|
Back to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage
"Enhancing our environment; holisitc management
vs single species priorities."
Part 3: Session 2. SCA conference "Getting
the balanc right: rural Scotland 2005" 12th April, Edinburgh.
Reviewed by
James Irvine
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie
Perthshire
Filed 21 Apr 05
©www.land-care.org.uk
The first two articles in this series that covers
the conference organised by the Scottish Countryside Alliance (SCA)
dealt with the way its is hoped to review it and the programme (1)
and with the keynote speech given by Lesley Riddoch (2).
The second of the five sessions
was entitled "Enhancing our environment; holisitc management
vs single species priorities" and the speakers were Roger Wheater
and Alex Hogg.
Professor Roger Wheater
Professor Roger Wheater
delivering his address at the
Scottish Countryside Alliance conference April 2005
(©Kimpton Graphics)
To enlarge Click
Here
Biographical Note
The following information was provided
in the conference press pack.
"Professor Roger J. Wheater OBE D.Univ FIBiol FRSGS FRZSS
FRSE was appointed Chairman of Council of the National Trust for
Scotland in May 2000. He had had a close relationship with the
Trust for many years, was an elected member of Council from 1973
to 1978 and a Member of the Executive Committee from 1982 to 1987.
He and his wife Jeanie led Trust Cruises from 1980 - 1997.
He served as a member of the Main Board of Scottish Natural Heritage
from 1995 to 1999 and was Deputy Chairman for the last two years.
He was Chairman of the Access Forum which reported to Ministers
in 1999. He retired in November 1998 as Director of the Royal
Zoological Society of Scotland (Edinburgh Zoo).
Before coming to Scotland, Professor Wheater served in Uganda
for sixteen years, first in the Colonial Police, then for ten
years as Chief Warden of the Murchison Falls National Park and
finally as Director- Uganda National Parks.
His distinguished career has also included Chairmanship of the
Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland,
the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria and the World Zoo
Organisation. An innovator in his field, he participated in the
development of a national keeper training course, the establishment
of national standards of zoo operations for the Zoo Licensing
Act and was Chairman of the Editorial Board for the World Zoo
Conservation Strategy. In Scotland he developed a major environmental
education programme, links with Universities, and conservation
captive breeding programmes.
Professor Wheater lives in Edinburgh and lists his recreational
interests as country pursuits, painting and garedning."
Transcript of Roger Wheater's presentation
The following is a transcript of Alex Hogg's talk
in its entirety provided by the conference organisers through the
office of Dick Playfair of Playfair Walker, Comminications Consultants
(www.playfairwalker.com).
'When Peter Scott did his doodle of the Giant Panda I feel quite
certain that he recognised that the logo of the nascent World
Wildlife Fund needed to be single species, cuddly and exotic.
Single species conservation very much focused attention and created
probably the best opportunity to pull at the heartstrings and
therefore open the purses of individuals and organisations so
moved to help. This approach had great strength, but also a considerable
weakness. Its strength was in its relatively simple message; we
are responsible for this wonderful animal and you can play your
part in saving it through various forms of energetic action. The
weakness was there appeared to be a lack of any strategy to disengage
from the process of saving once the species concerned was again
viable. I know that the WWF had considerable soul searching when
it became apparent to them that the real future for species was
through a more holistic approach through the management of habitats.
At that time it would seem that the marketing and fund raising
people won the argument. They recognised that in terms of fund
raising, habitat conservation was somewhat less sexy than a cute
single species.
