Why is this Government so blinkered and obstinate when it comes to environmental matters?

I'd originally intended to wait until the New Year and then start "blogging with intent", but the current dreadful flooding problems in various parts of the UK and the repeated , predictable response from our Greenest Government Ever have persuaded me otherwise.

You know, I live in a pretty wild part of the UK in a sense. Heavy seas sometimes preventing access to the mainland, loss of electric power for five days on one occasion and two or three periods of extreme winds, i.e in excess of 110 mph,  have all occurred within the last fifteen years I've been here. It's mostly a question of gritting your teeth and waiting things out, but I've also had part of a roof taken off and all that entails in the aftermath in terms of damage, repair, stress and insurance claims. Often these are totally unexpected events but, elsewhere in the UK, given we've allowed development in flood plains over the years, are more than aware where flood risk areas are located,  yet have avoided proper timely provision for accompanying prevention measures in a general context, but have generally relied on reactive "after the event" schemes, the Government's track record, whatever its complexion, has not been great.

When will the Government accept that, very probably as a consequence of Climate Change, we appear to be getting far more frequent severe storms of a greater ferocity than ever before. Event periodicity is now a bit of a moveable feast!!  Whatever the cause of such events, they are actually happening more frequently and bringing suffering and hardship in their wake. So should our Government be paying greater heed to the needs of our environment or not?   Well, yes, of course, but they seem incapable of doing so. Not very long ago the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Owen Patterson , was a Climate Change denier and a self declared opponent of anyone who might be deemed "green".  A rather bizarre choice one might suggest. We've now got his replacement who, according to rumour, really wants to be in the Treasury and who is clearly unsuited and unsympathetic to the needs of the job.  When do we get someone who is best suited to the task and who isn't a lightweight, accepting of repeated cuts to the DEFRA budget and generally presiding over a function which is seen ripe for cuts every time the "environmental Luddite" that is our Chancellor sees fit to reduce departmental allocations.

I actually feel sorry for the Environmental Agency who ends up being the fall guy on all such occasions. Whatever "PR Dave" says about budgets the available funds have reduced dramatically since 2011 and yet the demands have grown. There was an increase in the wake of the floods in SW England and it can also be demonstrated that the current budget is beyond that of the previous Government. But is that the real question to be asked and to answer?  Surely it should be , "Is the budget adequate and does it reflect real circumstances?".. In advance of the Climate Change talks in Paris the current Government received a report recommending that, where flood prevention was concerned,  future action should be based on full catchment management measures and that such adaptive techniques should become widespread.  It was rejected and a "we know best, we'll rely on the old ways" approach was agreed. Whilst the Environment Agency very often comes out badly in circumstances such as those arising at present, it carries a good reputation for knowledge of potential adaptive management, but is beholden to the Government for its budget, Not the best situation to occupy I'd suggest.

This Government clearly has no understanding or empathy with environmental matters and sees the function and policies as being ripe for savings/cuts at every juncture. This will only end when the electorate remembers the abyssmal track record which is now in place, reminds them of the consequences and votes against them. The Government should be taking far more notice of the advice it receives from academics and other advisors.  Assuming real leadership and taking forward necessary action is what people both need and want from Government , not to witness the endless pursuance of policies that grudgingly pay lip service to  problems but never get to the bottom of them despite the available evidence.

What a difference an hour makes!

Jan Crowther  ( Kilnsea, Spurn ) has kindly pointed me in the direction of two Comments on Mark Avery's Blog that were submitted in response to a Guest Blog by Professor John Lawton dealing with the Spurn Visitor Centre issue.

Both comments refer to the owners of property located not very far from the proposed Centre, namely Southfield Farm and the property immediately adjacent to the Blue Bell,  Both properties were offered to the Trust but not responded to.  I suggest all readers should acquaint themselves with both John Lawton's comments and those submitted by the two Kilnsea residents.

