Well the pre and post Christmas and early New Year sojourn at Kirkhill was now at an end and the time had arrived to travel southwards and home. The journey up had been mixed with snow across the Drumochter Pass and northwards, but with milder periods then developing interspersed with some pretty windy interludes!! The forecast now appeared to be changing.
The very edge of Kirkhill village borders on farmland which itself then resides adjacent to the Beauly Firth. Various woodlands are in evidence so its a nice mixed bag of habitats. The weather had been relatively good, contrasted against what this area can actually receive in winter, but this certainly didn't deter birds from visiting garden feeders. In fact, a wider variety of species was actually seen in a garden setting than without!!
Regular walks out with the dogs encountered both Grey lag and Pink-footed Geese and Whooper Swans could be heard trumpeting from down near the Firth. As ever titmice were in evidence ( Great, Blue, Coal, Long-tailed ) as were finches and buntings ( Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Chaffinch, Brambling, Bullfinch, Siskin, Yellowhammer ) with numbers of House and Tree Sparrows as well. A Great spotted Woodpecker dominated the feeders at times and the expected ground feeders were present ( Blackbird, Robin, Dunnock, Wren ). However no Starlings were seen in over two weeks ! Tawny Owl was encountered on a couple of occasions too. Together with corvids, gulls, Common Buzzard and the odd Woodpigeon and Pheasant quite a variety was recorded between periods of more earnest birding. Doubtless things will alter as the intensity of the winter takes a more firm grip on things overall but, overall , I was pleased with what had occurred to form the "bedrock" of a Year List for 2017
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Quest at Clachnaharry Bay, Inverness. 6.1. 2017
Encouraged by reports that the American Wigeon present around Clachnaharry Lock ( note the spelling ) was somewhat tame and easily viewed I called in to the area after being in town. Late morning is not the most ideal time for some areas particularly when coupled, as on this occasion , with the tide being low in the Beauly Firth ! And so it proved ! The Clachnaharry circuit is much favoured as a local walk, indeed, it more resembled an exercise area at Crufts as constant numbers of our canine friends were given their morning constitutional around its boundary.
Clachnaharry Lock is at the end of the Caledonian Canal and essentially effects entry into the Beauly Firth. The bird had been recorded within the lock on a regular basis and even grazed on its well maintained embankments on occasion. But not on this particular morning ! A fine male Goldeneye, and small parties of Mallard and Tufted Duck were within the basin, but that was it.
I walked the whole circuit and eventually found the bird sitting out on the open water of the Firth, which, relatively speaking, was quite a distance away given low tide. My hopes of a picture or super close views were dashed, but that's birding!! This is a very convenient site which juts out into the Firth, but has "enclosed" corners on each flank with exposed mud that attracts waders and gulls. Well worth a visit and, who knows, you might even see an American Wigeon !!
Clachnaharry Lock is at the end of the Caledonian Canal and essentially effects entry into the Beauly Firth. The bird had been recorded within the lock on a regular basis and even grazed on its well maintained embankments on occasion. But not on this particular morning ! A fine male Goldeneye, and small parties of Mallard and Tufted Duck were within the basin, but that was it.
I walked the whole circuit and eventually found the bird sitting out on the open water of the Firth, which, relatively speaking, was quite a distance away given low tide. My hopes of a picture or super close views were dashed, but that's birding!! This is a very convenient site which juts out into the Firth, but has "enclosed" corners on each flank with exposed mud that attracts waders and gulls. Well worth a visit and, who knows, you might even see an American Wigeon !!
Two days on the Black Isle.( 3rd and 5th January ).
Finally a couple of days emerged when I could get out for complete days. Both were quite contrasted as far as weather conditions were concerned with the first being fine , but with a strong SW wind and the second day being almost calm. Sadly the incoming tide was late in the afternoon on the 3rd and into the evening on the 5th.
Munlochy Bay held few birds on either date due to the tide being fully out. A few Oystercatcher, Curlew, Wigeon, and Shelduck were in evidence and Red Kite swooped and floated above a distant hillside. Chanonry Point provided a brief view of a fine Bottle-nosed Dolphin quite close in and an immature Gannet, but little else. Across the "spine" of the Black Isle towards the Cromarty Firth, still operating as a dismantling site, graveyard even, for several drilling rigs previously in the North Sea.
It was at this point the wind started to rise and viewing conditions over the Firth deteriorated. There were certainly birds around but difficult to see. As an example , I located the Greater Scaup flock, counted it five times and got five widely different figures! Cutting my losses I went straight on to the RSPB reserve at Udale Bay and spent the remainder of the afternoon there.
There was a lot of birds around. Shelduck, Mallard, Teal, Wigeon, Curlew, Redshank, a Black-tailed Godwit, Little Grebe and distant Pink-footed Geese. I'd a memory of a Green-winged Teal being present previously so I optimistically spent some time going through the dispersed feeding Teal, without any luck, but in the process found the American Wigeon within the increasing numbers of Wigeon grazing at the head of the loch. Brief, but reasonable, views were obtained before it did a disappearing act amongst the large number of its relatives!
