'Successful' shooting??

Joined in a debate on the cruelty, or not, of culling badgers  by shooting and whether supermarkets should label milk from farms involved in culling  here:

BCFCfinker - @Melindola
Quote from RSPCA link provided below http://tinyurl.com/8wwklgk from pdant:

"In order to free-shoot a badger in a quick, humane way, there are two 'lethal' points which would need to be successfully hit."

Seems pretty clear to me. The RSPCA appear to acknowledge that shooting can be humane (or if you want to split hairs, not cruel).
_____________________________________________

Surely the crucial part of this RSPCA quote is the phrase 'successfully hit' ? Even with people shooting well they are highly unlikely to be 100% 'successful'. Where they are not 'successful' then the chance of inccurately shot badgers being in pain and suffering increases. This means that shooting cannot be free of cruelty.

The RSPCA briefing says there are 'severe welfare concerns'. It refers to 'untested culling methods' (shooting) and the 'untested delivery method' (farmers). It describes the: 'high risk' of wounding; the 'small margin of error' and the anatomical and behavioural features of badgers that make cruelty free shooting highly unlikely.

What would be wrong by having a system where customers can know fully what they are buying by labelling milk as from a farm involving badger culling or not involving badger culling?

Super seagulls?

Seagulls are not the biggest threat to Bristol's heritage, though this Post report says they are. Just compare the scale of total seagull impacts with total human impacts for instance! There are problems caused by droppings, noise and so on but the Post headline and story are an exaggeration. The Post could have made a much better attempt to produce and publish a piece which explores all sides of the issue - after all if we are to solve gull related problems its going to be on the basis of everyone being better informed. This BBC report gives a good explanation of why there are so many seagulls in cities and sets the context for cities and birds pretty well - http://tinyurl.com/ctxm9tk .

Those who may be tempted to advocate shooting gulls need to know that all species of gull are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.

According to the RSPB, 'This makes it illegal to intentionally or, in Scotland, recklessly injure or kill any gull or damage or destroy an active nest or its contents. In Scotland, it is also illegal to prevent birds from accessing their nest, and in Northern Ireland, it is illegal to disturb any nesting bird. In addition, the Mediterranean gull is protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, making it illegal to intentionally or recklessly disturb the birds at or close to their nest in Britain or to disturb their dependent young.

However, the law recognises that in certain circumstances control measures may be necessary. Simple nuisance or minor damage to property are not legally sanctioned reasons to kill gulls. The UK administrations can issue licences, permitting nests to be destroyed or even birds to be killed if there is no non-lethal solution, and if it is done to prevent serious damage to agriculture, the spread of disease, to preserve public health and safety and air safety, or to conserve other wild birds...'

Culling controversy

I've chipped in to the online debate on badger culling proposals (see here and here or view the many Post stories that have recently appeared listed here) and copy my contributions in this post: Interesting exchange between vets on bovine TB here http://tinyurl.com/8tozsgu It includes this statement from vet Andrew Wilson: "...16 member states of the European Union are recognised as officially free of bovine TB, along with Scotland and a number of regions of Italy. As far as I can find out, not one of these countries or regions had to control TB in wildlife in order to obtain its officially free status...."

Killing badgers is both wrong and unlikely to to be effective in fighting TB.Vaccination is a realistic alternative to culling according to this site http://tinyurl.com/c8a2sbz . Follow up on the many references given there if you want to know more. It says this for instance, " An injectable badger vaccine was scheduled to be trialled in England throughout 2010, but the coalition scaled back plans in June of that year. Out of the six planned trials only one survived in Stroud, Gloucestershire, where badgers are being trapped and injected with the BCG vaccine over a period of five years (76).

This reduction in funding to alternatives is especially short-sighted as, in November 2010, Defra research showed the outcome of some trials that showed that vaccinating wild badgers over four years resulted in a 74 per cent reduction in the proportion testing positive to the antibody blood test for bTB (72). As natural prevalence of bTB is just 15 per cent then widespread vaccination could be of significant benefit. Especially as there is an annual turnover of badgers of around 30 per cent (badgers have a life span of 3-5 years). Theoretically, the number of infected badgers would decrease each year and new infections would be rare (101).

Additionally, laboratory studies with captive badgers demonstrated that the vaccination of badgers by injection with BCG significantly reduced the progression, severity and excretion of Mycobacterium bovis infection. This seems to strongly support the claim that vaccination alone could reduce bTB infection in badgers by a significant amount (in the same time period of 4-5 years that has been suggested for 'culling'). It would not lead to perturbation and would also be cheaper than the Government's current plans (see The Cost).