Quite frankly I find much of this extremely unsettling if not bizarre. So many subject areas spring from the page, not least value for money, but also the unresponsive attitude levelled at the above residents. Such  hardly smacks of effort being put into maintaining  harmony and integrating activities and local residents. In my view both properties would have created a combined base on which the objectives of the Trust associated with the proposed Centre could have easily transferred. I'm bewildered and that doesn't happen often!!!  

Spurn's proposed Visitor Centre.........the final stages?

Whilst I was away abroad I thought not infrequently about the proposed Visitor Centre at Spurn and what the final outcome might be.  I suspect that, sometime soon, the formal documentation will be submitted by the YWT to the Planning Authority who will then preside officially over the whole process and approve or reject the proposal.

Having witnessed some strange outcomes to planning matters in the past I mused further on what scenarios might apply following the Planning Officer's decision.  For instance, what ideas might arise should the proposal be rejected?  Are there other alternatives which could be considered?

When last I put out a Blog on the subject in September I attempted to highlight a series of issues and responsibilities that needed to be addressed . Some people thought this supported the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust's position too overtly, which given my independent status wasn't the intention.  I contend that whoever was the owner or managing agent these obligations would need to be faced and, therefore, partisan support didn't enter the situation.  I suspect that these obligations and responsibilities will be considered as part of the application, particularly those associated with safety.  Of significant importance though is how will these be addressed if the proposal is rejected. Such circumstances will provide the YWT with an almighty headache at best!!

The decision on the application, presumably at some point in 2016, will no doubt please some people and bring bitter tears of disappointment to others. I still nurture a hope that a solution will emerge that doesn't involve a large built structure, although with the process nearing conclusion this hardly seems likely.  At the outset my feelings were very much centred on the fact that an insufficient number of visitors in the future would result in the proposal being a bit of a "white elephant".  I still worry that projections of future visitor attendance are over optimistic as the resultant income would not provide the YWT with the necessary funds it needs to run the site.  However, my basic feelings of concern  have changed and now rest on a completely different platform of issues , as outlined below.

First of all, let's look at what I believe  ( and I emphasize, these are my opinions ! ) is, currently,  a basic aspect of the YWT's case for a new centre. Following the breach of the peninsula, the income derived from visitors plummeted, a situation which would automatically affect the management capabilities and forecasts. The new Centre, already under discussion, thus provided an opportunity to concentrate visitors and provide facilities which would generate the income necessary for site management. I get the impression that , without the facility, the Trust felt it would be facing an extraordinary challenge. So, essentially that is the point we are at presently with, of course, the construction costs of the Centre being covered by Eon from its Community Fund.

But I'm still troubled !  Doubtless the following will be seen as pessimistic, even negative, but I believe it contains sufficient realism such that it should not be ignored.

The subject of periodicity of major storm events is more of an art than a science in my opinion. Based on historical records storm surges can be calculated, but the precise point at which they occur cannot be predicted. For example, at what point within a fifty year cycle is the next event likely to take place.......within the next five years or during the last three!!  Now I'm sure such data has been considered but, at the end of the day, the decision to proceed is a value judgement that could carry a high risk.   I'm beginning to be convinced that  to contemplate  built structures and accompanying visitor facilities associated with an area where the risk level is high is perhaps best avoided!  More temporary and modest provisions might be a better alternative!   With our weather systems becoming ever more dynamic and unpredictable I question whether it's morally sensible to consider expensive built structures in areas with a proven track record of inundation.  Shouldn't the investment be more securely placed?  That the proposed Centre is designed to be above predicted flood levels and can be retrieved is not any assurance the facility will continue to attract visitors or produce sufficient income following an incident that might, for instance, drastically affect access.

I think we have to face the unpalatable inevitability that circumstances  are going to get worse in terms of the breach and access to the peninsula and could deteriorate significantly in the short term placing plans for income generation under serious duress.

So what's the solution?  In my eyes it could be a very simple one.