The second date was an altogether different situation. Other than Munlochy Bay I didn't bother covering any sites on the east of the Black Isle , but went straight to the "mouth" of the Cromarty Firth and worked my way westwards towards the head of the loch. Good views of Slavonian Grebe, Long-tailed Duck, Eider, Goldeneye, Red-breasted Merganser and, finally, the Greater Scaup flock, which numbered between 350/400 birds. I had my breakfast/lunch further westwards looking out over the , still, largely empty loch.
As the tide moved in very slowly good views were had of common waders , including again a single Black-tailed Godwit, small numbers of which are now a common feature of the area. The locality , now a designated NNR, is not without its history as information boards outline ( click on the image and read the details. )
Moving on to Udale Bay again the tide was fully out, and even eventually , advanced very slowly. An obliging Peregrine sat on on what I understand is a regularly used perching post and provided a welcome diversion. The afternoon moved on with birds appearing very gradually with the still distant tide. A predicted low tide, calm conditions and a High Tide time of early evening meant opportunities were inevitably restricted so, with dusk approaching, I eventually called it a day after what , after all, had been two good days of birding.
Munlochy Bay held few birds on either date due to the tide being fully out. A few Oystercatcher, Curlew, Wigeon, and Shelduck were in evidence and Red Kite swooped and floated above a distant hillside. Chanonry Point provided a brief view of a fine Bottle-nosed Dolphin quite close in and an immature Gannet, but little else. Across the "spine" of the Black Isle towards the Cromarty Firth, still operating as a dismantling site, graveyard even, for several drilling rigs previously in the North Sea.
It was at this point the wind started to rise and viewing conditions over the Firth deteriorated. There were certainly birds around but difficult to see. As an example , I located the Greater Scaup flock, counted it five times and got five widely different figures! Cutting my losses I went straight on to the RSPB reserve at Udale Bay and spent the remainder of the afternoon there.
There was a lot of birds around. Shelduck, Mallard, Teal, Wigeon, Curlew, Redshank, a Black-tailed Godwit, Little Grebe and distant Pink-footed Geese. I'd a memory of a Green-winged Teal being present previously so I optimistically spent some time going through the dispersed feeding Teal, without any luck, but in the process found the American Wigeon within the increasing numbers of Wigeon grazing at the head of the loch. Brief, but reasonable, views were obtained before it did a disappearing act amongst the large number of its relatives!
The second date was an altogether different situation. Other than Munlochy Bay I didn't bother covering any sites on the east of the Black Isle , but went straight to the "mouth" of the Cromarty Firth and worked my way westwards towards the head of the loch. Good views of Slavonian Grebe, Long-tailed Duck, Eider, Goldeneye, Red-breasted Merganser and, finally, the Greater Scaup flock, which numbered between 350/400 birds. I had my breakfast/lunch further westwards looking out over the , still, largely empty loch.
As the tide moved in very slowly good views were had of common waders , including again a single Black-tailed Godwit, small numbers of which are now a common feature of the area. The locality , now a designated NNR, is not without its history as information boards outline ( click on the image and read the details. )
Moving on to Udale Bay again the tide was fully out, and even eventually , advanced very slowly. An obliging Peregrine sat on on what I understand is a regularly used perching post and provided a welcome diversion. The afternoon moved on with birds appearing very gradually with the still distant tide. A predicted low tide, calm conditions and a High Tide time of early evening meant opportunities were inevitably restricted so, with dusk approaching, I eventually called it a day after what , after all, had been two good days of birding.
Monday, January 2, 2017
High hopes for 2017 !
Here's to the future now
It's only just begun.
So, in the words of the song, the time of year has arrived again when , for birders, unfettered anticipation and a possible resolve to see more than in the immediate year previous arises. 2016 was, for me, a year of extremes, but not in a birding sense. I moved south from Islay back to my native Yorkshire, not an easy change but one which holds increasing possibilities. Now a year of "can do better " ( much better in fact ) is certainly on the books.
Unfortunately, since last Spring, a number of things emerged which frustrated attempts at any "immediate birding" or systematic coverage locally. Thankfully all these are now sorted out and the future is bright with opportunity for wall to wall birding. It's the first time for decades that I've had few or no circumstances to tie me down. Trips have been planned, including much more time being spent on the East Coast and I'm really looking forward to it all !! I might even try a 2017 Year List !!
As a taster of what possibilities are present , news came on New Year's Eve that a new Yorkshire record had been set by Garry Taylor in 2016 when he saw 285 species within the year in the County. Mega place !! Whilst I shan't be chasing that figure I'm hoping 2017 holds promise to deliver a reasonable proportion of what clearly can be seen within the County. It is a big place after all !!
I'm in Scotland at present and whilst I can't start much in earnest until the 3rd, local opportunities are certainly not barren or unexciting. With Pink-footed Geese occasionally feeding in the field next to the house, Whooper Swans calling from the Beauly Firth in the distance and a wide variety of passerines visiting the garden feeders from the surrounding farmland and woodlands I'm certainly not frustrated or disappointed. Positively encouraged you might say !
Whilst I've taken my foot off the pedal in recent times as far as Blogging is concerned, I can promise I'll now be returning to the fold and relating all that happens in the upcoming year. Ready to be bored ? I'll even weave in a few aspects linked to conservation for respite......can unfettered anticipation be taken any further I ask?
