Time for a long, controversial post… (DBs opinions only here)! Is it just me, or does anyone else think that conservation priorities and lobbying are starting to get a little more extreme, and possibly not considering the bigger picture? Don’t get me wrong, I’m massively pro-conservation, pro green-living, and anti-illegal persecution & habitat destruction; the Hen Harrier is one of my favourite birds and my business emblem, but surely a more holistic approach would be better. It’s great to see passion for conservation, and a single species to champion a habitat often works well. But when it starts to become ‘Them vs Us’, is fighting fire with fire the best way? Surely this kind of approach will only further divide conservationists from the game-rearing fraternity. I don’t claim to know the best way forward but I do believe that heightening emotion or anger in a situation like this is not it! In my last decade of working in upland UK the vast majority of gamekeepers I have met have been sincere, knowledgeable country-men and proud of their wildlife diversity. A minority of land-agents taint their good practice. We also should remember that the majority of English (& Scottish) moorland is an artificially created & maintained habitat, which if left to natural succession would advance into upland scrub and woodland. May be the biggest question is where we draw our baselines for habitat & landscape management and what are our habitat aims, both on a landscape and species-specific scale? The Wildwood? Pre-grouse moor but human influenced landscapes? Post-war(s) grouse moor management? Current moorland distribution? What would our predicted Hen Harrier population be in all of these landscape scenarios? As well as protecting key habitats and species we need to look at whether we conserve for the past, the present, or the future?
Posted on: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 22:24:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015