It seems to me that the YWT position is being driven by the understandable need for it to generate income that will then underpin the site management costs. If that over-riding imperative was removed then the need for a Centre would be erased. So why can't Eon simply set up a management fund , legally approved etc,  aimed at supporting the YWT's need, as site owner, to manage the site according to the formal requirements of it being an NNR and the plethora of issues that now surround its future continuity such as site safety issues.  The site can't simply be abandoned and "special case" and  "exceptional circumstances" spring to mind as well as its status in national terms.  Such may have been considered and rejected , but the idea might need to be resurrected if the proposal is turned down!!

The above scenario would mean the Visitor Centre element is  removed altogether, which would mollify the inflamed opposition of local residents, but it would also remove the "commercial aspects" the Trust was forced to adopt in order to pay for site management.  Doubtless a new car park could be considered and, indeed, a small reception centre located in what is the current "turning circle" near the entrance gate. Beyond that no further capital works would be required as the catering function could be located at the Blue Bell where the previously envisaged displays about Spurn and climate change etc could be placed. The basic premise upon which all this rests is that it can be envisaged some event will occur which would call the efficacy of the proposed Centre and its envisaged facilities into question.  It appears that the profile of the breach channel has already begun to alter with all that implies for safe access.

So, final hour , final ideas, but with the over-riding need for the requirements of Spurn itself to be best considered following the clamour of the opposing views of each side being set aside.  It would be a tragedy, in what might best be described as the final death throe years of the peninsula as we've known it , if no common solutions could be agreed upon that saw Spurn's natural assets managed in the most optimum way possible.

Just like old times! 20th November,2015

Friday saw me back on Islay after being away in Ethiopia for quite a while. Travelling from the south of the country up to Addis, the vast majority on unmade roads,  followed by two more nights of travel, resulted in a strange state of detachment where sleep didn't seem relevant any longer. More impactive though was the drastic drop in temperatures which demanded a few extra layers of clothing being brought into play!!

Arriving back I'd no time to look at E-mails or correspondence as long time friend and past work colleague David Spivack and his wife Amanda were on holiday on Islay and we'd pledged to meet. In many senses I only just made it at the very end of their week's vacation. They'd had a pretty miserable week with storms throughout , but it hadn't dampened their enthusiasm. Our immediate conversation surrounded David's recent appointment as UK Director for Falklands Conservation and his recent visit to the islands.  I'll be putting out a Blog at some point highlighting their work and no doubt including an utterly enviable photographic shot of  penguins or albatrosses!!!

We elected to go out birding in the afternoon and set off on a quest to pin down a few species that had eluded them due to the weather. We failed, as shortly after setting off I noticed the external temperature had dropped to 2C and then we were enveloped in snow. Could you believe it!!!  We eventually made our way to Gruinart and the relative haven of the hides on the reserve. Whooper Swans on the move and absolutely stunning views of a passing Hen Harrier made up for things, but all too soon darkness began to fall. Back for more coffee, conversation, gossip, updates and the like.  Reminiscing about RSPB days, talking of Wildlife Trust initiatives ( Amanda works for one of the Trusts ),  past visits to Islay and so it went on . All good things come to an end but it's always good to have something to carry over to the next time of meeting. A whirlwind day, but rewarding.      

Update !!

After a significant lapse in Blog entries, covering quite a period,  I thought it sensible to bring matters up to date by outlining what has been happening and, more importantly, what is also going to happen over the ensuing months.

In recent times I've been out in Ethiopia........ a tremendous country , a tremendous trip and something upon which I'll provide  a " block series" of Blogs in the near future. Returning back to low temperatures ( 3C ) after being in up to 35C was a bit of a climatic culture shock , but thank heavens for cuppa soups!  In parallel, the open wars between Montezuma and Immodium, which bedevilled my final days away,  now seem to have reached some sort of peace ! Normality can now resume.

