by even a small percentage of dog owners can feel like a big problem at a site level. Depending on the local circumstances, issues such as fouling, flushing of birds off nests, worrying of livestock and unwanted interactions with other visitors are understandable concerns. Whilst Natural England statistics1 show that issues arising from all forms of public access only account for 2.4 per cent of the reasons why SSSIs are not in a favourable condition, changing the behaviour of dog owners can seem like an attractive proposition, given the difficulties in addressing the much bigger threats caused by land management activities such as inappropriate grazing, pollution and drainage.

However, as many site managers have found, simply trying to change behaviour by narrowly considering what is best for the conservation of a particular species or habitat, can often at best be ineffective, and have at worst led to protest marches and high profile press coverage that serves no-one’s best interests. Dog owners greatly value the places they visit and are very protective of their access opportunities. Any additional restrictions can provoke a swift and vociferous response from people. Moreover, apart from being voters of interest to local politicians, many dog owners are also members of conservation organisations; around 40 per cent of RSPB members have a dog. Thus there have been wider political and financial implications caused by a less than sensitive approach at a particular site.

Whatever change in behaviour is desired, the challenge for site managers rests on finding ways to manage for the site’s needs through positively engaging with dog owners and understanding their behaviour at the site. Simply seeing dog owners as an unwelcome visitor who has a less than legitimate stake in the countryside will help no one. Moreover, in most cases there is not the legislative backing or the resources to get compliance through restrictive signage and wardening; if there was, problems arising from walkers with dogs would not be with us now.

The need for new approaches became apparent when open access under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was being implemented. Engagement 60

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Dog owners come from a diverse range of backgrounds: dog-centric events and information are the best way to influence their behaviour.

Photo: Forestry Commission

with dog owners on site and during policy development was often very limited, with a corresponding ineffective emphasis on restrictive, negative, and at times misleading messages, as highlighted in the National Audit Office report.2 So given that the traditional approach to walkers with dogs seemed to be benefiting noone, a coalition of the Forestry Commission, Hampshire County Council, Kennel Club and Natural England began a range of research and practical projects to test new approaches to managing walkers with dogs.

What dog owners seek Three principles underpin these new approaches, which equally apply to influencing the behaviour of any visitor, irrespective of whether they have dogs, canoes, bicycles or disposable barbeques. The first principle is understanding, respecting and somehow accommodating the experiences dog-owning visitors seek. Over the past two decades, our knowledge has greatly increased about the needs of, for example, people with disabilities or from different cultural backgrounds. But until recently the needs and aspirations of walkers with dogs were little studied, and so in 2007 a research project was commissioned by Hampshire County Council, the Kennel Club and Natural England. The work was undertaken by the Sports Industry Research Centre, which used on-site interviews and an anonymous online questionnaire, to provide an insight into what dogowning visitors seek.3 The list below sets out the findings.

61

ECOS 31(2) 2010 The 10 most important access requirements for walkers with dogs: 41% Dogs can be off-lead 10.7% Away from traffic 10.5% Close to home 8.7% Personal safety 4.7% Peace and quiet 4.1% Unlikely to meet other dog walkers 3.6% Mixing with other dogs 2.9% Away from livestock 2.5% Poo disposal facilities 2.2% Circular route This very clear desire for off-lead access, away from traffic and close to home, is as pivotal to successful site management as it is challenging. Take, for example, the principle of nationwide “on-lead” restrictions when using rights of access to upland areas in England and Wales between March and July (in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), and similar principles in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. (It should be noted that dogs need not be on a lead if the landowner, or some other entitlement to access, permits a less restrictive regime on some or all of such land). Whilst such seasonal restrictions may be seen by some as an eminently reasonable precautionary principle to protect ground-nesting birds, it is in direct conflict with the most important characteristic of access that dog owners seek.

This conflict is also exacerbated when dog owners are pushed into the wider countryside through greater restrictions in urban parks, and building development on informal greenspace. Every single day, dog walkers will be seeking – and using somewhere – off-lead access, away from traffic and close to home. But even when high quality, relevant access is provided for dog owners, there will always be a hard core of persistently irresponsible people, where a firm enforcement line may be the only option.

Done fairly and proportionately, such action will have the support of responsible dog owners, as they also abhor the selfish elements within their ranks. The irresponsibility of such a minority though, should not distract site managers from the fact that, as with any group, the majority of dog owners want to enjoy their visits and avoid conflict.

These people are open to modifying their behaviour if approached in the right way.

Local impact of increasing restrictions To understand the local implications of incremental restrictions on access around Winchester, Hampshire Countryside Access Forum commissioned research to investigate dog owner perceptions about local access provision.4 The study found that 56% of dog owners felt less access was available to them than 10 years ago, and that when faced with additional restrictions, they had one of four choices: 1.Keep visiting a site if their needs are still met with a restriction in place – whole site “on-lead” rules are unlikely to give this outcome.

2.Drive every day to other places that better accommodate their needs – increasing greenhouse gas emissions and displacing the activity to sites that may well be more sensitive and less well supervised.

62

ECOS 31(2) 2010

A dog and human activity trail encourages owners away from more sensitive areas and positively increases communication, social contact and exercise.

Photo: Nigel Whitfield

3.Practically and/or politically challenge the restriction – dog owners can be very vociferous when provoked, and represent a large percentage of the voting public.

4.Ignore the restriction given a low likelihood of being caught/fined – this erodes management credibility and compliance with signage generally.

These findings show that a planned and strategic management approach is needed towards accommodating the needs of walkers with dogs. Failing to do so will just increasingly create different problems through displacement, bad publicity and unhelpful, heightened conflict.

The theory of planned behaviour Our second principle helps us to devise more effective ways to influence behaviour, through the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB).5 As with this theory’s widespread use in, eg, promoting healthier lifestyles and recycling, it provides a framework for recognising the many different reasons why a person will or will not perform a particular behaviour, be it picking up their dog’s poo, or using a lead at certain times. Thus, under the TPB’s principles, the three factors that influence a person’s likelihood to behave in a certain way, in this case complying with an on-lead sign, are as follows: • Owner’s personal beliefs about a given behaviour: “My dog will be less happy if she’s on the lead all the time” 63

ECOS 31(2) 2010 • Owner’s belief about how others will judge their behaviour: “Other dog owners think it’s OK for dogs to be off-lead here” • Owner’s belief about how they are to perform a given behaviour.

“I don’t know where else I can exercise my dog off-lead” This theory shows us that simply erecting a few restrictive ‘Don't’ signs is not an effective or enduring way to influence the way people behave. It equally illustrates why increasing compliance with desired behaviours, eg. lead usage, is predominantly about understanding what’s important to dog owners and then utilising this knowledge when we communicate with them. It is far less about understanding or communicating, for example, the breeding sensitivities of ground nesting birds, even though the latter may well be the motivation for the site manager’s involvement. The strongest motivations for dog owners revolve around their dogs having safe and enjoyable exercise; their primary motivation is not to go out every day to scare wildlife or irritate site managers – even though it may superficially seem like that! Staff managing sites need to manage for their outcomes on their visitor’s terms to achieve the best possible behavioural change.

Promote the good things too Principle 3: Trying to influence visitors using a solely negative, restrictive agenda, that offers them no personal benefit in complying, is only likely to have a limited success. A far more effective approach comes from also seeking opportunities to promote the beneficial aspects of a given visitor type at the same time. In the case of dog owners, traditional negative approaches can needlessly work against the many benefits dog ownership brings on a daily, year-round basis. Conversely, recognising such benefits provides a very helpful and positive agenda for engaging with dog owners, and securing funding to do so. In strategic terms, dog owners are very loyal and supportive stakeholders for given sites and routes. They come from a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds and greatly contribute to the wider political agenda for safer, healthier and more inclusive communities by: • Encouraging more active lifestyles and reducing stress through taking regular walks, even on the dullest of days.

• Making people feel more confident when out for a walk.

• Acting as an icebreaker for contact with others.

• Helping children develop better social skills.

• Preventing loneliness and isolation for older people.

• Reducing owners’ blood pressure and visits to the doctor.

• Giving independence to over 5,000 people with disabilities such as mobility and visual impairments, deafness and epilepsy.

64

ECOS 31(2) 2010 At a more local level, over half of the land managers interviewed in the Winchester study4 also said that walkers with dogs brought benefits such as early reporting of problems like injured livestock and deterring criminal activity. This and other studies have also identified that dog owners will volunteer to help manage sites if engaged in a relevant, positive way.

Practical management principles In summary, these principles collectively show us that to improve how we influence walkers with dogs we need to: • Provide accessible alternative opportunities for activities, especially “off lead”.

• Give signage more credibility and relevance.

• Avoid imprecise terms like “close control”, “be responsible”, “this spring and summer”, “sheep worrying”.

• Be clear about where restrictions both start and finish.

• Deliver messages and information at more appropriate times.

• Check signage for understanding with the intended audience.

• Accept that changing long-established behaviours will take time.

• Genuinely engage with the local dog-owning community to both help and influence them.

• Challenge what may be thinly-veiled prejudice against all walkers with dogs.

• Overall, make it easy for dog owners to do the right thing.