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Driven grouse shooting debate, Westminster Hall, 31.10.2016
As many people will know a debate was held at Westminster Hall on Monday in response to the E-petition to ban driven grouse shooting and the fact that it had received more than 100, 000 signatures, in fact 123,000 + signatures.
As I promised in the initial response I put out afterwards the following links provide the means by which you can access the proceedings yourself and, likely as not, conclude for yourselves what a tawdry process it turned out to be in the end. The somewhat dismissive and even personalised tone of the event at times brings the whole process into disrepute in my opinion. This is a process whereby we, the Electorate, are encouraged to indicate our concerns about a particular issue and bring it, more generally, to the attention of MP's. It is not a process that provides the latter with an opportunity for recriminations to be voiced or personalised asides to be issued. Given it supposedly deals with genuine concerns of the public then the political antics of the bearpit that constitutes the main Chamber should be set aside to allow a more respectful form of politics to be engaged in. This is an opportunity for the real Parliamentary process to be put on display and assist in informing "us lot" how measured discussion can lead to changes or the retention of the status quo . It failed miserably !
What it indicates is that efforts to improve the status of the Hen Harrier that, as a breeding species, has been systematically depleted by actions of some of those operating shoots, must now be intensified alongside the undoubted efforts to ban grouse shooting that will continue to take place. The RSPB must now step up to the plate and actively campaign for change beyond the considered commentary and less than zealous position it appears to occupy currently. It was evident from comments made within the above proceedings that the offence of Vicarious Liability would be resisted robustly. This must be seen as the first of several aspects upon which immediate targetted action ( not deliberation ! ) should be taken. But more of this later !!
Ban driven grouse shooting debate.....filmed proceedings
Transcript of debate on proposed ban on driven grouse shooting.
The necessary document will be reached through the Westminster Hall link given.
As I promised in the initial response I put out afterwards the following links provide the means by which you can access the proceedings yourself and, likely as not, conclude for yourselves what a tawdry process it turned out to be in the end. The somewhat dismissive and even personalised tone of the event at times brings the whole process into disrepute in my opinion. This is a process whereby we, the Electorate, are encouraged to indicate our concerns about a particular issue and bring it, more generally, to the attention of MP's. It is not a process that provides the latter with an opportunity for recriminations to be voiced or personalised asides to be issued. Given it supposedly deals with genuine concerns of the public then the political antics of the bearpit that constitutes the main Chamber should be set aside to allow a more respectful form of politics to be engaged in. This is an opportunity for the real Parliamentary process to be put on display and assist in informing "us lot" how measured discussion can lead to changes or the retention of the status quo . It failed miserably !
What it indicates is that efforts to improve the status of the Hen Harrier that, as a breeding species, has been systematically depleted by actions of some of those operating shoots, must now be intensified alongside the undoubted efforts to ban grouse shooting that will continue to take place. The RSPB must now step up to the plate and actively campaign for change beyond the considered commentary and less than zealous position it appears to occupy currently. It was evident from comments made within the above proceedings that the offence of Vicarious Liability would be resisted robustly. This must be seen as the first of several aspects upon which immediate targetted action ( not deliberation ! ) should be taken. But more of this later !!
Ban driven grouse shooting debate.....filmed proceedings
Transcript of debate on proposed ban on driven grouse shooting.
The necessary document will be reached through the Westminster Hall link given.
Spurn Visitor Centre proposal.......short clarification.
Given that a good number of people have already read the entry yesterday on this subject I'm putting this out as a quite separate entry in the hope it will catch the eye of a proportion of those people. Adding a footnote to yesterday's entry would have lost that opportunity !
I rang the East Riding of Yorkshire Planning Department the other day in order to clarify a couple of points. It is important that people appreciate that the current, resubmitted application is being dealt with as a completely separate entity, not as a continuation of the application previously. This means that objections are not "carried over" as the application is deemed to be new and separate and people should register their objection to the proposal as if it was a completely new set of details appearing out of the blue !! So, everyone who set out their personal thoughts about the proposal need to do so again ( sorry folks ! ). These will obviously be taken into account when the matter is being summarized for presentation to the planning Committee.
Remember, the reference of the resubmitted details is quite unique too.
16/03173/STPLF
I'm sure most people will have already realised the above , but after someone said "well they've already got the details of what people accept or object to " a small bell began to ring !!! Well, yes they have but such will not be used directly.
I rang the East Riding of Yorkshire Planning Department the other day in order to clarify a couple of points. It is important that people appreciate that the current, resubmitted application is being dealt with as a completely separate entity, not as a continuation of the application previously. This means that objections are not "carried over" as the application is deemed to be new and separate and people should register their objection to the proposal as if it was a completely new set of details appearing out of the blue !! So, everyone who set out their personal thoughts about the proposal need to do so again ( sorry folks ! ). These will obviously be taken into account when the matter is being summarized for presentation to the planning Committee.
Remember, the reference of the resubmitted details is quite unique too.
16/03173/STPLF
I'm sure most people will have already realised the above , but after someone said "well they've already got the details of what people accept or object to " a small bell began to ring !!! Well, yes they have but such will not be used directly.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Spurn Visitor Centre proposal......final stages.