As it stands, despite the findings, this Defra study concludes that vaccination should take place alongside badger 'culling', which appears to go starkly against the results of these trials which show that non-lethal approaches will be enough to protect badgers from the disease...”

Rubbish reporting

What are the journalists at the Evening Post on? There are no details at all to tell readers of this story why the animal rights people were protesting at Bristol Airport. Nothing on which animal rights group(s), of which there are several, including some very different outlooks and methods. Whatever the rights and wrongs of 'animal rights' and the tactics that have been used I'd like to know why exactly the protest occurred.

To make matters confusing the Post additionally reports - under the same headline - what seems to be an entirely unconnected protest in any entirely different place that had absolutely nothing to do with animal rights! The Youth Fight for Jobs story should have been given its own headline if they felt it was worthy of reporting.

Fight for forests

Forests: reasons to protect and conserve... beauty, morality, natural cycles, learning, health, wellbeing, needs, biodiverity, humanity.

Eco-ethics

Why conserve? Reasons to sustainably manage, protect resources, eco-services, biodiversity and wild places. Copy of a screencast I made recently.

Sound science?

On badgers the Government and the National Farmers Union state that the scientific evidence backs culling. The Humane Society, The Wildlife Trusts and the Mammal Society amongst others dont think the evidence is there to support a cull. The contrast in views of the scientific evidence is pretty stark eg Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman saying 'We can't escape the fact that the evidence supports the case..' whilst Mark Jones, of Humane Society International UK refers to 'compelling scientific evidence that it will be ineffective...'. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16183926. If there are likely to be 'no end of difficulties', as PM David Cameron said on Countryfile last weekend, is the policy of culling trials a good one?

Why the differences in assessing the science? When can we and do we trust science and scientists? Here's my screencast on some questions to ask on this topic:


  

Environment is...

Some thoughts on what is meant by the term 'environment':

Happy 175th birthday Bristol Zoo!!

With media coverage of the 175th anniversary of Bristol Zoo (see here and here) I'm reminded of the debate within the green movement on zoos. I've said in past public debates* that I dont agree with those greens who have called for the closure of all zoos (*see images from letters written in 2004, click to enlarge). I certainly have reservations about zoos but dont want to see the good work that the best of them are doing thrown away.

If designed properly zoos can entertain by encouraging people to wonder about and marvel at the natural world. Bristol Zoo was a big part of my childhood, my upbringing and my environmental education and in turn that of my daughter and I'm very grateful for it - especially with the huge improvements they have made in conditions for the animals over the years.

As a teacher I've taken several school groups to Bristol Zoo and they have gained real insights as a result eg into zoology and into the huge illegal trade in wildlife. I agree on the whole with what naturalist Terry Nutkins, formerly a presenter on the BBCs The Really Wild Show, has said in the Evening Post,

"I know you get a lot of romantics who say we shouldn't have zoos – that all animals should be allowed to roam free. But, although I know these people are well-meaning, they're talking absolute nonsense.

"The role of zoos these days is all about conservation, and none more so than Bristol Zoo. Places like Bristol Zoo are the modern day Noah's Arks. If these places didn't exist, hundreds, if not thousands of species of animals would be wiped out.

"Some of these creatures simply aren't capable of surviving alone in the wild at the moment, but by keeping them in zoos and working on special breeding programmes, we can nurture them until the time when we've sorted out their natural habitats or got their numbers up sufficiently for populations to thrive once again."

In the past zoos helped to create and reinforce the wrong attitudes towards the natural world - one of a lack of respect and understanding. The natural world was plundered to find exhibits, animals kept in entirely unacceptable and inappropriate conditions and used to entertain in unacceptable ways. Zoos of this type still in existence in any place around the world should change drastically or be closed.

Habitats have changed or are destroyed as, simultaneously, the best zoos conduct campaigns, research and captive breeding programs. Habitat destruction cuts the chance of successful reintroduction to the wild. The best zoos are increasingly working to protect habitats and to attempt to re-establish habitats that have been removed by human activity. We need to see much more work like this - it is pretty pointless to captive breed just for breedings sake.