Good practice The following examples were all designed to help dog owners do the responsible thing to benefit themselves, all other access users and land managers alike.

Forestry Commission Dog walking is the largest single activity on Forestry Commission England (FC) land with around 40% of all visits being made with a dog; the FC is the biggest governmental manager of land with public access - around 250,000ha - of which 68,000ha are Sites of Special Scientific Interest. In 2005 the FC formed a partnership with the Kennel Club to promote responsible access by dog owners and provide better-managed facilities. Access for dog owners needs to be managed pro-actively to minimise conflicts between user groups, particularly around managing dog waste. The Forestry Commission, working with the Kennel Club, published Managing Dogs in the Wood, guidance for staff,6 illustrating a variety of initiatives such as dog washes, clearer signage, and offering creative alternatives to traditional 65

ECOS 31(2) 2010 approaches to dog fouling and disturbance to wildlife and livestock. This can be accessed at www.forestry.gov.uk/england-dogs. The Paws in the Woods credit cardsized guide used the core messages of dogs having a safe and enjoyable visit to engage with owners about responsible behaviour. A similar principle underpinned a fun postcard for dogs to write to their canine friends (with a little help from their owners!) and a branded bag for dog poo. These ‘dog-uments’ form a core part of the Commission’s Walkies in the Woods brand, which focuses on the physical and mental health benefits of dog walking as part of the Active Woods campaign.

Dog and human activity trail This groundbreaking 2.5km trail was constructed by the Forestry Commission in March 2008 at Coatham Community Woodland on Teesside. Its aim was to improve opportunities for people to experience and enjoy responsible, healthy exercise and interaction with their dog, and to act as a focal point for delivering messages about responsible behaviour and other site management issues.

Evaluation interviews in October 2008 showed that 60% of trail users were now more active when walking their dog. In addition, 22% came to the site more frequently and 89% had recommended the site to a non-visitor. Apart from clearly promoting greater human health, such trails can be a very positive way to encourage dog owners away from more sensitive areas for livestock and wildlife.

Hampshire County Council Hampshire County Council’s website www.hants.gov.uk/dogs gives specific generic advice for site managers and details of many successful initiatives relating to walking with dogs.

Danebury Hillfort This 40-hectares of chalk downland includes an Iron Age Hillfort, designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, flanked by woodland, scrubland and Site of Special Scientific Interest chalk grassland.

The Hampshire County Council ranger team wanted to reduce uncontrolled dogs disturbing wildlife and livestock, address dog poo not being picked up and binned, and avoid heated confrontations with dog walkers over access and signage. An additional poo bin was provided where it was easiest to fill (rather than having it where it was easiest for the contractor to empty) and a colour coded dog paw zoning system, that dynamically indicated where dogs could be off-lead (whilst still under control), or where ‘on-lead’ or ‘no dogs’ applied. Crucially, the zoning signage is immediately updated when grazing patterns change, so visitors have confidence in the system. A Dog Day was held to engage with dog owners and explain about the new signage.

The site conditions and owner behaviours were then monitored. Over three quarters of dog owners were found to be better informed about where restrictions applied and the location of grazing livestock. It was also evident that since just after the launch of this new system, no attacks on livestock have been recorded and the amount of dog poo left behind has declined by 82%.

66

ECOS 31(2) 2010

The future This pioneering work is already having long-term positive effects. For example, a more strategic and effective approach towards walkers with dogs has been enshrined in the development of the Marine and Coastal Access Act for England.

In this major piece of legislation Natural England engaged with the canine community at an early stage. As a result, much clearer behaviours are being defined as conditional on using the proposed new right of access. For example, if dogs are let off-lead, the handlers must keep them in sight, remain aware of their actions, and be confident that they will return reliably and promptly on command.7 This legislation also takes into account the reality that walkers with dogs are, and will continue to be, a major user of all access types. Thus, successful management needs to as much address where they can go, and what they can do, as much as where restrictions will be needed. We hope this article will encourage all site and access managers to feel more confident about trying these approaches, to reduce needless conflict with dog owners - the most frequent and loyal type of visitor to the coast, countryside and urban greenspace.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Anon (2010) Reasons for adverse condition summary – whole of England complied 4 May 2010. Available at: www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/report.cfm?category=N [Accessed 3 June 2010] National Audit Office (2006) The right of access to open countryside. NAO, London. Available from: www.nao.org.uk Barlow, M. and Hart, G. (2008) Assessment of perceptions, behaviours and understanding of walkers with dogs in the countryside, Sport Industry Research Centre, Sheffield Jenkinson, S. and McCloy, A. (2008) Walkers with dogs around Winchester, Access and Countryside Management, Hope Valley. www.hants.gov.uk/dogs Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 50 (2)179-211 Jenkinson, S. and Harrop, P. (2007) Managing dogs in the wood, Forestry Commission, Bristol and The Kennel Club, London. Available at: www.forestry.gov.uk/england-dogs Defra (2009) Consultation on proposals to amend the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for coastal land, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Available at: www.defra.gov.uk

Stephen Jenkinson provides advice, training and site audits on managing dogs and their owners for clients including Natural England, Forestry Commission, Scottish Natural Heritage, National Trust and local authorities. steve@sjacm.co.uk Jo Hale is Strategic Development Manager at Hampshire County Council’s Countryside Service. jo.hale@hants.gov.uk Paddy Harrop is the national recreation and public affairs manager for the Forestry Commission. paddy.harrop@forestry.gsi.gov.uk

67

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Dogs and nature reserves: can they co-exist?

Damage to wildlife sites from dog walking is a routine problem at many locations.

What are the negative impacts that dog walking can cause on our most important sites and how can site managers effectively deal with them?

ANDREW HARBY Impacts of dogs on wildlife sites Dogs can cause a number of direct impacts on sensitive wildlife sites, further exacerbated where dogs are let off leads to roam freely. One example where there is a significant impact is on bird populations, especially ground nesting birds.

Studies have shown that dog-walking can cause a 40 per cent reduction in localised bird populations1 even when kept on a lead, and that ground nesting birds such as nightjar2, lapwings and skylarks3 can suffer from nest abandonments caused by repeated flushing by dogs.

Dog faeces can deter many site visitors and can also be a problem for many wildlife sites that have community engagement and environmental education initiatives associated with them. Dog faeces can also cause problems at an ecological level by increasing nutrient input into occasionally delicate local ecosystems and can also spread diseases such as Toxicaris, which can cause blindness in humans, and parasites such as worms. It has also been suspected that dog faeces can cause miscarriage in livestock.3 Damage to trees is also a common problem caused by dogs on many sites, especially in London where one London Borough has estimated the damage caused to its trees by this behaviour to cost about ÂŁ1m. Damage takes the form of bark stripping and branch chewing and can result in the impairment of vascular system, frequently causing death by disrupting connection between the root and crown. Chewing can also allow pathogens and decay to take hold. This problem is associated with antisocial behaviour and the ownership of so called ‘weapon dogs’ such as Bull Terriers where it is encouraged by owners in order to strengthen jaws.4 A number of other dog impacts have been identified on web-based forums and discussion boards, including a number of reports of dogs causing problems along rivers and lakes. Some have reported dogs taking cygnets on the Royal Parks and causing disturbances to dipper nesting sites and other waterside nesting birds.

Other, perhaps less considered impacts may include reductions in aquatic invertebrates where dogs are allowed by their owners to bound through ponds stirring up silt, which reduces plant and invertebrate activity creating more silt, so progressively destroying the habitat. Some flea treatments for dogs also contain 68

NEIL BENNETT

ECOS 31(2) 2010

permethrin, which is extremely harmful to aquatic invertebrates. In addition, dogs can also increase bank erosion, disturb other animals and plants and can spread invasive plants from other ponds including those outside the site being visited.5 One beneficiary of dogs on wildlife sites are some species of dung beetles. One success story is Onthophagus nuchicornis, which occurs on the sand dunes of Camber Sands and has been found in dog and human dung.6

Should dogs be more controlled on wildlife sites?

A recent poll on the internet forum Wild About Britain asked for opinions on whether dogs should be controlled on wildlife sites. 47% of people voted for dogs to be banned from all wildlife rich sites, 30% for a ban from some sites and only 23% argued for no control on wildlife sites.7 However, many dog walkers argue that the problem is not dogs themselves but the irresponsibility of a small section of dog owners. Dog walker groups and organisations such as the Kennel Club will point to the many positive aspects that responsible dog walking can encourage; described as unofficial wardens of the countryside, dog walkers have been reported to pick up litter and report problems that may not otherwise be identified.8 There are also obvious physical, psychological and social benefits for both dog and walker that would not be easily replaced if this activity were prohibited, especially in areas where accessible green space is limited.

69

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Should dogs be excluded from wildlife sites?