Since the initial planning application ( 15/03947/PLF ) was rejected previously by the Planning Committee of East Riding of Yorkshire Council, the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust Ltd has decided to resubmit its proposal ( current reference 16/03173/STPLF ) and, as such , that application is now working its way through the various formal aspects of the planning system. Formal details were issued to objectors to the initial application on the 21st October and there is now until the 10th November for people to object or comment otherwise on the details.
Despite such being described as a "revised application" I am at a loss to identify any material differences if the current details are set against the original submission. Revamped presentation is not an indication of there having been any major alterations made to the detail upon which the Committee made its previous decision leading to the grounds of refusal, namely flood risk and visual intrusion.
It's also important to remember that a Council can refuse to consider and reject a resubmitted application out of hand if it is felt that the applicant is simply making a nuisance of itself and attempting to put the authority under pressure by re-applying. Clearly it would seem that that particular hurdle has been avoided despite the difficulty in identifying where the renewed application addresses the main grounds of rejection before.
Now much has been written on this issue. I have put out several Blogs, the content of which I have no intention of replicating here as the various aspects of concern are well known. If anyone wishes to look at the application in detail then this can be examined at
http://www.eastriding.gov.uk./myarea/disclaimer.asp simply by entering the above reference. It is also possible to submit your own comments via the Feedback button on the same site.
Please note.......the mast shown on the above photograph is no longer part of the application.
Now I have made no secret of the fact that I oppose this suggestion for a Visitor Centre. Whilst many grounds for opposition have been raised I simply feel the proposal to be utterly misguided, have no confidence in the visitor attendance projections and, essentially, feel it to be a "White Elephant " that has no sustainable future. I fully understand the need for income to be generated from the site in order to offset management costs and avoid the "subsidies" that would otherwise be necessary based on the Trust's activities elsewhere in the County. However, following the completion of the first couple of years, when sheer curiosity might just make the books balance, subsequent years will inevitably see this situation stall and the edifice become redundant whatever new ideas might be being tried on what otherwise threatens to be a "Penninsula Playground". More modest initiatives, coupled with redirected support from its funding partner, Eon, could achieve the necessary financial situation linked to management obligations and avoid habitat loss, what amounts to an all out war with the community, disturbance to key areas and the inevitable deterioration in quality of areas into which visitors are concentrated on a repeated basis.
What might seem strange is that I can also sympathize with the Trust over the now imposed responsibilities they have relating to people management and the relatively recent breach in the peninsula, which might indeed get worse as easily in the near future as way beyond. Maintenance, habitat management given the area is a National Nature Reserve, health and safety requirements are all factors which come into the mix. However I sincerely reject the need for these to be addressed via a large visitor centre ( Faulty Towers !! ). Such is little more than a speculative venture to address a financial management problem that should have sought out a different solution ! But there, we are now poised at what must surely be the final act of this continuing saga. I would sincerely hope that this is simply not a product of stubborn arrogance, a wholly unnecessary head to head that results in the wrong circumstances emerging. I would also hope that the Planning Committee has itself done the necessary homework that allows it to clinically appraise the revised details and arrive at a fair outcome. Such will not please everyone, but the current situation is one which now requires resolution and proper closure.
UPDATE. 1730 hours 1.11.2016
I understand that the YWT LTD are likely to be addressing the visitor attendance subject when they hold a TV session at Kilnsea on the 2nd Nov and reveal what they believe will be the benefits arising to tourism.
Despite such being described as a "revised application" I am at a loss to identify any material differences if the current details are set against the original submission. Revamped presentation is not an indication of there having been any major alterations made to the detail upon which the Committee made its previous decision leading to the grounds of refusal, namely flood risk and visual intrusion.
It's also important to remember that a Council can refuse to consider and reject a resubmitted application out of hand if it is felt that the applicant is simply making a nuisance of itself and attempting to put the authority under pressure by re-applying. Clearly it would seem that that particular hurdle has been avoided despite the difficulty in identifying where the renewed application addresses the main grounds of rejection before.
Now much has been written on this issue. I have put out several Blogs, the content of which I have no intention of replicating here as the various aspects of concern are well known. If anyone wishes to look at the application in detail then this can be examined at
http://www.eastriding.gov.uk./myarea/disclaimer.asp simply by entering the above reference. It is also possible to submit your own comments via the Feedback button on the same site.
Now I have made no secret of the fact that I oppose this suggestion for a Visitor Centre. Whilst many grounds for opposition have been raised I simply feel the proposal to be utterly misguided, have no confidence in the visitor attendance projections and, essentially, feel it to be a "White Elephant " that has no sustainable future. I fully understand the need for income to be generated from the site in order to offset management costs and avoid the "subsidies" that would otherwise be necessary based on the Trust's activities elsewhere in the County. However, following the completion of the first couple of years, when sheer curiosity might just make the books balance, subsequent years will inevitably see this situation stall and the edifice become redundant whatever new ideas might be being tried on what otherwise threatens to be a "Penninsula Playground". More modest initiatives, coupled with redirected support from its funding partner, Eon, could achieve the necessary financial situation linked to management obligations and avoid habitat loss, what amounts to an all out war with the community, disturbance to key areas and the inevitable deterioration in quality of areas into which visitors are concentrated on a repeated basis.