I have resigned my positions as both BTO Regional Representative, which also included WeBS, and as Moth Recorder for Butterfly Conservation. Both these positions have been taken on by David Wood , Site Manager, RSPB Oa Reserve , Islay  ( David.Wood@rspb.org.uk ).  This was discussed whilst we were both on holiday following the BirdFair and met quite coincidentally at the Three Swallows pub in Cley!  The timing of 1st November was chosen to link with the new BTO NEWS survey so that David could be involved from the onset.  David has already embraced the change with enthusiasm and I suspect BTO activities on Islay will move forward accordingly.  In recent times two "new" birders have moved to live on Islay  which will help things enormously. Best of luck to all.

And what will I be doing with my time?  Well, I intend moving from Islay in the Spring after 16 years in residence.  New opportunities, easier access to family and more convenient links to transport facilities are all part of the mix besides more immediate birding and foreign travel.. Something to look forward to. What was it Mussolini said (?), "Better to live a year like a lion than a lifetime as a lamb" or something to that effect.

On a rather sadder note, I've learned of the recent untimely death of Islay's optician, Dunstan. He was a consummate professional, a first rate communicator and a real friend to all clients. I remember his support in advance of my having an operation on one eye which, in the end, I looked forward to rather than dreaded. A sad loss indeed and sincere condolences to his family, he'll be sorely missed on Islay.

So there we are, a sitrep as at the end of November and an opportunity now to get the site in order and a series of entries flowing forth!!!

Rumours circulate about DEFRA's future.

Rumours have begun to circulate about the possibility of DEFRA being disbanded as part of the Government's autumn review and George Osborne's desperate attempts to effect further economies to bring down the UK's borrowing and deficit.

At the Liberal Democrats conference Baroness Parminter urged LibDems to oppose such a possibility wherein agricultural matters could be transferred to BIS. What happens then to other functions has, as yet , received no response despite enquiries ?  Given that Liz Truss ( Secretary of State, DEFRA ) has increasingly placed an emphasis on farming issues within her period of tenure I suppose this would come as no surprise to some. Farming sources have suggested they might receive greater benefit from being within BIS, a sure fire indication of the self appointed special case" status they appear to confer on themselves nowadays underscored further by Liz Truss who seems to view her very existence as a sales executive for farm produce or proponent of farmers markets!!

It does make you question whether the dire performance of DEFRA on so many fronts is a deliberate ploy or simply a consequence of them having suffered such dreadful cuts to their funding already. A greater worry is what might happen to Natural England as the seeming only representative body to the natural environment we have. Again, in recent times it's hardly covered itself in glory on some occasions, but one wonders if this is a product of having to act within applied constraints given the Government's lack of enthusiasm and support unless it "turns in a dollar" !

Record broken of most birds seen in a single year!

News has emerged that the record set up by Ruth Miller and Alan Davies from Wales in 2008 for the most birds seen worldwide in a calendar year has been broken.  Ruth and Alan saw 4341species and their story is immortalised in the book " The Biggest Twitch", which is packed full of details that allows you to live alongside their efforts that year. I've read it twice already and will doubtless read it again at some point !

Noah Strycker from America has announced that he has already broken the above record with fifteen weeks still in hand to the year end. His target is 5000 birds seen in a single year, that figure equating to just under half of the world's known species dependent on which taxonomic tome you consult!!  Given he's still to visit SE Asia and Australia there's clearly a good chance he'll link up with the 659 species he needs if not more.

Some feat, but I still think we should congratulate our own trailblazers who not only set up the initial record, but then wrote about it and gave us a tremendous bit of escapism in the process.

Grey lag Geese galore! Tuesday, 22nd September, 2015

Following our earlier census a fortnight ago not really working out too successfully given the vast majority of barley fields had not been cut, but a lot of silage had,  leading to birds being mobile and distributed widely, I proposed we moved our efforts on a little.  Bingo !  The main fields in the most favoured areas had been cut at the very end of last week and concentrations of Grey lag Geese emerged immediately.