One example where dogs have been entirely excluded is Nottinghamshire where Newark and Sherwood District Council have recently taken the decision to ban dogs from 72 parks and reserves.9 Dog walkers could face a £75 on-the-spot fine, possibly rising to £1,000. This would be unworkable on most sites where patrolling would be irregular and such a move may just antagonise walkers. An example would be the London Wildlife Trust site, Sydenham Hill Wood in South East London. Here, probably the biggest users of the park are dog walkers, including commercial dog walkers frequently walking up to 6 dogs at a time. The site is patrolled regularly, but with no on-site office and easy access for the large catchment of people nearby, problems are abundant. Though dog bins are provided, these are infrequently used, and recently a volunteer was bitten as a result of an uncontrolled dog. As a result, notices were posted around the woods politely asking owners to keep their dogs on leads. These were soon ripped down.10

Innovative dog management measures Effective ways of dealing with ‘problem’ dog walkers appear to be pretty thin on the ground, which is why the results of the Forestry Commission and Hampshire County Council’s proposals offer an interesting alternative to many of the usual, more confrontational methods of dog control.

If, as it would appear on many sites, exclusion is not plausible, improving education amongst dog walkers would seem like one of the most obvious places to attempt to lessen the damage of dogs on wildlife sites. Many young people with so called ‘weapon dogs’ are unaware that the behaviour of their dogs could be causing damage, for example with the damage caused to many trees by these dogs, the view of many is that ‘it’s a tree, it’ll grow back’. Projects to better inform dog walkers have included the ‘Top Dog’ training scheme run by Islington Borough council and a project run by Wood Green Animal Shelter in Hackney, specifically targeted at young owners of ‘status’ dogs.4 Dog owners are hugely protective of their pets and their rights to exercise them.

Perhaps if dog owners were concerned about losing access rights to sites where dog management problems persisted, the ‘offenders’ might feel more obliged to act responsibly and peer pressure might be applied amongst dog walkers. In addition, accentuating the positive might be a way forward, for example, by promoting dog walkers as ‘protectors of the countryside’, ‘responsible animal lovers’, or ‘environmentally friendly’ - this might encourage a greater proportion of dog walkers to behave in a way that reflects such labels.8 One attempt at controlling the negative impact of dogs has been undertaken at Burnham Beeches, a 540-acre National Nature Reserve site of ancient woodland in South Buckinghamshire. Around 35% of visitors to the site are dog walkers and the extent of the impacts from dogs was unknown. In 2003, the rangers began gathering data and testing opinion and reality on the issue amongst visitors. Using this data, the ranger team promoted responsible dog ownership and encouraged visitors to practice ‘effective control’ of their dogs on the open space. This process 70

ECOS 31(2) 2010 included a ‘dog code’, widespread distribution of leaflets, and also publicising negative incidents to visitors. The need to consistently enforce measures whilst remaining open to comments and queries from the dog walking community was also a vital part of this initiative.11 Of the many issues caused by dog walking and the possible solutions to them, exclusion would be the most efficient way of removing these problems, but is perhaps a blunt and confrontational measure. Dog walkers might justifiably argue that the problems caused by dogs are not insurmountable and can be reduced through improving education and responsibility amongst owners. With some sensitive wildlife areas suffering from poor dog control, it may be necessary to judge this issue on a siteby-site basis, knowing the range of measures that can be deployed.

References 1.

Banks, P. B; and Bryant, J.V; (2007) ‘Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural areas.’ Biol Lett. 2007 December 22; 3(6): 611–613.

2. Langston, R. H. W; Liley, D; Murison, G; Woodfield, E; Clarke, R. T. (2007) ‘What effects do walkers and dogs have on the distribution and productivity of breeding European Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus?’

Ibis, Volume 149, Supplement 1, March 2007 , pp. 27-36(10) 3. Cornwall Wildlife Trust 28th April 2009 http://www.cornwallwildlifetrust.org.uk/news/News_pages/Dog_mess_damaging_wildlife 4. Bark Better than Bite. Damage to trees by dogs best practice note. London Tree Officers Association. (2010) http://www.ltoa.org.uk/docs/good%20practice%20guide-v04.pdf 5. Pers Comms, John Hatto May 2010 6. Pers Comms, Richard Jones May 2010 7. Wild About Britain – Should dogs be banned form nature reserves, SSSIs and other wildlife rich areas? http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/forums/general-wildlife/28 Nov 2009 8. Edwards, V and Knight, S (2006) Understanding the Psychology of Walkers with Dogs: New Approaches to Better Management. University of Portsmouth 9. The Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act 2005. The Dog Control Orders (Prescribed Offences and Penalties, etc.) Regulations 2006 (S.I.2006/1059). The Dogs Exclusion (Newark and Sherwood District) Order 2010. April 7th 2010.

10. Pers Comms, Ashley White – London Wildlife Trust Conservation Projects Officer for Southwark – June 2010 11. Martin Hartup, Head Ranger (City of London) Consensus through education. City of London Dog Seminar – 25 February 2009

Andrew Harby is Youth Project Officer with the London Wildlife Trust and is a BANC council member. a_harby1@hotmail.com

71

ECOS 31(2) 2010

A rose by any other name?

From Menie Links to the ‘Great Dunes of Scotland’ Rebranding Menie Links cannot hide the damage which will result from the sanitised environment of a new holiday village and golf complex. Different identities for the area will now be established amongst different communities.

DUNCAN LIGHT & PAUL ROONEY A slump of the dunes In late May 2010 the press announced that Donald Trump intended to rename an area of coastal dunes in Aberdeenshire. Currently known as Menie Links, the proposed new name was The Great Dunes of Scotland.1 This was the latest stage in a long and bitter dispute concerning the development of Menie Links by the American billionaire. Following a public local inquiry in June-July 2008 the decision

by Scottish Ministers to grant outline planning permission for the development of Menie Links by Trump International Golf Links Scotland created a storm of opposition. The developer intends to build two championship golf courses, a luxury hotel, 950 holiday homes, 500 houses, road access and parking. The current golf course construction (the first of two intended) requires extensive stabilisation of the main moving sand features.

Menie Links is a dynamic system where the constantly changing influences of wind and water keep the sand dunes ‘pulsing’ and ‘alive’. Unfortunately, the scale of impacts on the dune habitats is, to use the developers’ phrase, considerable.2 From the dune conservation perspective the most important impacts of the development are on the geomorphological processes. These are on such a large scale and of such a significant level as to render the dynamic dune environment significantly compromised. The developer recognises this in the Environmental Statement, and identifies them as ‘major adverse’.3 The negative impact on the geomorphological interests is recognised by the Scottish Government in the summary report of the Inquiry “alongside a major adverse effect on the coherence of the ecological structure and functioning of the impacted areas”.4 Although Trump claimed that the stabilisation of the dune system would have “environmental benefits” and that the land would be “environmentally enhanced”,5 the development has been extensively criticised by conservationists 6 and respected environmental bodies such as the Scottish Wildlife Trust.7 Scottish Natural Heritage opposed the development at the local public inquiry. The decision to approve the proposal led to the formation of opposition groups consisting of 72

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Overview of one of the Menie sand sheets and biologically rich dune slacks.

Photo: Jim Hansom

environmentalists, local residents and the wider community. Their concerns centre around the “severe damage to the natural environment, loss of public access, a blight on the landscape, a new housing estate and breaches of national and Aberdeenshire policies”.8 The project has also been criticised by some within the golfing world9 who regard the project as a model for unsustainable development.

Coming at the end of a bitterly-contested campaign in Aberdeenshire, should we read any significance into Donald Trump’s proposal to rename Menie Links? Drawing on perspectives from contemporary human geography we argue that attributing (place) names is inseparable from wider questions of power and identity.

On naming and renaming We attribute names to things all the time. Parents give names to their children.

People give nicknames to their friends and family. Most people who own a pet give it a name. In some cases inanimate objects are also given names. Some people name their cars. House naming is also commonplace (‘The Cottage’ is apparently the most popular at the moment10). Conservationists give names to nature reserves and other protected sites. The general principle is that if you own something then you can give it a name of your choice. Some names may become the object of mockery (such as those children that are named after global fashion brands). But so long as the name is not offensive or obscene it is generally regard as nobody else’s business. On this basis, given that Donald Trump now owns (most of) the Menie Estate he is entitled to call it what he wants.