Not all single species issues were in respect of the endangered,
for in a number of instances, interest and activity was concentrating
on some species because of their overabundance. Interestingly,
but perhaps not surprisingly, action to reduce numbers produced
its own set of public relations challenges. The concept of culling
was, to put it mildly, not popular with some sections of the public,
and in making their feelings felt put an additional burden on
those who were required to manage these situations. There was
however a positive side to this vocal criticism as it led to a
much more measured programme of education that set out the issues
in a clear and logical way. This did not stop those who were not
prepared to listen but did, I believe, generate more widely a
deeper understanding of the issues.In 1961 I was appointed Chief
Warden of Murchison Falls National Park in central Uganda. The
park extended over 1500 square miles and all the evidence indicated
that the vegetational diversity of the park was declining at a
truly alarming rate. Woodland and riparian forest was being replaced
by grassland and in many places the recent demise of trees was
obvious from the stands of skeletal tree trunks standing like
gravestones in a sea of lush grassland. There was little evidence
of regeneration of woody vegetation. The two factors that were
thought to be impacting so dramatically were the presence of increasing
numbers of elephant and dry season fires, which annually swept
in from the borders of the park. The Uganda National Parks together
with Cambridge University had set up the Nuffield Unit of Tropical
Animal Ecology, and it was scientists from this unit together
with a group of Fulbright Scholars from the USA that carried out
detailed research in identifying the cause of these changes. Neither
time not the appropriateness to this conference allows me to touch
on what was a very important piece of scientific work. Suffice
to say, the outcome was a recognition that the 14,000 elephant
then residing in the park was beyond the capacity of the vegetation
to sustain them and the wide range of other species that were
present in the park. Already essentially woodland species such
as giraffe were suffering, as indeed in biological terms were
the elephant themselves. Why were there so many elephant? Quite
simply major and perfectly legal land use changes had taken place
in the considerable areas formerly used by elephant, and the animals
had been quite simply squeezed into taking up residence within
the park to its now obvious detriment. In agreeing to changes
to the game reservation status of these areas to one of ranching
and other agricultural activity, the impact of such change had
not been fully addressed. A cull of two thousand elephant was
therefore carried out with a minimum of negative comment from
the public.
There were a few letters from America with envelopes edged in
black from some who had taken exception to the briefing that I
had given on the TV show "Good Morning America". Local
Ugandans expressed themselves amazed that animals were being killed
within the sanctuary of the park and the meat sold was their former
hunting ground and they now understood that not even a rat could
be killed within the sanctuary of the park. We had as a matter
of policy decided that the bi-product of any cull should be utilised
to the maximum benefit of local communities, a policy of social
inclusion or justice of over 40 years ago, but we obviously had
not explained our reasons very well.
Just to complete the elephant saga, we were pretty certain that
the removal of two thousand animals was probably an underestimate
of what was required but part of the programme was to carefully
monitor the results of our management and make adjustments in
the future. Our ability to do this was brought to an abrupt and
dramatic conclusion by the military coup of Iddi Amin. During
the decade of his regime the elephant population in the park was
reduced from 12,000 to 1,500 animals. The regeneration of the
woodland has been dramatic, and when I visited in the mid 19801s
large areas of grassland had returned to acacia woodland to the
benefit of the biodiversity which the park authority had sought
to recreate. Giraffe, which would have fallen into the endangered
category, were flourishing.
In 1972 I came out of the wild into captivity as Director of
Edinburgh Zoological Park, and in the mid 19701s I was a member
of a group of seven zoo directors who gathered in Edinburgh to
examine ways in which zoological collections might make a better
contribution to wildlife conservation.
These deliberations recognised that a real opportunity existed
to support endangered wildlife through scientifically based programmes
of captive breeding. It was also recognised that such programmes
could only be achieved if the zoos that cooperated both denied
their financial stake in the animals that they held of the species
chosen but also allowed others to dictate the acquisition and
movement of such animals. It is to the considerable credit of
a number of collections that they quickly agreed to cooperate.
It also soon became apparent as the endangered species programme
developed pace that currently common species held in captivity
could, and indeed should, be managed in the same way. Ethically
there could be no justification for taking animals from the wild
if they could be provided from within the captive community. Conversely,
in consideration for such a responsible approach, animals might
be taken from the wild to boost gene pools of species at risk.
These are of course single species programmes - however an essential
element of these programmes, and there are now over 100 in Europe
alone, is the setting of population target sizes for each species.
These are set to ensure that the maximum genetic variability is
maintained for each species for it is the genes which carry the
information from which innate behavior is developed which is of
course essential to their survival in the wild at some future
date. Some behavior is of course learnt and in recognition of
this zoos now pay considerable attention to the provision of enriched
environments for their captive animals. There is of course no
point in returning animals to the wild unless the circumstances
of the wild are now suitable to ensure the long-term future of
the species that is returned. I am pleased to say that there has
already been some success.
We all experience some really magic moments in life and one of
mine was standing in the Yalooni Desert in Oman watching a group
of eleven Arabian oryx that had been reintroduced through such
a programme. All the older animals had been bred in captivity
but the younger ones including a calf of just a few weeks old
had been born in the wild. All were surviving well in a quite
harsh but natural environment using their innate skills and learning
on the hoof. This programme had become necessary as the species
had been hunted to extinction when traditional hunting on horseback
gave way to four wheel drive vehicles and helicopters. At a very
late stage Oman realised that this brilliant animal was part of
the nation1s natural heritage and that they were prepared to invest
very heavily in a programme of reintroduction. All these programmes
are by their very nature very expensive in time, human effort
and money.