As each year goes by the habits of the Grey lag Geese accumulating at this time of year appear to change.  Some time ago a regular annual concentration could be found at the head of Loch Indaal,  feeding elsewhere but loafing out on the merse itself for long periods. Similarly birds concentrated at Loch Gruinart moved off at intervals to feed nearby, then rest and bathe on Loch Gorm, only to return to roost at Gruinart. This year birds "flooded in " to Gruinart immediately after the silage was cut and then promptly moved off and took up residence around Loch Gorm giving a nearby uncut barley field a battering.  A large concentration also hung around in a couple of the bays at the head of Loch Indaal, but regularly spilled over into a nearby barley field with similar negative results. Loch Gorm and Loch Indaal now seem to be the favoured roosts of choice, but I've no doubt this will change.

Last year, because the birds had been affected by shooting under licence carried out before the 31st August, the efficacy of monitoring and counting was questionable in my opinion when we counted birds immediately afterwards. Shooting had stopped , by agreement, but the birds were dispersed, difficult and immensely mobile.  This year, with little shooting being in evidence, the birds were more relaxed, much easier to locate and to count although , at times, birds could be seen moving off northwards to areas that I never identified. Work still to be done!!

Whilst I've yet to receive all the results, it does seem likely that the total recorded this year has increased set against the 2014 total of 2200.. Not an immense increase, but noticeable. Such has been endorsed to some extent by counts of juveniles carried out by Malcolm Ogilvie and the confirmation that the birds appear to have had a good breeding season in 2015.  I'll write more on all this later when more details are available and certain aspects have been checked out.  At this point I reflect on the fact that, in 1999 when I moved to Islay, very few breeding pairs were in evidence, no autumn accumulation was in evidence either,  but then rapidly emerged as an annual event and the wintering population was often only a little in excess of one hundred!!!  How things can change.

As I drove past Gruinart in gathering darkness I was reminded of what we will witness as a major change very shortly!!  In fact very shortly indeed!!  Three Barnacle Geese stood in the centre of the Flats looking somewhat forlorn, having arrived within the last couple of days. As I write this many thousands of their cohorts will be poised to wing their way southwards and be with us in a couple of weeks time when the situation will transform from one of a few birds in isolation to utter confusion and cacophany with the possibility of 35,000 or so arriving for the winter.  How things can change!

Spurn......management and responsibilities. A Guest Blog by Dr. Rob Stoneman , Chief Executive, YWT.

Last week , on the 16th September in fact , I put out a Blog entitled "Spurn....management and responsibilities".  As was requested by Jan Crowther, who submitted some Comments on the details, I did "open up a dialogue" with the YWT and invited them, in turn,  to submit their own Comments or submit a Guest Blog for publication.

I'm pleased to make available the Blog below, which has resulted from that request and which I hope will be read carefully alongside the details I published. May I thank Rob Stoneman for his contribution, Jan Crowther for her initial comments and anyone who, as a result of these entries, adds their own comments to the debate.


GUEST BLOG     -    DR. ROB STONEMAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, YWT.

From the Chief Executive of Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, can I thank John for his interesting blog. We do understand some of the opposition to a new visitor centre at Spurn.  We share a gut instinct that Spurn should be a wild place, subject to the forces of nature and better for it.  Yet Spurn, like most other parts of Britain, has a landscape that has been framed and created by an interplay of those natural forces and by humans.  In 1959, when YWT bought the site from the MOD, Spurn was a military complex.  Over the years, YWT has attempted to ‘re-wild’ the site (to use modern parlance) by removing buildings to leave only those that are required by our tenants – currently the Bird Observatory, Associated British Ports and RNLI.  We resisted taking the lighthouse from Trinity House in 1985 knowing that eventually we would have to restore it given its listed building status, even going to court over it, but were forced to take on the lighthouse when it ceased operation. 