The best zoos are very good at informing and educating the public and involving them in the issues. I have no problems with zoos as places of entertainment as long as the methods are acceptable and it is remembered why people are being entertained ie to promote respect and care for the natural world.

http://www.bristolzoo.org.uk/happy-birthday-to-zoo-110711

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/classic/animalmagic/

http://www.bristolzoo.org.uk/

Ocean dumping that fights climate change

Really interesting article in the latest Green World magazine called Save the whale, Save Ourselves? by Dr Luke Rendell from the University of St Andrews. It turns out that saving whales would not only protect magnificent species themselves - it would also help protect the human from climate change. Nice example of joined up, systems, thinking. Oceans absorb an awful lot of climate changing carbon emissions. However, the amount absorbed depends in part on the amount of iron present in sea water. Experiments where iron has been dumped into the ocean have shown increased, temporary plant growth and thus increased carbon uptake - but such artificial dumping could itself be highly damaging and unsustainable. If only there was a good source of iron, naturally available in-situ - there is and its called whale poo! Whales eat eg krill, or squid...concentrate and naturally make available iron to plants in the sea in their poo (eg Humpback Whale poo pictured). So, protect whales, whale numbers increase, whale poo increases, ocean plant growth is improved, more carbon is taken up and this helps fight climate change, which helps us through...natural carbon capture and storage. We should protect whales whatever mind you.

http://www.greenworld.org.uk/

Supermarkets relentless growth

Excellent letter in todays Post from Gil Osman, copied below.

ACCORDING to recent BBC research, the big four supermarkets (Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda and Morrisons) are expanding at an alarming rate.

In the last two years, planning authorities have granted permission for at least 480 new supermarket stores in England. It is argued that this will give more choice to local shoppers – but will it? Unfortunately, many councils are persuaded to give planning permission, because of the financial benefit to themselves. Often an agreement is made, whereby the store has to build a community resource, or provide funds for such a venture, in order to gain planning permission to build a store. Thus the council does not have to pay for such facilities. In this age of recession councils will be even more tempted.

Supermarkets can attract many shoppers with the lure of lower prices (and even more so in a recession). Local traders cannot compete with such huge organisations, which buy in vast bulk at cheap prices. Therefore it leads to forced closure, which, in turn, leads to less choice and variety in an area. The independent High Street shop has been a feature of villages, towns and cities for generations and helps to form the character of an area. Napoleon called us a nation of shopkeepers, in a derogatory way, but, surely, the small trader is a tribute to British enterprise and individuality.

The closure of any small shop leaves our High Streets depleted and, eventually, leads to a loss of identity. 12,000 independent shops went out of business last year.

In their search for ever more cheaper products, the Big Four seem to have scant regard for many concerns.

The farmer who cannot afford to accept the wholesale price offered by the supermarket goes out of business. Question marks hang over the sources of some of the clothing offered so cheaply by the Big Four

And what of quality? Cheapness and quantity triumph here. Mass-produced food, using vast quantities of chemical fertilisers and pesticides is often tasteless when compared to organic produce, or that produced by the local allotment-holder. The effects of imbibing the residues of these chemicals have yet to be seen. And standardisation has reduced variety (take apples and potatoes, for example).

And what of animal welfare? The generality of people have demonstrated their abhorrence of intensive farming methods with their boycott of the battery-produced egg (at least Sainsbury's has banned these).

Yet, I do not doubt that the Big Four will buy milk from the huge factory dairy being proposed in Leicestershire – if it gets planning permission. Like battery chickens, these cows will spend their whole lives inside huge sheds, never placing their feet on a green field. The entrepreneur behind this enterprise has the effrontery to state on television that cows don't belong in fields anymore! It's like a Victorian factory-owner stating: 'Workers (i.e. men, women and children) don't belong in villages anymore!' And, of course, the small dairy farmer will not be able to compete and will go out of business.

Tesco made £3.4 billion profit last year. It cannot possibly make such a profit on its cheaper ranges, which suggests its customers are paying over the odds on other items. But, once in a supermarket, most people will buy everything there. After all, it's so convenient!!!

Gil Osman
Shirehampton
Bristol

BBC News - Biodiversity - a kind of washing powder?

Excellent articles by Jonathon Porritt, Kate Rawles, Prof Jonathan Baillie and Chris Knight here

BBC News - Biodiversity - a kind of washing powder?

Despite awareness of biodiversity increasing, some people still think it is a washing powder.

When 2010 was named as the "year of biodiversity" by the UN, it began with a plea to save the world's ecosystems.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said: "Biological diversity underpins ecosystem functioning... its continued loss, therefore, has major implications for current and future human well-being."...