I am afraid that the list of species at risk from Mountain Gorilla
to Partula Snails continues to grow and the single species approach
to their conservation will perforce continue. They are however
a very clear
indication of our failure to carefully consider the impact of
our development and others1 activities on natural habitats. This
has been recognised, and our current drive towards biodiversity
has been implemented on an international scale. Where overpopulation
has been controlled or reintroductions have been made the situation
should then be sustainable and not require further action unless
of course the original causes return.
This audience will be very much aware that some sporting species
are managed for overabundance and the red grouse is an example
of this form of management. Some measure of this extra production
was achieved at the expense of some species of raptors that were
removed wherever they were found. You may also be aware that the
heather cover has declined in Scotland by nearly 50 per cent through
a combination of climate change and overgrazing by sheep and red
deer. Research has shown that the grass that replaces the heather
provides an ideal habitat for voles and pipits and they then attract
birds of prey. In addition, forestry planting on a significant
scale not only reduced heather cover but also concentrated the
red deer.
There was a suggestion from some quarters that the conservation
activities in respect of raptors should be relaxed somewhat and
the Heather Trust was asked to support such a proposal. The Trust1s
response was that we did not believe that there could be any argument
for raptor reduction until much greater emphasis was placed on
management activity to improve degraded habitats. Only once this
had been achieved could any such proposal be worthy of consideration.
But herein lies the difficulty. If the programme of species recovery
meets with success and targets are achieved there has to be a
clear understanding as to the nature of an exit strategy. Some
years ago I was speaking to an audience about such issues which
in this case concerned tiger conservation in India. The rapid
decline of this species led to the creation of a major fundraising
initiative called “Save the Tiger” that generated money
to assist the Indian Government to manage the reserves that they
had set aside for tigers and other native species. Given this
protection tiger numbers built up quite quickly to a point where
there were more tigers than the habitat could sustain. Animals
therefore moved out of the reserves into areas of dense human
population to the considerable and sometimes fatal discomfort
of the local people. During questions following my presentation
a commentator questioned my logic. “Surely, he said, by reducing
the human population the tigers were creating more space for themselves.”
I had to point out to him that these were real people who were
being killed and that if in the unlikely event tigers had been
in his backyard in Edinburgh his attitude would almost certainly
have been very different. When conflicts of this kind arise they
often become politicised leading to short term decisions that
would probably not be to the benefit of the tigers. Far better
that such conflict be avoided in the first place by planning ahead
a course of action to prevent such an eventuality.
I am afraid there will always be varying degrees of conflict.
What could be more absurd than the reaction to the culling of
hedgehogs in North Uist and Benbecula? The species was introduced
irresponsibly (where have we heard that statement before?) and
following a build up in numbers was creating havoc for the ground-nesting
birds. Despite this very clear man-induced upset of the natural
order, Scottish Natural Heritage’s efforts - one might say
responsibilities - to remove the hedgehogs were met with a horrified
outcry from “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” and others.
Tens of thousands of pounds are then spent on various forms of
public relations activities; money that would have been much better
spent on other conservation initiatives.
The most recent ‘cause for concern” has been in respect
of methods used for the culling of red deer. There is clear recognition
that deer numbers are far too high over much of their range. It
is understood that numbers have to be reduced if regeneration
of woodland is to be achieved as part of the aim of increasing
the biodiversity of our uplands. The National Trust for Scotland
has within its care considerable areas of upland and is very conscious
of the need to reduce red deer numbers, but also that such culls
are carried out humanely and with the minimum amount of stress
on the deer themselves. Our use of helicopters has attracted adverse
comment. We use the aircraft as a management tool to transport
our professional stalkers into the remoter areas of our property
and to carry out the carcasses.
Perhaps memories of the culling of introduced red deer in New
Zealand where helicopters were used as shooting platforms has
led to some to believe that this is what we do in Scotland. I
can state unequivocally that we neither drive nor shoot deer from
these aircraft. However, the public will express concerns and
indeed we should expect it for they have every right to do so.
As managers of wild land we do have a real responsibility to
inform and reassure the public both locally and more widely as
to why such action is required and give details of the manner
in which it will be carried out.
I have tended thus far to concentrate on single species issues.