73

ECOS 31(2) 2010 However, it is not just individuals that allocate names. Businesses also choose names for their products (think of the iPod or the Blackberry). In some cases a business may change its name to give it greater distinctiveness and recognition. For example, the former Speke Airport in Liverpool adopted the name ‘Liverpool John Lennon Airport’ in 2002. At the same time, changing names (or renaming) is a commonplace practice. For example, the European Economic Community changed its name to the European Union in 1993. The former ‘Irish Free State’ adopted the name Ireland in 1937. Part of Lancashire was renamed Merseyside in 1974. There have been some high profile changes of names to cities such as Bombay and Madras in India, which became Mumbai and Chennai respectively. Similarly, Leningrad returned to its original name of St Petersburg in 1991. Streets can also be renamed: Butt Hole Road in Yorkshire was renamed Archers Way after a campaign by local residents.11

Critical toponymy We can consider what’s happening in Aberdeenshire in the context of what has become known as “critical toponymy”.12 The academic study of toponymy – place names – has a long history, particularly among geographers and historians. The focus of much of this research has been on treating toponyms as part of the distinctive culture of a particular national or ethnic group. Toponymy sees the process of naming itself as an act of authority which can also be a demonstration of possession and/or appropriation.13 The act of attributing a name is a manifestation of power. Moreover, the names that are allocated are not neutral or value-free. The decision about attributing a name (and at the same time, not attributing some other name) says something about the values, priorities, judgements and world-view of the namer. Allocating a name is a matter of choice and quite simply the choice of name says something about what the namer (whether an individual or institution) considers to be important and unimportant. We can consider the proposed renaming of the Menie Links in this context. However, the Menie links is not a unique example. There are numerous contexts in which a change of name follows a change in ‘who is in charge’. This frequently occurs, for example, when there is some sort of revolutionary political change. When Ceylon gained independence in 1972 it adopted the new name of Sri Lanka. After Irish independence Sackville Street in Dublin (named after a British Lord Lieutenant of Ireland) was renamed O’Connell Street (after an Irish nationalist leader).14 Indeed, the same practices are apparent in UK nature conservation. The Nature Conservancy was established in 1949 and covered the whole UK. It was followed by the formation of the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) in 1973 which covered Great Britain but not Northern Ireland. Following the Environment Protection Act of 1990 the NCC was broken up into the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (a UK wide body), the Countryside Council for Wales (Wales only), Scottish Natural Heritage (Scotland only) and English Nature (England only). Following the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act of 2006 English Nature ceased to exist.

Instead, a body called Natural England was created which amalgamated English Nature, the Countryside Agency (formerly the Countryside Commission) and the Rural Development Service. Each time there is a change in the philosophy of how 74

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Menie Links showing part of the sand sheet which will be stabilised by marram grass and part of the young wet slack habitat Photo: Stewart Angus, SNH

the environment should be managed there is a change in the name of the institution responsible for this management. It is worth considering the extent to which these changes were driven by ideology, power and the desire for independence and control.

Introducing a new name (or changing an existing name) is a way of wiping the slate clean and declaring a fresh start and a new vision. Changing a name also demonstrates resoluteness and self-confidence on the part of the namer.15 At the same time it effectively consigns to history what came before: the old name (and the project and agenda that it was part of) are effectively declared redundant and unnecessary.

Renaming is, in effect, a way of rewriting history and reconstructing memory.

Renaming Menie Links By renaming the Menie Links Donald Trump is declaring that he is both the present owner of the Menie Estate and that he has won the battle to do what he wants with this area of land. The change of name is intended to indicate a dramatic new future for the Menie Dunes. However this is a project that will significantly damage the dynamic dune environment, damage that was recognised and agreed at the local public enquiry.16 The choice of new name is also significant. The renaming of the Menie Links as ‘The Great Dunes of Scotland’ replaces a historically established and place-based 75

ECOS 31(2) 2010 toponym with something more generic and abstract. Such renamings have the power to erase (or at least disrupt) local place-specific memories and senses of place.17 Trump has argued that people “don’t understand” the current name of the dunes.18 Yet this is an unconvincing argument since there are numerous examples where people do not necessarily understand the origin or meaning of particular toponyms but nevertheless have enduring and deeply-rooted attachments to them.

For example, few Liverpool FC fans understand that the cherished ‘Kop’ end of Anfield stadium commemorates a battle during the Second Boer War. The adoption of ‘The Great Dunes of Scotland’ seems intended simply to create a brand for Trump’s new golfing complex. The use of Scotland in the name is hardly necessary, but provides a geographical anchor for international clients. It also ‘connects’ to Scotland’s established reputation as a major centre for golf activity.

The use of ‘great’ seems to be a clear metaphor both for the extent of Trump’s ambitions for the estate (he claimed that this would be the “greatest golf course anywhere in the world”19 ) and the scale of the proposed new project. A name such as The Great Dunes acknowledges the physical extent of the dunes as well as their spectacular topography as active, dynamic site features but without needing to draw attention to their equally ‘great’ conservation value.

Although the proposal to rename the Menie Estate has caused something of a public outcry it may, in fact, turn out to be less significant than at first sight. If the existing name is rooted in local communities and underpins local senses of place its use is unlikely to disappear. There are numerous examples in all sorts of contexts of where names have been formally changed but where the old names persist in every day usage. For example, there is currently an active campaign to ‘Bring Back the Marathon Bar’ and rescue it from the American sounding Snickers.20

Different identities The proposal to build this major golf complex in Aberdeenshire will have very significant environmental impacts, particularly through the stabilisation of a currently mobile dune system. Trump’s international clients may take to ‘The Great Dunes of Scotland’, and it may work as a distinct brand for his marketing needs, but local people are unlikely to adopt such a name which makes little connection to local senses of place and identity. Thus, the name ‘Menie Links’ is likely to remain part of colloquial usage among the inhabitants of this area for many generations to come.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

76

The Scotsman, 27 May 2010 (accessed from www.scotsman.com on 5 June 2010); The Times 27 May 2010 (accessed from www.timesonline.co.uk on 5 June 2010); The Guardian 26 May 2010 (accessed from www.guardian.co.uk on 5 June 2010) Rooney, P. (2008) Summary precognition of Paul Rooney at the public local inquiry. Available at: www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/planning/inquiry/SNH%20Precognition%20Summary%20Paul%20Rooney.pdf (accessed 26 July 2010) Rooney, ref 2 Scottish Government (2008) Summary of Report of Inquiry into Called-in Application for Outline Planning Permission. Available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/212607/0068202.pdf (accessed 26 July 2010)

ECOS 31(2) 2010 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Trump, D. (2008) Main Precognition of Donald J. Trump at the public local enquiry. Available at: www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/planning/inquiry/Precog_Donald%20Trump%20Precognition.pdf (accessed 21st July 2010) Rooney, P. and Houston, J. (2009) From wasteland to joy land – changing attitudes to coastal dune management. ECOS 30 (2) 50-57 http://www.swt.org.uk/campaigns/trump-development/ (accessed 26 July 2010) www.meniescotland.co.uk/ (accessed 20 July 2010) www.golfenvironment.org/about/news/view/trump.unsustainable?from=3 (accessed 21 July 2010) www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertyadvice/propertymarket/3358096/Nice-house-but-its-the-name-thatcounts.html. (accessed 4 June 2010) Daily Mail 26th May 2009 (accessed from www.dailymail.co.uk on 5 June 2010) Berg, L.D. and Vuolteenaho, J. (eds) (2009) Critical Toponymies: The Contested Politics of Place Naming, Ashgate, Aldershot Azaryahu, M. (1996) ‘The power of commemorative street names’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 14, pp 311-330 Whelan, Y. (2001) ‘Monuments, power and contested space – the iconography of Sackville Street (O’Connell Street) before independence (1922), Irish Geography, 34, 11 – 33.

Azaryahu, ref 13 Scottish Government, ref 4 Azaryahu, ref 13 The Times 27 May 2010 (accessed from www.timesonline.co.uk on 5 June 2010) Trump, D. (2008) Main Precognition of Donald J. Trump at the public local enquiry. Available at http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/planning/inquiry/Precog_Donald%20Trump%20Precognition.pdf (accessed 21st July 2010) www.bringbackmarathon.org/ (accessed 21 July 2010)

Duncan Light is Associate Professor in the Geography Department at Liverpool Hope University.

He is a human geographer with particular interests in the politics of landscape, especially practices of naming (and renaming) cultural landscapes. Lightd@hope.ac.uk Paul Rooney is a Senior Lecturer in the Geography Department at Liverpool Hope University, and the Director of the UK Sand Dune and Shingle Network – see www.hope.ac.uk/coast. Paul was an expert witness for Scottish Natural Heritage in the Trump public local inquiry. E-mail dunes@hope.ac.uk

77

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Book Reviews

WILD WONDERS OF EUROPE Peter Cairns, Florian Möllers, Staffan Widstrand & Bridget Wijnberg Abrams New York, 2010, 287pp Hbk, £29.99, ISBN 978 0 8109 9614-4 This is more than a coffee-table book – it is an exhibition of some of Europe’s finest photographers, and it does what it says: it inspires wonder. The compilers have a history of communicating the incredible wildlife heritage of Europe, most especially the large carnivores – with Peter Cairns leading on rehabilitation of wolf, lynx and bear into the national psyche here in Britain. This compilation will help dispel the gloom of ever more news of losses.

78

The photography is first class, as we would expect from this team. Each picture is accompanied by a small text with information on the biology and status of the subject – it is therefore very much a book for conservationists as well as photographers or artists.

There are beautiful habitat shots and also the most intimate of close-ups – from flower heads to walrus whiskers!

My only criticism is what is not illustrated!

There are bits of text that highlight the pressures and (needless) losses, as well as the gains to biodiversity, and even rewilding gets a mention. But this text is not accompanied by relevant images. The reference to rewilding at Oostvaardersplassen in Holland could have been accompanied by shots of the intriguing Heck cattle, for example. The best example of a denuded landscape is the shot of Piano Grande in the Monte Sibillini National Park in Umbria – a surreally beautiful vista of treeless mountain and an equally treeless plain of cultivation – but it has no relevant notes. Opposite the text noting that the losses have been mainly due to intensive farming, there are photos of a wolf fish in the Atlantic, Eleonora’s falcon - a Mediterranean cliff species, and long-nosed viper - a snake of rocky mountain sides in the Balkans.