What might seem strange is that I can also sympathize with the Trust over the now imposed responsibilities they have relating to people management and the relatively recent breach in the peninsula, which might indeed get worse as easily in the near future as way beyond. Maintenance, habitat management given the area is a National Nature Reserve, health and safety requirements are all factors which come into the mix. However I sincerely reject the need for these to be addressed via a large visitor centre ( Faulty Towers !! ). Such is little more than a speculative venture to address a financial management problem that should have sought out a different solution ! But there, we are now poised at what must surely be the final act of this continuing saga. I would sincerely hope that this is simply not a product of stubborn arrogance, a wholly unnecessary head to head that results in the wrong circumstances emerging. I would also hope that the Planning Committee has itself done the necessary homework that allows it to clinically appraise the revised details and arrive at a fair outcome. Such will not please everyone, but the current situation is one which now requires resolution and proper closure.
UPDATE. 1730 hours 1.11.2016
I understand that the YWT LTD are likely to be addressing the visitor attendance subject when they hold a TV session at Kilnsea on the 2nd Nov and reveal what they believe will be the benefits arising to tourism.
Democracy and Hen Harriers........really !!
This is the first of what I imagine might be a number of related Blogs I shall issue linked to the actual televised proceedings of the hearing and debate associated with the E-petition to ban driven grouse shooting and the lessons to be learned. Eventually, I'm told, anyone who signed the petition will be sent a video of the proceedings. At that point I shall be able to see the very latter part of the debate, which unfortunately I missed, and give a more rounded reaction to the whole episode. If feasible I shall ensure the video is part of that final contribution !
Well, I suppose it was everything that we might have expected. Even the MP introducing the proceedings, himself a member of the Petitions Committee, took an intervention that all but accused him of bias in his introductory remarks. However, in the hope that during the final stages things did alter from what appeared and threatened to be a repetitious round of " but we're the good guys" contributions, I'll restrict myself to some immediate reactions and observations.
I do genuinely wonder what planet some of the shooting fraternity inhabit as they appear to have a completely distorted view of what is happening in the uplands. Let's take investment ! It's generally accepted that many upland moors are in a poor state and yet we're encouraged to believe that millions, yes millions, of private investment is being poured into their upkeep, by their owners. I don't actually believe such for a minute , but does it not occur to these defenders of the upland owners that these management practices , whatever the cost, must be questionable as a less than perfect result is in evidence. And , in the face of such a need for management, who was responsible previously for what are largely a privately held landholding?
Within the proceedings I was reminded of conversations I'd had with upland owners and staff in years past when it was always apparent that they simply couldn't persuade themselves to refer to "Hen Harriers". Short of successfully avoiding the subject altogether, mention might be made of "pressures or difficulties" or "the species" , but never was there a willingness to actually discuss the main subject that we differed on, namely raptor persecution. Despite references yesterday to the decimated Hen Harrier population raised by the Opposition there was little or no discernible evidence of this being a problem. Yes, the odd reference to biodiversity, but generally in the context of how good the uplands are for breeding waders , all brought about, of course, due to the wonderful management of the moors and the reduction of mammalian predators and Corvids by the gamekeepers. Despite the polite, but resolute, condemnation of the petition by Nicholas Soames and Richard Benyon ,who both painted a similar picture of this rural idyll such that a collective rendition of "Jerusalem" from their benches wouldn't have gone amiss, there was a tendency thereafter for rural employment issues and flood management to take centre stage. Interlaced within the whole was the obvious belief that grouse shooting was a jolly good thing and a refutation that there could conceivably be anything happening that contributed , in any way possible , to anything wrong. The regulations were right, the management was right, the rural economy was strong and dependent and it was absolutely inconceivable that anyone would wish to change things.
I'm afraid it was at that point that I had to withdraw, but not before the somewhat personalised tirade from Charles Walker against Mark Avery and Chris Packham and also some colourful descriptive quantification of rainfall volumes based on bull elephants. It crossed my mind, at that point, that I wonder what some of the residents of the Calder valley who had lost so much were thinking. As with the somewhat weighted remarks from the MP introducing the proceedings I also mused on the message overall this was giving to people who had signed this and other petitions in the past, not necessarily to do with conservation matters, but on human issues too. Should we take the process seriously or is it simply designed to "draw teeth" and allow people to raise heartfelt concerns? I hope not as anything which then encourages cynicism results in action at some point and, remember, all signatories are voters too !! However, suffice to say at best, I wasn't completely impressed or convinced by the process, at least based on its first part, but perhaps I'm in for a pleasurable shock within the final part of the debate ! Sadly, I somehow doubt it .
ADDENDUM. I'm informed that , at later stages, there was some mention of Hen Harriers so I'm rather looking forward to hearing what was said. Watch this space.
Well, I suppose it was everything that we might have expected. Even the MP introducing the proceedings, himself a member of the Petitions Committee, took an intervention that all but accused him of bias in his introductory remarks. However, in the hope that during the final stages things did alter from what appeared and threatened to be a repetitious round of " but we're the good guys" contributions, I'll restrict myself to some immediate reactions and observations.