The spit itself was locked into position by the wartime defences since at the least the First World War, and probably even earlier, so was always likely to dramatically readjust; the storm surge breach was probably inevitable. 

So, from 1959, it was YWT that took on the role of as the human shaper of Spurn and our tenure has been much less dramatic and more gentle, generally working with the grain rather than against the grain of nature.  Nevertheless, Spurn is a popular tourist destination receiving over 70,000 years at its visitor peak in the 1980s with people attracted by that wild landscape, by its birds and other wildlife, for fishing, for walking, for military history or simply as a day out to the beach.  Even today, with the spit no longer accessible by car, Spurn receives over 20,000 visitors, which if unmanaged will have an unintentional consequence on what is a fragile and delicate site – whether that be by trampling dune habitat, bird disturbance, fires, litter and so on. 

For decades our approach to visitor management has been rather blunt – we put a man at the entrance to the site who essentially policed access and in so doing more or less policed the use of the site.  A blunt instrument for sure but it has more or less worked.  However, for most of those decades, YWT was a very small institution that never had the money to pay the salary let alone invest in effective visitor infrastructure.  Instead, we charged an entrance fee.  The income never quite covered the costs of running Spurn but it was enough to keep the site open.  Was this a popular approach?  Well, of course not.  Charging people to access a piece of open countryside by a man who often had to say ‘No’ (to dogs, to overnight camping, to off-roaders, to bait diggers etc.) is not a popular strategy but what else could YWT do?

Actually, YWT should have invested in better visitor infrastructure and recognised that with a report by Ian Carstairs as far back as 1996.  It was only in 2010, that YWT started to properly consider what it might need at Spurn and how it should run the site into the future with the first ‘business plans’ (wish-lists might be a better word) that were put together by myself.  We applied to the Heritage Lottery Fund to put some of that plan in place but were rejected twice.  But eventually, in 2012, we finally received news that our lottery application was making headway.  We could finally start with plans to restore the lighthouse, put in a viewing platform at the Point and appoint a Heritage Officer to run an events and education programme. 

But this only addressed part of the issue – we still didn’t have the right visitor facilities in place - and then the storm surge struck.

Of course, losing vehicle access was always a risk in such a vulnerable location and we had a contingency plan in place (essentially switching to walk-on and bike-on access) but operating the site with 4WD vehicles across the breach.  Natural England provided funding for those 4WD vehicles not only allowing us, as managers, vehicle and therefore effective management access to the site, but also providing a further visitor access option – our Spurn Safaris that use the Unimog.  This was hugely appreciated but other problems have arisen.  In particular, visitors now concentrate at the Warren area.  We have some car-parking at the Blue Bell but most people drive as far as they can, parking at the Warren Cottage or down along the road back to Kilnsea.  At busy times, its chaotic with cars parked all over and all the visitors now congregating around the Warren Cottage area – it is a mess and no way to manage a National Nature Reserve.

                                Parking congestion at Spurn.   Jonathon Leadley, YWT.

The breach itself  gives us H&S concerns.  Despite, clear signage that is updated on a weekly basis, we still get people stranded or, and much worse, attempt to cross the breach even with water streaming across it at high tide.  Add in our usual mix of H&S concerns – browntail moths, dangerous structures and the dangers of walking on what is now a pretty isolated site in inclement weather………..as Chief H&S officer at YWT, it keeps me awake at night.

Moreover, we say little to people about the site – where to go, what to do, what to see, how it formed, what its history, what are those big concrete blocks for, why is there a railway heading off into the sea……there is such a great story at Spurn, it is incumbent upon us – YWT – to tell people about this brilliant site.  More than that, nature reserves should be the cathedrals of nature conservation – the places to inspire, educate and involve people in our efforts for a better more wildlife-rich Yorkshire and a better planet that sustains us long into the future.  Spurn is incredible and we want lots of people to come to Spurn to join our campaign for wildlife.  Spurn should be for the many and not the privileged few.