These are missed opportunities but do not detract from what is a great celebratory work and a total delight.

Perhaps a follow up volume would put this talented team to work illustrating conservation success stories as well as the losses, much as groups of artists have come together to visit and illustrate threatened areas.

Peter Taylor

ECOS 31(2) 2010

REINTRODUCTION OF TOPORDER PREDATORS Matt W. Hayward and Michael J. Somers (Eds) Wiley-Blackwell / Zoological Society of London, 459 pages Pbk, £39.95, ISBN 978-1-4051-7680-4 For countless millennia, humans have had an intense and complex relationship with (other) top predators.

We are fascinated by them, we love or loathe them, and we are becoming increasingly aware of their vital role in maintaining the integrity of ecosystems.

No wonder there is so much interest in their reintroduction, which is often an essential step for ecological restoration.

This book distils the experiences of some of the world’s leading carnivore biologists. The contributors critically review the reintroductions of carnivores as geographically diverse as Amur leopards, dingos, tigers and cheetahs, with assessments of why many reintroductions have failed, others have succeeded and why certain proposed projects would not be appropriate.

This authoritative work shows what truly a multi-disciplinary pursuit reintroduction can be, with a host of ecological, economic, social and cultural considerations. While some of the case studies may only be of passing interest to British conservationists, there is much here that is extremely relevant to the UK reintroductions debate.

Of particular relevance are reviews of the reintroductions of lynx in Europe, wolves in the US and different bear species in various countries. In addition the final chapter summarises the key considerations for future reintroductions and the main lessons learnt so far. These include the

importance of a thorough understanding of the species in question, the crucial role of stakeholder involvement and public education, and the presence of sufficient habitat and wild prey. The age-old conflict between carnivores and pastoral agriculture is a recurrent theme and finding creative solutions to this problem is obviously essential.

It is encouraging that so much experience has been gained worldwide, and is presented here in this excellent book. In my view predator reintroductions in Britain, while being far from easy, would be feasible and would have a vast store of expertise to draw upon. This book is essential reading for anyone with a serious interest in the restoration of top predators to our island.

Dan Puplett

CONNECTIVITY CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT A global guide Graeme L Worboys, Wendy L Francis and Michael Lockwood (eds) Earthscan, 2010, 480 pages Pbk, £49.99, ISBN 9781844076048 This is a significant text-book. With 340 pages arranged in 12 chapters, all wellreferenced and carefully articulated, and with a large number of contributors, this is a major work on the subject of connectivity in relation to conservation management.

Connectivity is quite a discussion point in conservation at the moment. In general terms we hold it to be a good thing. It is fairly intuitive to believe that a reasonable response to decades of habitat fragmentation and wildlife loss should be to connect habitats back up again and 79

ECOS 31(2) 2010 encourage wildlife movement. But look a little closer and the concepts start to become a little more uncertain. What do we mean by connectivity? Connectivity for what? What is the difference between functional connectivity and physical connectivity? And so on. Yet around the globe there are many examples where the concepts have been and are being worked through.

This book sets the context and talks about the science behind connectivity in part 1, the first three chapters. This is an important introduction to the subject which, for example, tries to bottom-out the scientific debate over the value of corridors. As conservationists we generally like the idea of connectivity but, given the uncertainties, is a focus on corridors really helpful or is it diverting attention from potentially more effective forms of conservation?

The book maintains that while there are many, now well-known problematical issues with corridors, there is still a general scientific consensus that the benefits outweigh the negatives. Some of the authors consider that, despite the limited empirical evidence, corridors are not just an intuitive conservation paradigm, but that they are a practical tool for conserving biodiversity. Indeed one of the conclusions is that it is difficult to think of any alternative to connectivity conservation in relation to protecting biodiversity in the face of climate change. These are a particularly timely conclusions bearing in mind the current government ‘Lawton’ review into ecological networks and site protection in Britain.

In part 2 (chapters 4 to 9) details are given of a range of examples of connectivity conservation management.

80

These include studies in the South African Cape Floristic Region, South Western Australia, the Andean Paramo, the Appalachian Mountains, the Sumatran Tropical Rain forests and many others. Probably the closest examples to Britain are the case studies in the European Alps, but these are large-scale examples so it is unlikely that the projects detailed can simply be copied in the context of lowland England. Nevertheless, the principles discussed in these large-scale case studies might be helpful to any practical conservationist wishing to understand more about connectivity.

The book concludes with a series of challenges and opportunities for connectivity conservation. The authors argue that climate change, human population growth and habitat destruction and fragmentation are contributing to the sixth great extinction event in Earth’s history. This will damage ecosystem services and ultimately will threaten the health of humans. They consider that while a lot has been done to conserve large scale “natural lands” this alone will not be enough to minimise species extinctions.

Large-scale connectivity conservation is one big-thinking response that might contribute to the solution.

Tony Whitbread

EXPLORING ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY T C Smout Edinburgh University Press, 2009, 208 pagesHbk, £60, ISBN 978 0748635139 Here is another important book from the Historiographer Royal. Professor

ECOS 31(2) 2010 Christopher Smout’s latest collection of essays grapples with the definition of environmental history, and with its importance in understanding the world we live in. His starting point is the historiography of British environmental history, which includes a nod to the American contribution to the subject.

This may seem dry. It’s not, as it allows Professor Smout to share his understanding of where ideas about nature have come from and how they have evolved. He makes an urgent plea for the largely science-based ecological historians and the largely documentary-based environmental historians to co-operate more in order to fill out everyone’s understanding.

Although the science of palynology has begun to be used by environmental historians, Smout suggests that soil science and genetic studies also have a great deal to offer. He is sure that between them, they will ultimately shed light on things as diverse as Medieval agricultural practice and human and animal migration over several millennia.

A practical example of why honing our understanding of how ideas have evolved can shed light on the present comes in the second essay ‘The Highlands and the roots of green consciousness’. Smout maps out changing attitudes to the Highlands from the purely aesthetic, epitomised by the Victorians’ love of scenery, to the utilitarian, such as the attempts to afforest the Flow Country or the development of the Northern Corries of Cairngorm for skiing. He points out that for decades Scotland’s countryside lacked a champion. It never had the equivalent of the Friends of the Lake District, it took nearly forty years

longer than England to get a National Trust, and even bodies like the RSPB, despite early members in Scotland, were firmly rooted south of the border.

For much of the twentieth century, Fraser Darling was a lone voice in representing the needs of Scotland’s wild places. And his, though arresting, was not always an accurate voice.

Do not think that this is all academic.

These historical facts have been hugely influential in shaping the policies that have in turn shaped the Scottish countryside that we see today. We were early in getting vast conifer monocultures, and late in getting National Parks because the utilitarian view dominated. We may have too many red deer because land owners have regarded their estates as a resource ‘for the private, aristocratic pursuits of hunting, shooting and sport fishing’ and not perceived the ecological complexities that they embraced. All these, says Smout “are informed by an ancient way of seeing nature as resilient and there to be exploited and the land as a way of making a living or pursuing a private pleasure”. To them he adds more recent attitudes which he classes as postromantic. One is the Scottish countryside as “an invigorating obstacle course” for walking, cycling, skiing or sailing on. A second is Scotland as an unspoilt landscape. This originates, he says, in the eighteenth century but grew with the creation of the former Countryside Commission for Scotland, and latterly with European designations for scenic areas. It is only last in this list that Smout notes a new regard for the land as a “refuge for plants, birds and animals seen as interesting and worth preserving for their own sake”.

81

ECOS 31(2) 2010 Some of these strands are explored in more detail in subsequent chapters such as ‘History, nature and culture in British nature conservation’ and ‘Environmental consciousness’. One theme picked out is the attitude of the Gael to nature, claimed by some to have been more sensitive and aware than the attitude of contemporary Scots to their environment. Whilst acknowledging that keen sensibilities do appear in some early poetry, Smout seems properly sceptical about whether they represent attitudes common to earlier society. Whatever may be the case, he points out the crying need we currently have for cultivating the delight and joy that poets over the centuries – and he looks to Renaissance and Medieval verse as well as Romantic – found in the natural world. He says this with passion: “If we are to transform mere headlong profligacy into the sustainable use- the sine qua non of our continued existence as a global civilisation – we have to … go beyond utilitarianism to reverence”.

But this jumps to the end of the book.

The middle chapters are focused on more specific issues. One is a comparison of energy use in historical times in Scotland, Ireland and Iceland, ‘three cold, miserable countries’. It is a fascinating essay on how people made out in difficult environments. The lecture on ‘Improvers and the Scottish environment’ touches on some of the same ground but adds much information about the effect of agriculture on the Scottish countryside and the changing attitude to bogs. It’s interesting to learn how great the conflict has been between those who saw bogs as wastelands waiting to be reclaimed for agriculture, those who used them as a fuel resource, and, more recently, those 82

who spotted their interesting biodiversity. The fact that bogs as carbon repositories are not mentioned is itself of historical interest. Professor Smout gave the lecture in 1999, only 10 years before he compiled the book, but long before our current obsession with carbon emissions and storage. It’s an indirect example of one of his themes, that fashion exists in our thinking about the natural world, just as much as it does in other areas of human activity.

