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...”

Verdant Vale

Here are some sites which demonstrate well the value of the greenery around Bristol. Please take a look - and support campaigns to protect green spaces from inappropriate development. http://www.saveashtonvale.co.uk/

http://www.ashtonvalewildlife.co.uk/

http://www.ashtonvaleheritage.co.uk/

http://sacredspring.wordpress.com/

Forestry and fuel

Biomass does, up to a point, have potential to supply us with some of our heat energy and electrical power. This could be direct, in our homes, via good quality wood burners using sustainably produced logs. It could also be through biomass power stations, preferably combined heat and power ones. Not all biomass fuels or power stations are environmentally friendly though - it depends how you define and obtain the biomass. I was interested therefore to see this story Go-ahead given for new biomass power station where Govt has permitted a biomass power station at Royal Portbury Dock.

'The DECC said the plant would be fuelled mainly by imported virgin wood, dedicated energy crops and locally-sourced waste wood.'

Why cant we expand out forestry industry and fuel this power station fully ourselves instead of importing virgin wood? Wouldn't that be combining good, job-creating local economic development with fuel security and more environmentally friendly practice?? An expanded forestry industry would also have the benefits of soaking up pollution as the trees grow and providing wildlife habitats and opportunities for recreation. Get a proper energy and economic strategy - join the dots!!

NIMBY?

People far too often resort to unjustified labelling in debate. Accusations of being a NIMBY (not in my back yard) are common in discussions for and against development for instance. Using the term implies that those accused hold narrow, selfish, short-sighted views in opposing change. I've found that people labelled in this way usually dont hold such views and often have a developed case with a range of reasons so, whatever the rights and wrongs of the instance, the label is unfairly applied.

Here's one example, involving  plans to redevelop a Network Rail site by building nine three story homes at Bellevue Terrace, Totterdown, Bristol. Just down the road from me. One commenter on the story thinks objecting to this development is '...the purest example of NIMBYism I've seen in weeks..' even though one resident, backed by her local councillor, describes how the space is green and good for wildlife. Suzanne Ferris said: "The former allotment site was a verdant space bright with nature in a heavily built-up area. The urbanisation of this wildlife pocket will remove forever part of the green corridor from the railway line to Arnos Vale Cemetery.”

You can have a look for yourself at the place here (and in the photos above). Its hardly the Amazon (!) but if we are serious about issues such as: the value of green spaces to our relaxation and health; obtaining and maintaining healthy populations of wildlife eg garden birds like sparrows and starlings; the value of green spaces as a temporary 'store and release' mechanism for water when it rains heavily; green spaces as carbon absorbing...then at some point we surely have to stop concreting over every bit of local, small-scale greenery?      

Opposing development that would change a space from pollution absorbing and biodiversity providing to pollution producing and biodiversity cutting is perfectly reasonable. Its not NIMBYism because all that would say is 'not here' in a narrow, selfish and short-sighted way and people in this area clearly have more reasons than that! If you are going to use the tactic of labelling people you need to give justification for doing so.

Fight for forests

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

Lessons learned?

Sadly few lessons seem to have been learned by Bristol City Council on flogging off green spaces as this Post report* demonstrates. We are not living in a city where people are genuinely listened to - and certain councillors dont know that they know almost nothing!!

* CRITICISM of the green spaces sell off plan has continued, despite Bristol City Council finally agreeing local people should have the final say.

There are 51 sites that are still under threat of sale, as part of the council's parks strategy.

The authority had hoped to sell the land to developers to raise money to improve other parks across the city, but there was a major public backlash from people who felt it was like "selling off the family silver".

After the Liberal Democrats lost their majority in last year's elections, they were forced to compromise and at Thursday night's cabinet meeting they finally approved giving the final say to Bristol's Neighbourhood Committees.

A timetable will now be drawn up for when these decisions will be made. Ward councillors for each area will have the final say, after they are discussed at local committee meetings.

But there are still concerns about the process, nearly two years after it began.

Avon Wildlife Trust has long called for green spaces with significant wildlife to be removed the process, but members are concerned they are still on the list of potential disposals.

Director of Community Programmes Steve Micklewright, pictured, said: "These include two Sites for Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) and 10 Wildlife Network Sites (WNS).

"This is one quarter of the sites proposed for disposal. This indicates that the council is still not taking ecological factors into full account during the process as advised by their own scrutiny committee...

See: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Concerns-raised-future-wildlife-sites/story-15096090-detail/story.html

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:


  

Plastic pollution

Here's a good report about a serious but still low profile pollution problem. Film producer Jo Ruxton tells us about plastic pollution and her documentary 'Away' about it. http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/man-monster-threatening-oceans/story-14123137-detail/story.html

..."People kept mentioning this gyre – a sort of enormous vortex of oceans currents – in the middle of the Pacific, that was drawing together an enormous mass of waste plastic," she says.