For this, we need the right visitor infrastructure – a place to get a hot drink and food; a place to go the toilet; a place to learn about this fabulous site – its stories, its history, its wildlife; a place for signposting, telling you where you can go and where you can go safely and without damaging the special nature of the site – we needed a visitor centre and a car-park to replace the current mess. We had long known that, even before the storm surge, so had long been in discussions with EON about possible funding after they received planning permission for a new wind farm off Spurn.  They didn’t have to give us any money; they already had planning permission but recognised that they too had a story to tell – a story of climate change, of its effects on the planet, not least on the coast, of renewable energy and a brighter more sustainable future.  And so they offered YWT £900,000 to build a new visitor centre at Spurn.

We were delighted.  The investment that Spurn so badly needs finally fell into place.  By working with partners, Kilnsea Wetlands becomes the first port of call – with a hide and car-park providing just the right birding facilities.  From there, we pass the Blue Bell – our plans include trainee accommodation.  At the least sensitive location on Spurn in terms of its wildlife, we will have the visitor centre and car-park; the starting point for an informed, safe and enjoyable visit to Spurn. Crucially, for us, the starting point for a managed visit to Spurn, following self-guided or guided trails, by Unimog, by bike and on foot, that ensure visitors do not damage the special interest of Spurn.  Moving down the Point, the Warren area will be re-naturalised leaving just the cottage. From there to the lighthouse, it’s a wild journey over the breach and along the spit.  At the lighthouse, the story of Spurn can be delved into deeper and the fabulous view of Spurn stretches out from the top.  At the Point, vacated ABP buildings will have toilets and a tea-point to get out of the weather with more information for visitors.  A brilliant day out.

It’s a big prize and one that we are hugely excited by.  The alternative is a managed decline and possibly even site closure.  That’s not a good future for Spurn and one we are determined not to take. 

E-petition to ban driven grouse shooting.

 HAVE YOU SIGNED THE PETITION YET?  If not, then please follow this link

Ban driven grouse shooting.

There is a compelling reason for my issuing this Blog !!  I thought, quite genuinely, that I had signed the above petition, but I became unsure that I had done so. I went ahead and signed ( again? )  but received no dire warnings, flashing lights  etc so I'm assuming that the Government's computer has done a swift check on me and established that I wasn't attempting to cheat by attempting to sign twice !!

Clearly I hadn't signed and, therefore, I apologise publicly to Mark Avery, past colleague and friend, the person who has laid the petition. In many ways I'm an unlikely abstainer from the process given my track record, but that's not an apt excuse.  I hadn't signed, but why!  The thought occurred to me that, with the current petition following on so quickly after the previous one with the same theme, I'd managed a grand old mix up ( the solution may be within that description ! ).  The previous petition was  closed prematurely due to the General Election popping up and  it further occurred to me that I might not be the only one to have overlooked the matter.

HAVE YOU SIGNED THE PETITION YET?    If not then please follow this link.

Ban driven grouse shooting.

So, you all know what comes next ! If you're unsure, can't remember precisely, or have actually forgotten and believe otherwise , take action, NOW !  I'm sure you'll be told politely if you have signed and things won't result in a visit from the Mind Police  ( well, I do live next to Jura ........George Orwell, "1984 " ).

This petition strikes at far more than wealthy people playing at a game of choice in the uplands, a "Game of Clones" one might suggest.   The Government, Establishment and many others are riding rough shod over a plethora of relevant issues applicable to the uplands. Theirs is not to selectively opt out of their responsibilities linked to the protection of raptors, or the "control" of various mammal species, or of air pollution issues contributing to climate change or, indeed, on negative effects on water drainage. Shrugging off reality is not an option!  Most of us have to abide by the laws of the land and the selective rejection of this principle underlies the wider call for action contained within the petition.

HAVE YOU SIGNED THE PETITION YET?  IF NOT THEN PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK.

Ban driven grouse shooting.