As the chapters are all lectures, there is some repetition of examples, such as the differences in growth and exploitation of woods in the west of Scotland as opposed to the east. To me this was beneficial, serving to make the facts more memorable. Professor Smout is not only a clear thinker, he is a good pedagogue. Above all, however, it is the historian’s overview of our attitudes to nature that makes this such an important book. Each generation may think that it finally understands its own environment.

Professor Smout would suggest otherwise.

Although knowledge certainly does accrue, and many more tools, particularly from science, are available to the historian, the way in which we interpret the past is deeply affected by the prevailing notions of our time. It, like the world around us, will continue to evolve, unless we bring it to an untimely full stop. If we heed this author’s cry for “to respect the delicate mystery and overwhelming majesty” of that world, let us hope that we may avoid his sad forecast that “the future of this spinning earth may be a silence to match that of her sister planets”.

Fiona Martynoga

ECOS 31(2) 2010

SEASICK The hidden ecological crisis of the global ocean Alanna Mitchell Oneworld Publications, 2009 240 pages Pbk. £12.99 ISBN 978-1851686780 Seasick reviews the state of the world oceans. Whilst I would question its claim to be the first book to examine the current state of our seas I would agree partly with its premise that while “tremendous attention and money has been devoted to saving animals and plants on land, the deterioration of the oceans has been going on in secret, and scientists are just beginning to understand the extent of the crisis”.

Perhaps ‘in secret’ is a bit much, but certainly marine conservation is way behind its terrestrial partner.

The author, a journalist, visits scientists working on different ventures around the world through nine research projects in the ‘global oceans hotspots’ including her native Canada, plus China, England, Tanzania and Australia.

Subjects tackled include the acidification of the sea, damage to reefs caused by warming waters, large ‘dead zones’ where no life seems to survive, and overfishing. It finishes with ‘A call to wisdom’ where it states that many of the scientists believe the period up to 2030 is critical – after this time oceanic systems may have gone past the point of no return. The time to act is now.

The book covers an important subject but reads like a Sunday supplement article, and would have been very good at about that length. The same facts and themes are repeated through the text and it jumps about too much. Whilst it describes some fascinating science I am

not convinced the author fully understands all of it – do we really need to be told at the start of Chapter three that “Chemically, water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and a single atom of oxygen”. The book flits between tales of the scientists at work, descriptions of their findings and discussions on the possible consequences. Whilst there is some very detailed research work being explained, it never probes any aspect.

You never get to know the scientists, the detail of their results, or the full implications. Although there is an extensive bibliography there are no direct references to the work being described.

Whilst I like popular science books, I don’t think this one quite works, which is unfortunate as it covers such an important and urgent subject matter.

Mick Green

ETHNO-ORNITHOLOGY: Birds.

Indigenous Peoples, Culture and Society Sonia Tidemann and Andrew Gosler (Eds) Earthscan, 2010, 368 pages Hbk, £60, ISBN 9781844077830 This book comprises papers by many authors following an ornithology conference in 2006. Australian Sonia Tidemann, so it is claimed here, was the first person to put the terms ‘ethno’ and ‘ornithology’ in the same phrase at the international forum, with apparent success. The book seeks to either record or rediscover, depending on one’s geographic locale, the heritage of associations, significance and meaning which have defined human being’s relationships to birds. ‘Geographic locale’ because the tread of scientific rationalism that first paralleled and then overtook the human gaze 83

ECOS 31(2) 2010 directed towards the natural world, spread out from Europe only slowly.

Deconstructing these associations through challenges by science to ‘superstition’ have had more time to work in the West. In those foundation societies that were the cradle of the scientific method, the folklore of birds, along with much ‘common knowledge’ was dethroned sooner, surviving in only historic ballads and sayings, poetry and place names. The ‘people’s’ words for birds, plants and animals have had several centuries worth of distain through which to survive. Many have not done so.

Of 21 papers in the book, 16 take for their discussion examples that are located in the tropics or southern hemisphere. Only one, on the place of the bittern in English folk culture and society is set in a European context. The whole of North America is represented by a single paper on Alaskan Tlingit bird names. (“Ethno-ornithology is most succinctly defined as the comparative study of the knowledge of birds held by human communities throughout the world” begins the author’s account.) A shrinking world, apparently. Of course, it is possible that this book will stimulate others working in other places. But the evidence here presented appears to show that if one wishes to study an extant or barely extant cultural association between human kind and birds, going west will require different skills to those of fieldwork.

Is that necessarily a hindrance, still less a justified doubt about utility, if not seriousness? In 1980, Derek Ratcliffe, thought by many to be a world authority on the peregrine, extended a chapter of his monograph to the Peregrine falcon’s emblematic 84

significance as a harbinger of physical power and moral authority in the medieval European mind, all the better to understand the peregrine’s then current place in conservation thinking.1 For the notion was gaining ground by the end of the twentieth century that science alone could not provide a winnable case for conservation, certainly in the UK. Excluding the cultural (i.e. popular voice) was to overlook a potentially valuable ally at times of crisis. It ought then, given this authoritative endorsement, to be at least a possibility for others to follow.2 In terms of utility, describing the human relationship with a species might well be decisive in mustering bodies (and voters) behind a case. The serious researcher might recoil at the thought; the practical conservationist, I suspect, would not.

Western science arrived outside Europe with colonists. This indelicate reminder might explain why these ethnoornithologists approach their studies as though having to make certain reparations towards the colonised, not of the actual kind but in word and, perhaps, deed. Local knowledge, useful but not otherwise playing much of a part hitherto except to guide the footsteps of the successors to the Great White Hunters in the direction they wished to travel, has here (Chapter ten: What the locals know) had a degree of status granted to it as ‘Traditional Ecological Knowledge’ (TEK) and given parity with (implicitly western) ‘Scientific Ecological Knowledge’ (SEK).

Not worse than but different to. Locals know something, not nothing.

Anthropology considers that humans too are animals and their activities are to be assessed alongside and including

ECOS 31(2) 2010 other species, in this instance birds, in much the same field of reference.

Feathers to wear, flesh and eggs to eat, characteristics to be borrowed or mimicked – the ritual and practical sometimes side-by-side: “Irrespective of how it is described, the central tenet of indigenous knowledge is connectivity, where all elements may be infused with spirit and where human life is not superior to other elements”.3 Sentences such as this in the text give pause for thought, perhaps not in ways the author’s might intend.

Like the term it consecrates, Ethnoornithology – Birds, Indigenous Peoples, Culture and Society, is a hybrid work and an odd one. It includes some tabulated data, lists and maps, yet the Index does not cite the names of historically renowned biologists (Darwin appears only elliptically in the text), nor anthropologists who are household names. However, Professor Richard Dawkins, in his one time role promoting the public understanding of science, receives a mention as an exemplar of the “new hegemony” of the “power and dominion of science” replacing that of the “Western empires”– which might surprise him, if none else.

If the aim of the book is as stated by its editors to “raise awareness of other bodies of ornithological knowledge” then it succeeds by the fascination of the stories these papers tell rather than any arguments produced thereby.

Some of these stories, however, are troubling and familiar: the struggle that western conceived conservation agencies have in urging restraint on indigenous people that (as is well known and remembered) Europeans conspicuously lacked until very recently.

Then, on the flip side there is valid

discussion of the many objects of strange beauty resultant from birds having ‘spoken’, as the authors term it, to those within whose lives they are closely intertwined and whose fate they may share. Yet, still, there is a sense of something left hanging in the air that might yet grow in to more than a small cloud on the horizon.

What is science for? ‘A long period’ in which the confident answers were automatic ‘are now’ increasingly having to be shored up by a defensive palisade of near exculpation; a doubt – at times faint, at others pungent – hangs over science and any one like myself who grew up in the 50s will have seen a tremendous decline in the public status of scientists in all fields of endeavour since that one-time. I believe this point is worth making, if only to remind ourselves of the crisis which has, largely, crept up unseen on rationalism. A serious contender for the Presidency of the United States of America in 2012 believes in ‘Intelligent Design’ and this belief is not isolated to Mrs Palin and some of her supporters.

The heir to the British Crown is frequently at loggerheads with science with his own unorthodox views. At a time such as this, is it wise for scientists to engage with what some might well regard as ‘New Age’ ideas? Is association with something that even infringes slightly on the rigour of the scientific method sensible at this juncture? Simply put: Do they make good bedfellows?

Underlying some of these texts it seems to me is an assertion which goes (I must stress nothing like the sentiments in the following sentences is actually stated): “Indigenous people have been marginalised if not oppressed by colonial 85

ECOS 31(2) 2010 exploiters – white Europeans. Therefore, as a result Indigenous people can do what they wish. If that means facilitate habitat decline and, or, species extinction, so be it.

It’s not now the time any more for people with white faces or a smart education to interfere. Indeed, we scientists must “learn from them”. However, several of the papers are ‘traditional’ and dutifully objective in character – which lends a slight sense of lack of focus to the work, moving between worlds.