I do genuinely wonder what planet some of the shooting fraternity inhabit as they appear to have a completely distorted view of what is happening in the uplands. Let's take investment ! It's generally accepted that many upland moors are in a poor state and yet we're encouraged to believe that millions, yes millions, of private investment is being poured into their upkeep, by their owners. I don't actually believe such for a minute , but does it not occur to these defenders of the upland owners that these management practices , whatever the cost, must be questionable as a less than perfect result is in evidence. And , in the face of such a need for management, who was responsible previously for what are largely a privately held landholding?
Within the proceedings I was reminded of conversations I'd had with upland owners and staff in years past when it was always apparent that they simply couldn't persuade themselves to refer to "Hen Harriers". Short of successfully avoiding the subject altogether, mention might be made of "pressures or difficulties" or "the species" , but never was there a willingness to actually discuss the main subject that we differed on, namely raptor persecution. Despite references yesterday to the decimated Hen Harrier population raised by the Opposition there was little or no discernible evidence of this being a problem. Yes, the odd reference to biodiversity, but generally in the context of how good the uplands are for breeding waders , all brought about, of course, due to the wonderful management of the moors and the reduction of mammalian predators and Corvids by the gamekeepers. Despite the polite, but resolute, condemnation of the petition by Nicholas Soames and Richard Benyon ,who both painted a similar picture of this rural idyll such that a collective rendition of "Jerusalem" from their benches wouldn't have gone amiss, there was a tendency thereafter for rural employment issues and flood management to take centre stage. Interlaced within the whole was the obvious belief that grouse shooting was a jolly good thing and a refutation that there could conceivably be anything happening that contributed , in any way possible , to anything wrong. The regulations were right, the management was right, the rural economy was strong and dependent and it was absolutely inconceivable that anyone would wish to change things.
I'm afraid it was at that point that I had to withdraw, but not before the somewhat personalised tirade from Charles Walker against Mark Avery and Chris Packham and also some colourful descriptive quantification of rainfall volumes based on bull elephants. It crossed my mind, at that point, that I wonder what some of the residents of the Calder valley who had lost so much were thinking. As with the somewhat weighted remarks from the MP introducing the proceedings I also mused on the message overall this was giving to people who had signed this and other petitions in the past, not necessarily to do with conservation matters, but on human issues too. Should we take the process seriously or is it simply designed to "draw teeth" and allow people to raise heartfelt concerns? I hope not as anything which then encourages cynicism results in action at some point and, remember, all signatories are voters too !! However, suffice to say at best, I wasn't completely impressed or convinced by the process, at least based on its first part, but perhaps I'm in for a pleasurable shock within the final part of the debate ! Sadly, I somehow doubt it .
ADDENDUM. I'm informed that , at later stages, there was some mention of Hen Harriers so I'm rather looking forward to hearing what was said. Watch this space.
Friday, October 21, 2016
Call for action connected with the forthcoming debate on grouse shooting in Parliament.
This is a letter I have sent to my own constituency MP, Angela Smith, relating to the current actions in Parliament linked to the E-petition calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting. Angela Smith has played a prominent role in raising issues associated with raptor persecution, including , in the past, confronting then Minister at DeFRA, Richard Benyon, on the need for the offence of vicarious liability to be recognized in England.
The debate on this issue will take place in Westminster Hall on the 31st October at 1630 hours ( see the Government website for details www.parliament.uk/petitions-committee ). MP's will debate the issue against which evidence was offered on Tuesday last and for which transcripts and other documentation can be read on the above web site. It is important that as many MP's speak as possible and that a wide recognition is gained of the extent and continuation of raptor persecution in England and the means by which this can be combatted, if necessary through imposed regulation. May I encourage everyone to write to their MP, express their personal views on the matter and ask that their MP participates in the debate. Mark Avery, the originator of the current petition, is monitoring the responses received from MP's and would welcome confirmation of people having contacted their MP's and, of course, to have sight of any response received. Full contact details can be found on his Blog www.markavery.info/blog/
Thank you.
Dear Angela Smith, may I take this opportunity to thank you for your continuing efforts relating to eliminating the persecution of raptors in our uplands and for similar support towards the many other conservation topics which are affecting that environment.
The debate on this issue will take place in Westminster Hall on the 31st October at 1630 hours ( see the Government website for details www.parliament.uk/petitions-committee ). MP's will debate the issue against which evidence was offered on Tuesday last and for which transcripts and other documentation can be read on the above web site. It is important that as many MP's speak as possible and that a wide recognition is gained of the extent and continuation of raptor persecution in England and the means by which this can be combatted, if necessary through imposed regulation. May I encourage everyone to write to their MP, express their personal views on the matter and ask that their MP participates in the debate. Mark Avery, the originator of the current petition, is monitoring the responses received from MP's and would welcome confirmation of people having contacted their MP's and, of course, to have sight of any response received. Full contact details can be found on his Blog www.markavery.info/blog/
Thank you.
Dear Angela Smith, may I take this opportunity to thank you for your continuing efforts relating to eliminating the persecution of raptors in our uplands and for similar support towards the many other conservation topics which are affecting that environment.