"It was all washing off the beaches and being flushed through the drains of the Pacific rim countries – mostly the United States – and was being swept up by this natural gyre, until it was all massing in the middle of the ocean – like a sort of enormous floating island of plastic, miles across and many metres deep.
"I later discovered that it wasn't just happening in the Pacific. There were similar gyres of plastic pollution in all the oceans of the world – the one in the North Atlantic that we contribute towards here is every bit as sinister as the Pacific gyre.

"I was so intrigued that I arranged to go out and see it. In my naivety, I had imagined millions of plastic bottles, but it was more insidious than that.
"A lot of it is small pieces of plastic – tiny pieces, small enough to be swallowed by fish and whales – the big plankton eaters are particularly prone to swallowing it up.

"At first glance the water looks immaculate, but dive below the surface and you are surrounded by these millions of pieces of plastic, which have generally at some point either blown off landfill sites, or been washed down streets into sewers and eventually out to sea.

"It takes 20 years for the plastic to reach the centre of the gyre, so we're not even seeing our recent pollution there yet. When you realise that in the last 20 years we have produced and discarded more plastic waste than in the entire century before that, you'll start to realise just how enormous a problem this is turning out to be.

"We have to start asking why we produce so many non-reusable items out of a material that is non-degradable. We have to start acting on this right now."...

..."The real problem is that these plastics don't degrade, so they're not going anywhere. They're just building up and up. And the problem is not just that they can kill creatures by blocking their digestive system. These tiny pieces of plastic are also carrying numerous toxins, that can easily get into the food chain.

"For example, one of the fish that is consuming this plastic is the little lantern fish, which is in turn the prey of the tuna, which of course we eat. So these toxins very quickly return to us, and research is showing they could potentially be leading to everything from certain kinds of cancers to certain kinds of arthritis – both of which I've had....

...Jo has named the film simply Away."It's where people's rubbish goes," she explains.

"You ask anybody where their waste goes, and they say they just throw it away. There is no magical 'away' – people have to realise that it all ends up somewhere. Often that 'away' is in the middle of our oceans."

For more details about the project, visit the website at http://www.plasticoceans.net/ .

New economic model needed

This letter in the Post (copied below) from nine environment and wildlife organisations is pretty much spot on:

THE environmental movement has spoken out repeatedly against policies that put short-term profit ahead of our countryside and wildlife, eroding our natural capital and quality of life.

But rarely have we been as incredulous as we were last week on hearing the Coalition's autumn budget statement. The stunning disregard shown for the value of our natural environment not only flies in the face of popular opinion but goes against everything the Government said in June when it launched two major pieces of environmental policy – the Natural Environment White Paper and the England Biodiversity Strategy.

It is increasingly clear that society needs a new economic model [perhaps something like the one I've sketched out - see image] that accounts properly for our natural capital. Yet with this statement, its "red tape challenge", sudden cuts to solar subsidies, and its ill-conceived planning reforms, the Government is continuing an out-of-date approach that casts regulation and the environment as enemies of growth.

In a region like the South West, one that trades beyond all on the quality of its environment, this is madness.

Is the environment really an obstacle to economic productivity or is it in fact the very basis of it, as well as of our national well-being? Not a hard question to answer and there is an increasingly powerful body of evidence that demonstrates this, including the Government's own National Ecosystem Assessment.

How can the Prime Minister tolerate this gaping intellectual and political inconsistency, and walk with open eyes down a policy path that condemns future generations to a lower quality of life and to a massive and costly struggle to rebuild the country's natural riches?

We appeal to you Mr Cameron to show leadership and champion long-term, sustainable economic policies that will bring much-needed prosperity without destroying all that millions hold dear.

Harry Barton, Chief Executive, Devon Wildlife Trust;
Mike Birkin, Regional Campaigner, Friends of the Earth;
Simon Cripps, Chief Executive, Dorset Wildlife Trust;
Trevor Edwards, Chief Executive, Cornwall Wildlife Trust;
Steve Grainger, Chief Executive, Avon Wildlife Trust;
Gary Mantle, Director, Wiltshire Wildlife Trust;
Dr Gordon McGlone, Chief Executive, Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust;
Simon Nash, Chief Executive, Somerset Wildlife Trust;
Tony Richardson, South West Regional Director, RSPB

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/

BBC - BBC One Programmes - Human Planet

Human Planet is an awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping, heart-stopping landmark series that marvels at mankind's incredible relationship with nature in the world today.
Uniquely in the animal kingdom, humans have managed to adapt and thrive in every environment on Earth. Each episode takes you to the extremes of our planet: the arctic, mountains, oceans, jungles, grasslands, deserts, rivers and even the urban jungle. Here you will meet people who survive by building complex, exciting and often mutually beneficial relationships with their animal neighbours and the hostile elements of the natural world...

BBC - BBC One Programmes - Human Planet

BBC News - US oil spill: 'Bad management' led to BP disaster

Shouldn't have been drilling in this deep water location to begin with but both BP and the US Govt were happy with this. Should use joined up, systems thinking to run their business. Oil as a finite, non-renewable, polluting but very useful and valuable resource should only be used minimally and highly efficiently - all legislation, regulation, control and international agreement should be geared to achieving this.