While ethno-ornithology studies may prove attractive to some, including nonornithologists, the study of human-bird relationships in the post-industrial west as they existed in historical times might in fact be regarded as no more than a tool among many (including, in no particular order – creativity, leisure, sport, tourism) about which livelyminded environmental managers should already be aware; an unlikely card to play would be, say, the place of birds in human diet or commerce as a means of preserving declining numbers. In the far away jungles and on the arid savannas, the policies for bird conservation may be constrained by a combination of existing political realities and ‘post-colonial guilt’.

Closer to home, in the backyard of the scientific method, the practitioners of ethno-ornithology may well have more of an identity struggle.

CONSERVATION a beginner’s guide Paul Jepson and Richard Ladle Oneworld Publications, 2010 193 pages Pbk, £9.99 ISBN 978 1 85168 714 5 Jepson and Ladle have produced a well thought out and thorough book. Its eight chapters cover the scope of conservation, the conservation movement, science-based conservation, taking action, financing, the critics of conservation, and 21st century conservation, plus recommendations for further reading. The last chapter contains predictions of what will happen this century and ends with a message of hope.

The dense text is broken up with photos, illustrations, tables and boxes summarising important points, such as the Convention of Biological Diversity, one of the main pillars of global conservation. It caters for many audiences spelling out the difference between US, British and Europeans in finances, donations and the landscapes they are trying to re-create. It presents many shocking statistics, such as 2530,000 primates are exported each year, either live or as animal parts.

The authors suggest the book is aimed at potential volunteers, at those considering a conservation career, and at conservation’s partners from other areas and at donors.

Barry Larking

References 1.

2.

3.

86

Ratcliffe Derek (1980) The Peregrine Falcon, Poyser; expanded second edition 1993.

See Birds Britannica by Mark Cocker and Richard Mabey (2005) for many examples of societal connections to birds.

M. Johnson (Ed.) Capturing Traditional Environmental Knowledge, Ottawa, Canada, quoted in the Introduction.

The book covers all bases, setting conservation’s history and ideas out clearly. It also explores recent developments such as Google Earth’s mapping of the ocean floor and RSPB’s use of post code analysis to target and recruit members in the Mersey Belt.

It describes the complex relationship between conservation and development,

ECOS 31(2) 2010 and the merging with poverty alleviation and sustainable development agendas.

The authors outline the politics of the big conservation NGOs, the reach of their influence, and the allocation of their funds. As key achievements they single out the rise of Conservation International and the prioritising of resources through ‘hotspots’.

They also go into the workings of government, international agreements and links with business. Trading in ecosystem services are discussed and the latest idea of ‘biodiversity offsets’ for mining companies.

They explain the mechanisms and complications behind REDD. Global protected areas’ planning networks are discussed, as are the differences between functionalist and compositional approaches. The book raises the prospect of bringing back extinct species, reintroductions and rewilding. Naturalistic grazing on Oostvaarderplassen for example sparked debate over why some regard it cruel to let animals starve to death in a severe winter, yet we regularly separate social animals from their Mothers. Linkages through wildlife corridors used to be the thing, but they extend this to talk of climate corridors, to allow species to migrate from changing climatic conditions.

The authors openly discuss criticism levelled at conservation, such as conservationists not taking responsibility for displacement of local people from National Parks, even though they are part of alliances that determine their fate.

Does WWF’s money go into funding plush offices and large salaries? Some argue that large NGOs cosy up to industry and provide green wash. The authors conclude it is generally better to engage

with big businesses and find solutions that work in the real messy world.

The book makes eight interesting predictions for the 21st century, combining extrapolating global trends with pure speculation. These are: climate change will continue to dominate; China will emerge as a major force; industry will lead; extinction debt will be paid; oceans will come to the fore; return to the wild; end to extinction; and conservation linked to health and well being. The world is changing socially and environmentally, and conservation and conservationists must change with it.

Digesting this comprehensive guide is a good place to start.

Jocelyn Murgatroyd

DARK MOUNTAIN. issue 1.

Summer 2010 Paul Kingsnorth and Dougald Hine (eds) The Dark Mountain Project 2010 Pbk, £16.74 (inc p&p) ISBN 978-0-9564960-0-3 When Uncivilisation: the Dark Mountain Manifesto was published by Paul Kingsnorth and Dougald Hine in 2009, its call to “forge a new cultural response to the human predicament” prompted both agreement and antagonism. For some, the Manifesto’s imperative to “face reality”, to see the impossibilities of sustainably saving the planet, represented a liberating honesty. For others, its critique of civilisation was indulging in apocalypse.

But the Manifesto also set a challenge to writers to create the new stories necessary for the future: eco-centric, placeembedded and outside a cosmopolitan sensibility. Dark Mountain, issue 1 is the starting collection of essays, conversations, 87

ECOS 31(2) 2010 fiction, poetry and images in their advance of ‘uncivilised’ writing.

The collection draws together conventional and challenging responses.

The stronger contributions are those that don’t illustrate the Manifesto, but have an affinity with it, taking divergent and original directions. Among the stronger essays, Simon Fairlie dissects the inaccuracies of Garrett Hardin’s ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ in his historical analysis of British land enclosures. Fairlie shows how Hardin’s false assumptions became accepted as ‘facts’; how this consolidated power by landowners; and how this duplicity continues to underpin the enclosures of other global commons.

Testimonies from Chernobyl and the Celtic fable Finn and the Salmon, are deftly brought together by Mario Petrucci in a consideration of knowledge as acquired through experience, science and art. For Petrucci, poetry supports the ability of the human self to empathise with suffering, bringing about a fuller capacity to stand against the prevailing culture and to defy the ‘short-circuit’ of ‘the technical, the industrial response’.

Sceptical of ‘uncivilisation’, Alastair McIntosh starts from the premise that any deconstruction of civilisation’s ‘tightly locked socio-economic system’ requires a recognition of one’s complicity in that system, and a reconstruction based on justice. He takes two dialogues in Plato’s The Republic on individual choice, justice and the state to illustrate the relation of personal values to the body politic and to social structures of power.

Dougald Hine’s unsentimental appreciation of John Berger investigates the writer’s openness to death and hope, and the 88

ambiguities in Berger’s choice to live with peasants in France. Hine finds that in that harsh peasant culture, there is the ability to find meaning in conditions of remorseless change. Chris Pak promotes science fiction as a literature that examines the embedded values of culture and civilisation. Rupert Cathles defends the wilderness in urban and industrialised areas as beautiful, fostering freedom and imagination.

Of the other essays, several fall into an unquestioned nostalgia for supposedly better forms of knowledge and communality; or rely on ‘straw man’ arguments; or make sweeping claims, like nodes around which an insider audience can feel an uncritical companionship.

In contrast, the conversations are direct and provocative. Vinay Gupta, with Dougald Hine, exposes the denial and fear of poverty operating in the sustainability narratives. Derrick Jensen, with Anthony McCann, explains his advocacy of a range of methods of resistance, including violence, to bring down global capitalism.

Maria Stadtmueller’s Hostage, a call to St. Francis from the frustration of a tourist, bridges the essay and fiction forms. This and the four fiction pieces are the strength of the collection. They are adept expressions of sensibilities grounded in reason and specific conditions that create new imaginative and emotive landscapes.

In Simon Lys’ The Wanderbuch of Christopher Jansen, a fugitive runs between the life-affirming, ancient knowledge of the forests and the terrors of the city. Lys’ imagery gives it

ECOS 31(2) 2010 more depth than other apocalyptic thrillers. Paul Kingsnorth’s the Lost Gods experiments with language itself, using Old and modern English in a firstperson account of the turmoil in the fens after the invasion of 1066. Once into the rhythm of the language, a quality of familiarity and strangeness in the protagonist’s uncertainty emerges for the reader. Nick Hunt’s pieces, Loss Soup and To the bone are accounts of experiences: of a journalist at a banquet celebrating extinctions, and the second, of a boy swept up into a community’s killing of the anfac. Both are engaging, but the second has a visceral, affecting reality, making it more than allegory.

Many of the poems have a narrative quality to them, describing journeys or traffic; or are tirades or instructions in poetic form. But some mine different conditions of being, a place or a feeling – discomfort, uncertainty, tentative hope. In both Melanie Challenger’s poems the human body and the earth are fused together – and not gently.

There are evocations of the infinity of the sea in Seamus Brady’s poem, and the infinity of darkness in Christine Bousfield’s, both finding perspective and proportion in an animal – the whale, the rook. The directness in Tom Scott’s Stain about a walk, dogs and a deer, makes it emotionally and symbolically resonant.

Of the images, three artists’ works are not like ‘environmental’ art, but come from intriguing stylistic tangents. Lance Fennell’s paintings are nostalgic representations of contemporary roads, petrol stations and cars. The photographic/digital portraits by Reinhardt Søbye are compelling, disturbing and unresolved. Christian de

Sousa’s series of urban photographs are both puzzles and statements, with humour, about the geometry of human design placed on a landscape.

Expecting coherence in this collection would be a contradiction; new cultural stories are not suddenly, or singularly, made. These first results are a combination of the past and a groping for the new; there are some palliative narratives, some exposing ones, some clearing the way for the next phase.