We met briefly at the conference event held in
Sheffield recently when I mentioned my return to the area after living on the
Isle of Islay for several years following early retirement. Previous to that ,
and for around twenty years, I managed the RSPB's NW Region, whose offices are
located in Denby Dale, so my interest and concern in the subject is simply a
continuation of what occupied much of the time within those years. Whilst I
doubt the following is needed (!), the debate on the 31st October is clearly an
important occasion for the continuing exposure of what is a routine,
deliberately focussed campaign of persecution of raptors in the uplands. I am
sure you intend making a telling contribution to the debate and wish you every
success. In the year (1981 ) I assumed responsibility for the Forest of
Bowland in my RSPB Region there was 41 nesting attempts by Hen Harriers in that
area, now there are none present and only three pairs present in the whole of
England. Clearly this focussed, deliberate elimination of raptors must stop and
efforts made towards the protection and enhancement of the populations of these
birds which comprise such a prominent aspect of our natural heritage.. Why
should an elitist, privileged minority "play God " for their own vicarious
enjoyment or commercial gain and deny the majority the simple, but pure,
pleasure of drawing satisfaction from observing such wildlife ?
Some little time ago I registered an E-petition
calling for the licencing of grouse moors, which attracted in excess of 10,000
signatures and gained a rather unhelpful Government response.Whilst I know Mark
( Avery ) has reservations about the efficacy of such an approach I still
believe there might still be a role for such a system, although acknowledge that
it doesn't address ( nor did it intend to do so at the time ) the wider
environmental concerns relating to flood risk and carbon capture. I'm fearful
that the shooting lobby will attempt to consign the current concerns to the long
grass, as appeared to be the case at Tuesday's evidence session when more time,
more money, more research appeared to be the clarion call, all set within the
midst of assurances that the system wasn't "broken" anyway !! Ms. Smith, I
have been much involved in raptor conservation issues since within the 1970's
and can truthfully assure you that the situation is worse now that then, is
conveniently referred to by the Countryside Alliance as an "historical problem
", but is as prevalent now as ever with no intention to change being
demonstrated. Self regulation has not worked as there is no desire on the part
of those who have brought about the catastrophic declines to change their ways
! More research, more time, more money is just playing into the hands of those
who have attained the position they now wish to see maintained as a permanence
!
I do hope that the forthcoming debate is successful
in throwing light on the problem and would again thank you for your own efforts
in this regard. Would it be possible for this E-mail to be passed to the
Minister, Ms. Coffey, so that an official response to the above concerns might
be received from the Government ? Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Armitage
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Westminster evidence session relating to the banning of driven grouse shooting.
I spent Tuesday afternoon watching the evidence session associated with the E-petition calling for the banning of driven grouse shooting and found the whole process fascinating, but not necessarily wholly acceptable. Skipping ahead a little, the event precedes the MP's debate on the subject which will take place in Westminster Hall at 1630 hours on 31st October. Without recourse to a very long Blog I think the best approach to take is to make available at the end of this entry the link to the Petitions Committee website where the written evidence submitted can be examined, the summarized proceedings and other aspects of direct relevance scrutinized and the actual proceedings watched through again. There is an absolute plethora of material which can be looked at !! The process stems , of course, from the E-petition raised by Mark Avery that secured over 100,000 signatures and, therefore, qualified for a Government debate on the subject, a matter which has been granted by the E-petitions Committee of which the evidence session and the debate are an essential part.
Taking part on Tuesday were Dr. Mark Avery, originator of the petition, Geoff Knott (RSPB), who provided supplementary information linked to many aspects put forward by Mark Avery, but who was there primarily to provide an alternative solution to an outright ban in the form of a licencing system. Providing a completely alternative and opposing view to these opinions was Amanda Anderson ( Moorland Association) and Liam Stokes, a representative for the Countryside Alliance.
The proceedings fell in to two distinct parts with questions being put from members of the Petitions Committee and EFRA. In all the proceedings lasted two hours so there was a fairly exhaustive examination of aspects linked to the general subject, although the relevancy of some of these could be questioned! As I've said before I am a steadfast advocate of our democratic system, which is not always perfect and, indeed , such proved to be the case on this occasion. As outlined the overall session fell into two distinct parts with the second element linked to the "opposition statements" being far more informal than the more intensive atmosphere of the first where an outright ban or a licencing system was advocated. This was sufficiently obvious as to be disappointing, although the points raised by Mark Avery and Geoff Knott were well made and, of course, go down on the official record.
One can't be other than critical of some of the claims made by Amanda Andersen in particular. Seeing Hen Harriers from one's kitchen window every day is no indication of the health of the population elsewhere ! After living in the wilds on the Isle of Islay, until recently, such experiences were commonplace, but provide no contradiction to the fact that, over the last decade in particular, persecution of this and other raptor species has been taking place on grouse moors quite deliberately and routinely such that the breeding population in England of Hen Harriers is now bordering on extinction ( 3 pairs only in 2016 ). One might also have been led to believe that the salvation to all ills in the uplands is being or has the potential to be solved by the presence of grouse shooting enterprises. The romantic drivel offered relating to Littondale might almost persuade one that a new radio programme is hovering in the wings ( " Littondale..........an everyday story of upland folk " ) and that it might even be a contender to displace that national treasure ," The Archers" !