BBC News - US oil spill: 'Bad management' led to BP disaster

Illogical and incoherent Cllr Rogers...

Cllr Dr Jon Rogers [pictured] says, ‘We are determined to see the quality, quantity and accessibility of our parks and open spaces improve all across the city in the next 20 years’ (‘Land sell-off is right’, Post, Letters Dec 27). But hang on this man has, along with all Lib Dem and other councillors except the Greens, said it’s the right thing to do to plan to sell many acres of Bristol’s parks and green spaces over the next 20 years! That’s a decrease not the ‘quantity...improved’ that he claims he wants to see. As for improving accessibility to green spaces, well it’s self-evident that you make it more difficult to achieve this if you plan to sell some of them off and allow building over them. It’s worrying in the extreme to see such a lack of logic and coherence from Cllr Rogers. It was always illogical, inconsistent and incoherent to plan to sell-off chunks of our parks and green spaces whilst saying you are committed to health, wildlife, climate change and economic policies that require protecting and increasing green spaces.

Cllr Rogers contact details on the Bristol City Council website are:
email - jon.rogers@bristol.gov.uk , or telephone (0117) 914 2558, if you want to get in touch to set him straight.

Ground vs Green

Just chipped in to the 'Ground vs Green' debate going on on the Evening Post website, particularly in response to someone calling themselves 'another cynic' because they did not regard opposing building a stadium in the green belt as rational. Here's my contribution to a debate that is, as usual, of the very highest quality (!!):

'I think most rational people would be pro stadium. The only thing to be cynical about is the use of the TVG laws by a minority of people to undermine the workings of the democratic planning process.' said another cynic.

What's rational about:

- designating land as green belt and then not protecting it?

-the council/govt saying we need to fight climate change and then turning land from a net absorber to a net emitter of carbon?

-expressing concern about the need to be ready to deal with flooding caused by the sudden heavy rains we now get and then removing land that naturally absorbs and steadily releases flood water?

-saying wildlife needs to be protected but then concreting over habitats?

-having government agencies like Natural England working to show how necessary to our physical, mental and social health green spaces are and how we all need to live close to a green space and then removing said spaces?

-saying what a good idea local food production is, especially in view of things like peak oil, and then reducing the land area available to grow food locally?

-MPs strengthening the law on town and village green establishment in both 2000 and 2006 then going on to campaign against the use of the laws they established??

By the way another cynic, the current planning process is a statutory ie legal process primarily and not a democratic one. Though it has a democratic element to it through the involvement of elected Councillors and Secretary of State, they are supposed to be guided by rules and regulations not a party line...hopefully to establish a rational outcome. The Ground vs Green debate will not be finally resolved by petition or voting but by the law that is an essential feature of a modern democratic system - and in this instance it may well prevent a wider majority view prevailing over a very local majority view.

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....

Save Valley Walk, Pigeonhouse Stream, Hartcliffe: petition

When I was a baby my parents lived in Faber Grove, Hartcliffe before moving to Knowle - my grandparents lived in Hartcliffe for many decades. I've been helping campaigners in this area get a petition together to submit to the council's ruling Cabinet. Please sign this petition and help save one of the 60 or so green spaces across Bristol that the council plan to sell off. Pass petition details on if you can: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/valleywalk/

We the undersigned are strongly opposed to the proposals in the Area Green Space Plan and Site Allocations documents to sell off land in Pigeonhouse Stream (Valley Walk, from Blackthorn Close and along Wroughton Drive in Hartcliffe) at BSA 1311, BSA 1313, and petition Bristol City Council to abandon these plans. They are not ‘low value’ areas but an accessible public open space of great value to wildlife and the local community and have been well used for decades. We would like to see these places improved for wildlife and for children’s play.

There is a value to this green space and other green spaces well beyond cash - leisure, recreation, entertainment, health benefits, storm water drainage and thus flood protection, taking carbon dioxide from the air thus helping to fight climate change, provision of wildlife habitat and food supply, which aids biodiversity. Green spaces are vital to the quality of our lives, offering relief from the all too common congestion and other negative effects of development and helping us to connect with and appreciate the natural world – vital to wellbeing and to encouraging respect for nature. In addition to the specific areas described above we are generally concerned about all local green, open spaces.

We do not feel that we were /have been properly consulted regarding this process and urge the council to be much more proactive about fully informing and involving people, giving much more weight to local views.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Protesters-vocal-plans-sell-green-land/article-2617930-detail/article.html

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/content/Environment-Planning/Parks-and-open-spaces/information-and-advice/area-green-space-plans/area-green-space-plans---ideas-and-options-consultation.en

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/content/Environment-Planning/Parks-and-open-spaces/information-and-advice/bristol-parks-and-green-space-strategy.en

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