Thankfully there are an ever increasing number of examples where
a holistic approach is being taken. The Convention on Biodiversity,
an outcome of the Rio Conference of 1992, and the subsequent UK
Biodiversity Action Plan of 1994 gave encouragement to those who
were already taking a broader approach and spawned a wide range
of initiatives which are supported by scientific and financial
aid from many sources. Local authorities have developed local
biodiversity action plans. The Fife Biodiversity Action Plan (1997)
is a good example for it clearly recognised the need to identify
threats to habitats and species and the action required to overcome
such threats. The plan further recognised that this was not simple
but that much could be achieved through shared knowledge, partnership
and cooperation.
One splendid example of a holistic approach is the programme
of conservation within the River Tweed catchment initiated by
the Tweed Commissioners. This work of habitat improvement commenced
in the mid 19801s by the gathering together of information culminating
in May 1989 in a two day seminar entitled “Tweed towards
20001, a profile of the river and factors that impinge on fish
stocks.
Since then there have been a number of integrated projects under
the heading of habitat improvement. Some research had commenced
in 1965 but following the commitment to initiate a major programme
of conservation the scope and scale of research and monitoring
gathered considerable pace. This has included over the past 15
years the counting of fish at every stage of their development
within the river using electronic counters, electric fishing and
other methods to ascertain population densities. The movement
of fish was traced through tagging and radio tracking. Predators
and their impact were studied; river bank plant surveys and the
identification of invertebrate life in and near the rivers was
initiated. Assessment has been carried out on the barriers to
fish movement, as have studies on the impact of grazing animals
on river and stream banks and of gravel build up in stream mouths.
The programme included an analysis of catch data both of rod-caught
and netted salmon and sea trout over the last 160 years. A technical
advisory group was set up in 1994 to oversee these efforts.
During the same period conservation activities were being developed
through a series of imaginative initiatives. Caulds and other
barriers to fish movement were removed or modified and by 2002
the whole of the Tweed catchment was open to migratory fish for
the first time in 190 years. The importance to young fish of the
many feeder streams was recognised and the degraded nature of
these streams was tackled through bank stabilisation, through
the planting of native broadleaf trees and fencing to prevent
the continual breakdown of banking by grazing animals. The impact
of this continuing work has been dramatic. To take one site as
an example of the many, the Todrig Burn has shown in increase
in salmon fry of 387% and of parr of 2322%. In 1998 a programme
of catch and release was introduced in respect of spring fish
and in that year alone 640 fresh run fish were returned. A major
boost has been the removal through Government financial assistance
of 80% of the coast drift netting. A current major threat is a
proposal by a salmon farming company to set up a smolt rearing
unit on the River Ettrick, which if allowed, could be disastrous
for the Tweed. The watershed is currently a candidate for designation
as a Special Area of Conservation under the EU Habitat Directive
and it is hoped that this fact will prevent fish farming activities.
The programme very properly included a public relations element.
Every effort was made to bring their plans and actions to a wide
range of local people and included meetings for the special interest
groups such a land managers, keepers and anglers. In the wider
community they contacted schools and range of amenity groups.
This very ambitious programme would not have been possible without
the commitment and partnership of many including landowners and
anglers. Many Government agencies have also been involved and
supportive. It will be appreciated that a great deal more could
be said about the activities and detail of this programme. Time
nor indeed purpose of this conference would justify my going into
further detail - however I did want to illustrate the wide range
of commitment essential to taking a more holistic approach to
our conservation responsibilities. It is but an example of the
way in which conservation issues are now being addressed in Scotland.
I would argue that in a perfect world the holistic approach to
our conservation and land management responsibilities would in
the main preclude a need for a single species approach. However
we do not live in a perfect world and many areas are now lacking
in natural diversity and are so degraded that programmes for their
improvement, holistic though they may be, will identify and demand
effort in respect of individual species. The difference should
be that before embarking on a single species programme that the
need should have been recognised within the context of the wider
aims. It is also essential that programmes include a clear plan
for the disengagement of single species activity once targets
have been achieved.
I would imagine that most of you attending this conference have
a deep interest and involvement in country pursuits and that you
are seeking a sensible and responsible approach to sustainability
within your sporting activities. My call to you all is to examine
and fully understand how your aspirations sit within the wider
target of maintaining biodiversity. This may call for compromise,
but such compromise should not be one sided. The chances of getting
the balance right are much more likely to succeed if it is apparent
to those who have a wider conservation responsibility [and] are
aware that those with perhaps a more focused interest also fully
understand the broader aims. I honestly believe that issues, even
contentious ones, debated in a spirit of mutual understanding,
are much more likely to reach a satisfactory outcome than those
entered into with antagonism and ignorance.