We heard that, collectively, grouse moor owners are investing a million pounds per week of their own money to improve these areas, be it by blocking up drains which might exacerbate "run off ", or via intensive re-vegetation projects aimed at improving the stability and water retaining properties of the peat. No recognition was given to the sums of money which has also been forthcoming from the public purse for similar enterprises. As might have been foreseen the answers to many of the problems outlined by Avery and Knott was, more time, more money, more research and, of course, a more than adequate time period to elapse to allow the ill fated Government Hen Harrier Action Plan to be allowed to prove its worth ( or not as the case might be ! ). Long grass seemed to be sprouting up everywhere providing a more than apt background to the repeated blandishments on offer. But at least there was a couple of admissions and acceptances relating to raptor persecution, namely that there was, and had been an issue, and that the killing must stop.
But what of the equivalent questions equal to the quasi-accusation put to Mark Avery that he should have a costed proposal linked to his future vision of the uplands! It was all so very cosy with no intensive questioning aimed at the justification of the ever increasing intensification of grouse shooting or the inexorable repetition, year on year, of raptor persecution and what should be done about it.
The end result , of course, was that no clear cut way forward emerged and, therefore, the overall conclusion of what steps might arise stemming from the debate on the 31st will be more than interesting to say the least. There are some very real problems to address and these must be pursued relentlessly as it was quite clear the shooting fraternity are quite happy to take cover in the long grass and sit things out !!
I'd encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to access the link below and read what is on offer and then to watch the debate on the 31st, of which I'm told a video record will be available. Whilst democracy might not be perfect, there is a genuine effort to make its workings available to all nowadays and I believe we should both support and avail ourselves of the output.
Petitions Committee E-petition to ban driven grouse shooting.
Within this site there are various links to different elements of the process, the proceedings and the evidence submitted.
Taking part on Tuesday were Dr. Mark Avery, originator of the petition, Geoff Knott (RSPB), who provided supplementary information linked to many aspects put forward by Mark Avery, but who was there primarily to provide an alternative solution to an outright ban in the form of a licencing system. Providing a completely alternative and opposing view to these opinions was Amanda Anderson ( Moorland Association) and Liam Stokes, a representative for the Countryside Alliance.
The proceedings fell in to two distinct parts with questions being put from members of the Petitions Committee and EFRA. In all the proceedings lasted two hours so there was a fairly exhaustive examination of aspects linked to the general subject, although the relevancy of some of these could be questioned! As I've said before I am a steadfast advocate of our democratic system, which is not always perfect and, indeed , such proved to be the case on this occasion. As outlined the overall session fell into two distinct parts with the second element linked to the "opposition statements" being far more informal than the more intensive atmosphere of the first where an outright ban or a licencing system was advocated. This was sufficiently obvious as to be disappointing, although the points raised by Mark Avery and Geoff Knott were well made and, of course, go down on the official record.
One can't be other than critical of some of the claims made by Amanda Andersen in particular. Seeing Hen Harriers from one's kitchen window every day is no indication of the health of the population elsewhere ! After living in the wilds on the Isle of Islay, until recently, such experiences were commonplace, but provide no contradiction to the fact that, over the last decade in particular, persecution of this and other raptor species has been taking place on grouse moors quite deliberately and routinely such that the breeding population in England of Hen Harriers is now bordering on extinction ( 3 pairs only in 2016 ). One might also have been led to believe that the salvation to all ills in the uplands is being or has the potential to be solved by the presence of grouse shooting enterprises. The romantic drivel offered relating to Littondale might almost persuade one that a new radio programme is hovering in the wings ( " Littondale..........an everyday story of upland folk " ) and that it might even be a contender to displace that national treasure ," The Archers" !
We heard that, collectively, grouse moor owners are investing a million pounds per week of their own money to improve these areas, be it by blocking up drains which might exacerbate "run off ", or via intensive re-vegetation projects aimed at improving the stability and water retaining properties of the peat. No recognition was given to the sums of money which has also been forthcoming from the public purse for similar enterprises. As might have been foreseen the answers to many of the problems outlined by Avery and Knott was, more time, more money, more research and, of course, a more than adequate time period to elapse to allow the ill fated Government Hen Harrier Action Plan to be allowed to prove its worth ( or not as the case might be ! ). Long grass seemed to be sprouting up everywhere providing a more than apt background to the repeated blandishments on offer. But at least there was a couple of admissions and acceptances relating to raptor persecution, namely that there was, and had been an issue, and that the killing must stop.
But what of the equivalent questions equal to the quasi-accusation put to Mark Avery that he should have a costed proposal linked to his future vision of the uplands! It was all so very cosy with no intensive questioning aimed at the justification of the ever increasing intensification of grouse shooting or the inexorable repetition, year on year, of raptor persecution and what should be done about it.
The end result , of course, was that no clear cut way forward emerged and, therefore, the overall conclusion of what steps might arise stemming from the debate on the 31st will be more than interesting to say the least. There are some very real problems to address and these must be pursued relentlessly as it was quite clear the shooting fraternity are quite happy to take cover in the long grass and sit things out !!
I'd encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to access the link below and read what is on offer and then to watch the debate on the 31st, of which I'm told a video record will be available. Whilst democracy might not be perfect, there is a genuine effort to make its workings available to all nowadays and I believe we should both support and avail ourselves of the output.
Petitions Committee E-petition to ban driven grouse shooting.
Within this site there are various links to different elements of the process, the proceedings and the evidence submitted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)