Ashton Vale Wildlife

This web site is dedicated to Birds and Wildlife in a small area of south Bristol called Ashton Vale, which includes the site of the proposed new Bristol City FC stadium development.The site runs parallel with the A370 in the North,and the A38 in the South. The Boundary in the West is Yanley lane which runs from Long Ashton through to the A38.Down the middle runs the Bristol to Plymouth railway line. On the A38 side the fields are on quite a gradient leading up to Bedminster down.There is a large landfill site owned by Veridor and this is next to Hanging Hill wood.Colliters brook runs through both sites and holds a host of wild life.On the A370 side the fields are flat and used for agriculture,when the harvest is collected lots of birds feed on the spilled grain.Walking in a westerly direction from the Long Ashton park and ride you will come up on a small copse known by the locals as the Plantation.Also part of the area is the Long Ashton cricket pitch which is situated near to Yanley lane.The fields near to the cricket pitch some times hold a few Roe deer although poaching has hit them really hard in the last few years.There are four small ponds around the edges of the landfill site, and most hold a number of dragonflies and damselflies.In the spring many migrant birds stop off at the site, in recent years Redstart, Nightingales, have been recorded. Buzzards,Tawny owls, and Little owls are all resident and during the summer many Warblers nest, Green and Great spotted woodpeckers breed and the song of the Skylark can be heard above the landfill site where it has bred.

More from: www.ashtonvalewildlife.com/

BBC News - UN asks for action on nature loss, citing poverty

BBC News - UN asks for action on nature loss, citing poverty

"Biological diversity underpins ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services essential for human well-being," says UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a document setting out the reasons why he called for the day's discussions.
"Its continued loss, therefore, has major implications for current and future human well-being... The maintenance and restoration of natural infrastructure can provide economic gains worth trillions of dollars a year."
The argument is that nature provides "ecosystem services" that humanity uses - such as pollination of agricultural crops by insects. If this is lost, the food supply falls....

Farmers could be allowed to kill badgers from 2011 - News - The Ecologist

Farmers could be allowed to kill badgers from 2011 - News - The Ecologist

It strikes me that this Government is doing well in continuing the trend of successive Governments in not following the best available scientific advice and taking action of the type, scale and speed that the evidence suggests. Just off the top of my head in addition to the badger culling issue there is also: drugs and their classification; climate change; over-fishing...The grasp of science, scientific issues and their interrelationship with socio-economic and environmental factors in Parliament, in political circles generally and in the media is, with few exceptions, pretty poor.

More here, with useful links to some of the scientific debate on badger culling
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11303939

Friends of the Earth - Join the MOOvement

Friends of the Earth - Join the MOOvement

Put your hoof down for rainforest-free meat and dairy
This autumn, MPs will be voting on a new law to break the hidden link between animal feed in factory farms and wildlife and rainforest destruction in South America.
Please join our MOOvement today - together we can make sure they support UK farmers to feed their animals a diet that doesn't cost the planet.

Bristol biofuel station: appeal for letters/emails to government and planning inspectorate

Guest blog post from Zenith Milner: In Bristol,last year, a biofuels power station was planned and many of us have been working to campaign on it. We have worked hard and got petitions ,press, BBC... have lobbied councillors,and MPs and had demos and more.

Now the application has gone to a public inquiry. The decision now is going to be in the hands of Eric Pickles,secretary of state for communities and local government [email address bottom of this blog entry]. Maybe you have been involved, maybe not.

But even at this stage there is something you can do which could make a difference.

The biofuels company,W4B said in the public inquiry that there was very little opposition.So,please,dont let them get away with it. Please write in and say you dont want the power station in Bristol or anywhere else.

Issues include:

Lack of consultation with the public at every stage of the application for planning permission

Biofuels are not the green alternative they were first thought to be,they are the opposite.

Palm oil is often used and it causes widespread rainforest destruction -a holocaust where orang utans are shot their,babies are orphaned and injured; animals are burnt alive in their thousands as forest is cleaered by burning.Orangutans and,sumatran tigers face extinction as do many more species.

The Indigenous forest peoples are violently displaced from their land with homes and livelihoods ripped away from them.

Farmers are deceived into growing plants for biofuels and left with now way to feed themselves.

Shockingly,biofuels plunge millions more into hunger-an extra ten million in 2008.
No wonder Zeigler in the UN called them a " crime against humanity. "

Insanely the goverment massively subsidizes these power staions in a faulty opinion that they lower climate gas emmisssions, but the opposite is true.In fact along the whole life span of the biofuels, there are more emmissions than even fossil fuels.

The power stations would cause pollution in the locations in Britain they are planned for causing respiratory and heart disease ezcema and even infant mortality.THey are often planned for relatively deprived areas where people cant fight back so easily.

Truly green alternatives do exist;solar, wind,wave and tidal. Good insulation schemes would provide jobs as well as reducing consumption and carbon footprint.

For all these reasons and more,

Please write even a paragraph of an email [or letter, to the email/postal addresses below] to show that you do care, and prove the biofuels company wrong. And please encourage your friends etc to write too.

Many thanks
Zenith Milner

Ps I am intending to got to the Animals Rights Summer Gathering this weekend and give a workshop.about this issue. Do come along to find out more. Hope to see you there.