The outcome should then be of benefit to the countryside, which
we love, and the biodiversity which we seek and of which we are
of course a part.'
Alex Hogg
Alex Hogg.
Chairman Scottish Gamekeepers Association
delivering his address at the
Scottish Countryside Alliance conference April 2005
(©Kimpton Graphics)
To enlarge Click
Here
Biographical Note
The following information was provided
in the conference press pack.
"Alex is head keeper on the Portmore Estate, Peebles-shire
and has been Chairman of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association
since 2000.
Under his chairmanship the SGA has grown into a formidable force
whose successes include convincing the Scottish Executive that
an amanedment to the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill
was necessary to enable foxes to be driven through forestry and
other habitats to waiting guns to help protect the capercaillie.
Married with three grown-up children Alex is a well-known face
both on television and in the press and of course in both the
Scottish and European Parliaments."
Transcript of Alex Hogg's presentation
The following is a transcript of
Alex Hogg's talk in its entirety provided by the conference organisers
through the office of Dick Playfair of Playfair Walker, Comminications
Consultants (www.playfairwalker.com).
"Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. As the representatives
of Scotland's professional wildlife managers the Scottish Gamekeepers
Assocation (SGA) are very pleased to be speaking here today and
to share with you some of our expertise. I should like to start
by thanking Tony Andrews for inviting us and Roger Wheater for
opening this section of the conference.
You wake up one morning and go downstairs for your cup of tea
and, whoops, a pipe has burst and your kitchen floor is flooded.
You can clean up the floor, but not until the pipe which is still
spewing water all over the floor has been fixed. You don’t
know where to start, so who do you call for help? The community
council, SEPA? No, common sense tells you to call a plumber.
So who do you consult when you want to get wildlife management
right? Common sense tells you surely to consult the people who
manage wildlife and their habitats every day of the year. Scotland’s
gamekeepers have managed their countryside for generations. Their
skill as gamekeepers has been to produce a surplus of game for
an annual harvest. The habitats of moorland, meadow and wetlands
have been created, maintained. They provide the necessary condition
of habitat and husbandry for conservation and tourism that makes
Scotland and her wildlife a top tourist attraction.
Today’s conference is about getting the balance right and
I’m here to discuss enhancing our environment: holistic management
versus single species priorities. Perhaps the best place to start
my response is to quote someone who had a deep respect for wildlife,
who loved their countryside passionately and who summed up the
responsibilities concisely, King George VI.
He said
'the wildlife of today is not ours to dispose of as we please,
we have it in trust, we must account for it for those that come
after.'
I don’t think there is anyone here today who would disagree
with that statement. So let’s start by looking at the benefits
of holistic management.
It is widely recognised that shooting and fishing benefits a
huge range of wildlife as well as protecting rural employment
and fragile rural economies. You only have to look at the varied
bird life feeding on the game crops planted by gamekeepers to
recognise that it is not just pheasant and partridge feeding off
those crops, but many other birds too. These are the same game
crops which conservation bodies are now promoting and making it
sound like they discovered the practice.
Scientific study has shown that it is not just grouse that benefit
from moorland management, but also waders, such as golden plover,
lapwing and curlew. Muirburn removes the rank heather and allows
many other plant species to flourish, thereby supporting a range
of invertebrates that could not exist if it were not for the nurturing
hand of the shooting fraternity. All this and at no cost to the
taxpayer, who is free to come and enjoy the countryside whenever
he or she want to.
For Scotland is famous all over the world for our countryside
and wildlife. Ask a tourist what they picture in their mind when
they think of Scotland. The answer will undoubtedly include heather
and deer. I was speaking to a stalker last night who was telling
me that every October, late September/October, a blind man comes
up to the glen and has his vehicle parked just so that he could
hear the red deer rut. I thought it was quite touching. Proving
that the holistic approach has worked, and that if it were not
for the sporting estates much more of Scotland would be covered
in blankets of spruce.
We have now found ourselves living in a countryside influenced
by those who want to preserve just single species, like the hen
harrier. More and more the needs of the land and of the people
are being ignored by legislators, with ears only for those who
want to protect only predatory species, and who seek to undermine
the traditional ownership of the countryside, and leave it bankrupt
for future generations.
So does their way work? Can you leave nature to do her own thing
and allow predatory species to flourish unabated? Can rural jobs
be sustained, or does the conflict that arises wreak havoc with
the countryside that once was healthy, and sustained wildlife
and jobs too?