Wallace Heim

WHOLE EARTH DISCIPLINE Stewart Brand Atlantic Books, London, 2010, 325 pages Hbk, £19.99, ISBN 978-1-84354-815-7

DARK GREEN RELIGION: NATURE SPIRITUALITY AND THE PLANETARY FUTURE Bron Taylor University of California Press, Berkeley, 2010, 338 pages, Pbk, £16.95, ISBN 978-0-520-26100-6 Stewart Brand originally rose to prominence as a leader of the 1960s counterculture and as publisher of the Whole Earth Catalog. It began: “We are as gods and we might as well get good at it.”

Forty years later this book begins: “We are gods and HAVE to get good at it.”

It’s a task, he suggests, that demands “a necessary blend of both hubris and humility” – an expression that troublingly captures Brand’s enthusiastic can-do realism-idealism antisyzygy as he stares, unflinchingly, at the state of the world and pulls out an ‘unwelcome four’ set of conclusions: 89

ECOS 31(2) 2010 First: Cities are necessary because people want them and they cut percapita carbon footprint – so learn to love them. Second: Nuclear power?

Don’t confuse today’s technology with Chernobyl – so wise up and tech up.

Third: Biotech? Forget all that back-tothe-land ideology: it’s the only way faced with declining planetary carrying capacity - so get real. Fourth: And geoengineering?

There is no alternative, given the rate of global warming – so get experimenting and find out what works.

Brand packs a powerful punch that may well force a reset in his Arcadian reader. He certainly got me thinking. At the same time, I couldn’t help wondering if, these days, he spends too much time supping with the corporations and not enough digging it with the poor. His tenor is that of concerned privilege and with it, a focus on the outer, physical aspect of problems. At no point does he enquire why we all need so much ‘stuff’ so much energy, and so much hubris muddying the humility.

This is where Dark Green Religion kicks in, for Bron Taylor is a leading world expert in eco-spiritual movements. We don’t just need technofix to face the future; we also need an inner fix. Taylor argues that parallel to globalization a new spiritual phenomenon is taking hold. ‘New’ here is from a mainly ‘New World’ perspective as distinct from existing eastern or indigenous worldviews. ‘Dark Green’ means viewing nature reverentially, with intrinsic value, and humanity as integral to it.

Taylor charts its rise in some unexpected quarters – Disney’s Lion King and Pocahontas movies, on the 90

15-language ‘Think Gaia’ webpage of the Sanyo corporation (interestingly, now ‘discontinued’), and the surfboard as “a legitimate spiritual path” by which “many surfers refer to surfing as going to church.”

His bottom line? “Like an anthropologist from an entirely different planet I have somehow stumbled across a new global earth tribe, one largely unnoticed by scholarly observers…. They may be a minority. They sometimes feel isolated and alone. But as best they can, in their own ways, and against long odds, they stand up for life.”

In this book Bron Taylor frees ‘dark green religion’ from the ‘neopagan’ closet into which it is so often stuffed.

He eases it towards new openings – not just in scholarship, but probably, also, into a deepening of life itself.

Alastair McIntosh

ECOS 31(2) 2010

Billy goats on the rocks at East Weares, Isle of Portland. This is perhaps the habitat in which goats feel they are most secure. (see pages 56-57).

Photo: Lyn Cooch

91

ECOS 31(2) 2010

BANC Annual meeting 16 October, London Wetland Centre BANC Council invites all members to the BANC Annual Meeting on Saturday, 16 October 2010 at the Meeting Room, London Wetland Centre, Queen Elizabeth Walk, Barnes, London SW13 9WT www.wwt.org.uk/london. Entry to the Wetland Centre will be free to any BANC member attending the Annual Meeting.

Timetable:

11.45 – 12.45 Annual Meeting Introduction & Apologies (tea and coffee will be provided) 1. Approval of minutes of previous AGM 2. Receive and approve Trustees Report for y/e 31/12/09 3. Receive and approve accounts to 31/12/09 4. Elect members of Council 5. Confirm President and Vice-Presidents 6. Appointment of independent examiners for accounts 7. ECOS 8. Questions by members (please submit in advance) 12.45 – 13.30 Lunch (there is a café at the centre or packed lunch can be eaten in the meeting room)

13.30 – 14.30 14.30 – 15.45

Brainstorming and planning for 2011 John Arbon, Grounds & Facility Manager, London Wetland Centre, will lead a ‘talk and walk’ around the Centre, content to be determined by weather and time.

We will begin promptly at 11.45. Subsequent timings may be subject to change.

For travel and location information, to raise a point at the meeting and register your interest in attending, please email agm@banc.org.uk

Time, experience, or skills – can you help?

If you have some spare time to offer BANC and are enthusiastic about promoting our organisation, please consider standing for Council. For more information please email agm@banc.org.uk

In the next ECOS… The December issue will include coverage of: The Nature of nature: Highlights from the VINE survey on the aspirations and experience of nature conservation organisations and their staff.

Conservation in the age of austerity – comment and predictions on how the conservation sector will cope with cost savings?

Designations fit for purpose? Commentary on the Lawton Review of site protection and site networks.

92

BACK COPIES OF ECOS The following back copies are available for purchase. Costs range from £8.30 (inc p&p) for issues from the current and previous year’s volume, to £5.30 for older issues.

Up to date prices and order forms for back copies are available at www.banc.org.uk.

� 31 (1)

www.banc.org.uk BANC inspires innovation in conservation.

Natural aliens; climate resilience; tips for the recession

� 30 (3/4) Ecological skills; Getting started in conservation � 30 (2)

Nature at our service?

� 30 (1)

30 years back – and forward

President:

John Bowers

Vice-Presidents:

Marion Shoard Adrian Phillips

Chair:

Adrian Koster

� 29 (3/4) New nature – old creatures

Secretary:

Ruth Boogert

� 29 (2)

Nature’s tonic

Treasurer:

Derek Bensley

� 29 (1)

Walking the talk in conservation

� 28 (3/4) Climate Change adaptation – helping nature cope

Other Members of Council: Emily Adams

� 28(2)

Nature’s Id

Mathew Frith

� 28(1)

Loving Nature?

Rose Goodwin

� 27(3/4) Accepting the wild? � 27(2) � 27(1) � 26(3/4) � 26(2) � 26(1) � 25(3/4) � 25(2) � � � � � �

25(1) 24(3/4) 24(2) 24(1) 23(3/4) 23(2)

Shores and seas – the push for protection Species reintroductions Aliens in control Carbon, conservation and renewables The extinction of outdoor experience Wilder landscapes, wilder lives?

Superquarry finale & last chance for the countryside Wild boar and wild land Extinction of Experience Urban greening Nature conservation – Who cares?

Citizen Science Reintroductions and aliens

ECOS & BANC - keep in touch on the web BANC’s web site offers a chance to…

• Follow up the debate in ECOS between issues

Andrew Harby Gavin Saunders Nicola Walker

Subscriptions/BANC membership Subscriptions for ECOS are £25.00 for individuals and £80 for corporate/institutional rate.

Subscriptions should be sent to: Hallam Environmental Consultants Ltd Venture House, 105 Arundel Street Sheffield, 1 2NT Tel: 0114 272 4227 info@hallamec.plus.com Subscription form available at www.banc.org.uk

• Link to current news in conservation as it breaks

Subs taken out on or after 1 October

• Learn about new initiatives and campaigns

remain valid until 31 December in the

www.banc.org.uk

following year.

Editorial 1.

The great switch off? Geoffrey Wain

Feature articles

Summer 2010 issue 31(2) www.banc.org.uk

2.

Conservation investment in England – keeping focused amidst the cuts. Tim O’Riordan

4.

The Environment fails to register in Wales Mick Green

6.

Managing wildlife and invasive non-native species – the public view Steve Griggs

14. Garden daffodils in the countryside – good for the environment? Andy Tasker 19. Garden daffodils – A response. Gavin Sanders 21. In a nutshell – a defence of the grey squirrel. Angus MacMillan 27. Turning the grey tide – progress in red squirrel recovery.

Craig Shuttleworth 36. Hindsight in the management of wild boar. Martin Goulding 42. Britain’s hidden leopards – nature’s secret or ours? Mark Fletcher 49. Send a Goat – are we overlooking the value of feral goats.

Jude Smith 60. Dogs and wildlife – a people management issue.

Stephen Jenkinson, Jo Hale, Paddy Harrop 68. Dogs and nature reserves – can they co-exist? Andrew Harby 72. A rose by any other name? From Menie Links to the ‘Great Dunes of Scotland’ Duncan Light & Paul Rooney

Book Reviews • Wild Wonders of Europe • Reintroduction of Top-Order Predators • Connectivity Conservation Management • Exploring Environmental History • Seasick • Ethno-ornithology • Conservation – a beginner’s guide • Dark Mountain Issue 1 • Whole Earth Discipline • Dark Green Religion

©2010 British Association of Nature Conservationists ISSN 0143-9073 Graphic Design and Artwork by Featherstone Design Cheltenham.

Printed by Severnprint Ltd, Gloucester