*Emails to leanne.palmer@pins.gsi.gov.uk

*Letters to:
The Planning Inspectorate
Room 4/02
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Bristol
BSI 6PN

*Appeal no. APP/Z0116/A/10/2126342/NWF

*Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
　　
chris@chrishuhne.org.uk

*Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Govt

eric.pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk

Bristol City Council parks and green spaces sell-off

Its International Year of Biodiversity this year and what does our so-called green city want to do? Flog off some of our parks and green spaces! Given the very strong reaction from the public to this council plan from all over the city it would be undemocratic to continue with it – in fact they should be planning to increase green spaces wherever it is possible to do so as there is a value to them well beyond cash.

There are leisure, tourism, recreational, entertainment, sporting and health benefits in open, green spaces. Green spaces also help attract and keep businesses and help them to attract and retain the staff they need. There are key ecological and environmental function benefits eg storm water drainage and thus flood protection, as the land soaks up, temporarily stores and then gradually releases rain; taking carbon dioxide from the air, helping to fight climate change; provision of wildlife habitat and food supply, which aids biodiversity.

In an urban area open, green spaces are vital to the quality of our lives, offering relief from the all too common congestion and other negative effects of development. They are a way of connecting with and appreciating the natural world – vital to wellbeing and to encouraging respect for nature. We sorely need this respect in order to build the green attitudes needed to fight extremely serious environmental (and thus security) threats. We would do well to remember that even the scrubbiest, scruffiest bit of land (called poor quality, low productivity, marginal or ‘surplus’ by Bristol City Council) will absorb, store and gradually release rain, absorb carbon and other pollutants, grow wildflowers, provide a perch and perhaps some food for birds, and provide people with a feeling of space.

The Bristol Evening Post is absolutely right to speak out against these plans (‘Council must see bigger picture’, Post June 29) stating that green spaces are ‘not simply there for this generation’ and that we are merely ‘custodians of these open spaces’. I am working with the newly elected Green Councillor for Southville Tess Green following through on the 338 signature e-petition I submitted to the council when the Parks and Green Spaces policy was much discussed back in 2008. They failed to listen then but I hope they will now change their minds in response both to very strong public feeling and to the very clear multiple environmental, economic and social benefits.

Bioblitz Bristol

Passing this on: Discovering Places Mini BioBlitz, Brandon Hill, 24th July 2010

The Mini BioBlitz is a 3 hour wildlife survey of Brandon Hill running from 12-3pm on Saturday 24th July (see attached poster). We are inviting you and your community groups, family and friends to come and join in and see what different species you can find in the park. Scientists and naturalists from across the region will be on hand to help you identify what you find, tell you more about the region’s species, and give you ‘top tips’ for enjoying wildlife in Bristol.

We are hoping that with your help we can find over 100 different species in just 3 hours. This event is free, fun, educational and exploratory and for more information email Charlotte@bnhc.org.uk or visit www.bioblitzuk.org.uk
______________________________
Penny Starr
Director, Festival of Nature

Government 'action' on biodiversity?

A sixth mass extinction of species is underway according to those scientists who study this field. Even Bjorn Lomborg said in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist that the current/recent extinction rate is high (his figure = 0.014 % of species per year, compared to the background/natural extinction rate of 0.0001% per year ie even a 'sceptic' says it is 140 times greater). Large numbers of scientists put the extinction rate at ten or even a hundred times Lomborg's figure, which is why they talk of a sixth mass extinction: being underway; being very rapid compared to previous mass extinctions (see image, click to enlarge); being caused largely by human activities, especially since industrialisation.

Given this, how are our government reacting? What are they doing/planning to do? Not that much - certainly not enough! You can scour over this speech by the new Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman but you wont find much about action on biodiversity apart from acknowledging interdependence and generalities on wanting to make things better (the emphasis is in fact distinctly on other matters, like money). Lets hope that this is just down to it being early days for the new government. Spelman's department, defra, said this very recently about UK biodiversity assessments /measurements,

Of the 34 component measures within the indicators, over the long-term 10 have shown deterioration, 9 have shown improvement, 2 have shown little or no overall change, 12 had insufficient data for an assessment, and 1 is provided for contextual information and is therefore not assessed.

Not good. Note that by over the long term they appear to mean from the 1970s on! Figures comparing current biodiversity with pre-Second World War, pre- First World War or even pre-industrial levels would be very interesting, though the further back in time we go the harder it is to get reliable data. I'm not that impressed by the current way we gather, treat and use data either.

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/biyp/

http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/files/2010/05/1905biodiversity.pdf