Many of the answers to these questions can be found by looking
at the Langholm experiment (1, 2). In 1992 the study
began. Langholm Moor supported five gamekeepers, had an average
bag of 2000 brace of grouse, there were two breeding female hen
harriers on the ground, two pairs of peregrine falcons, and the
grouse, meadow pippets, skylarks etc were plentiful. We all know
the tragedy of Langholm Moor, so I won’t go into the whole
sorry saga again as time is short, but suffice to say that now
there are no gamekeepers on Langholm, no grouse, no hen harriers,
no meadow pippets, no skylarks. The moor is now a desert. On Blackhouse
Moor in the Borders 125 black game have been destroyed by illegally
introduced goshawks. The Scottish Executive has employed, at an
annual cost to the tax payer of £18,000 per annum, an expert
to tell them how to put right the wrongs. How many other £18,000
experts do they employ around Scotland? But we can tell them what
the problem is, we can tell them how to fix these problems and
at no cost to the tax payer. But will they listen? Will they heck.
Let's look at another example of single species management -
capercaillie. Millions of pounds of tax payers' money is being
spent on an attempt to save the capercaillie. Claims have been
made that the capercaillie numbers have almost doubled since the
£5 million EU life project began. Reproduction figures produced
by ??? suggest different. So where is the scientific proof
to back up these claims or are we just expected to accept their
word. We know that pine martens, badgers and goshawks kill capercaillie
and other wildlife, but because these predatory species have special
protection no-one is prepared to acknowledge this. Why are the
government’s advisors ignoring one of the big truths about
this bird’s survival struggle? I suggest that it is a perfect
example of single species manipulation.
The Scottish Executive’s experts claim that deer fencing
is killing the birds, but if that were true we would have seen
capercaillie knee-deep beside fencing in the 60’s when there
were 1000’s of miles of fencing and 1000’s of capercaillie.
One of our committee members has worked on an estate with capercaillie
and deer fences for 30 years and in all that time he has seen
one dead carcass beside the fence. And at our AGM last month the
RSPB’s capercaillie project officer Kenny Kortland admitted
that the highest population of capercaillie in Deeside today is
behind a deer fence. So we believe, unless the capercaillie is
given full protection from predators such as pine marten and goshawk,
all further funding from EU sources should be removed. Not a penny
more of taxpayers’ money should be spent on this bird until
controls of these predatory animals are implemented. And we call
on the Scottish Executive to recognise that their action plan
for saving this bird is akin to a leaking pipe. The removal of
forestry fencing to protect endangered birds is just an excuse
employed to undermine our countryside. Fence removal and the subsequent
need to severely reduce deer numbers creates welfare problems
for Scotland’s national mammal which in some cases is managed
as vermin, not as the valuable resource it should be both in terms
of unique sport, prime venison and tourist attraction. There are
many who desire nothing more than the demise of the sporting estate
and by removing income form deer hope to hasten this process.
This agenda for the reduction in deer numbers will have a serious
impact on employment in remote areas. If the stalker, a really
important point, loses his job because there are no stags for
the sporting clients we also lose the wildlife management from
that area. The stalker is not only stalking deer, he manages the
vermin and a whole load of issues that goes with his ground. What
will now become of the ground nesting birds? We will see the Langholm
disaster repeated all over Scotland.
I remind you again that the wildlife of today is not ours to
dispose of as we please. We have it in trust and we must account
for it for those who come after. The current single species politics
are the politics of the foolish, not only will the rural economy
suffer, but so too will the social fabric.'
Comment
Alex Hogg's address was very warmly received by
the delegates. It had the ring of truth, of pragmatism and of an
argument that was convincing. Not only that, but he was a Scot talking
about Scotland and its enviornment from first hand experience. The
Scottish gamekeeper is an integral part of the image that tourists
the world over have of Scotland. And we had a fine example here.
Not only that but he was very articulate. Indeed the standard of
his presentation should be a model for many an academic.
Contrast that with the somewhat precious academic
erudtion of the distinguished ecologist/zoologist Roger Wheater
References
1. Mitchell, Brian (2003). The reply to Langholm
http://www.scottishgamekeepers.co.uk/langholm.htm
2. Editorial (2003). RSPB falls foul of the Scottish
GamekeepersAssociation (SGA). SGA case study: Langholm Moor.
See ENVIRONEMNT Homepage, filed 25 Mar 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
|
