Following yesterday's posting there have been some serious discussions.
One quite controversial but valid point was that perhaps there are too many smaller conservation organisations and to lose one or two might be no bad thing. Too many small groups can dilute the message and work done, not to mention spreading the funding thinly, each group requiring their own offices, admin, marketing etc.
Opposing that was the argument that small groups are highly focused are can throw the spotlight onto their cause bringing an overlooked area to the fore. There was the feeling that larger organisations can become too big and wrapped up their own importance which can lead to them becoming irrelevant or even exerting too great an influence on discussions (last year's forest sell off, this year's badger cull etc) by being big enough to shout louder than other groups. Smaller organisations may have a huge wealth of expertise and knowledge but without a higher profile that knowledge may not be available because those who need or can use that information are unaware of the groups existence. And when it comes to those big discussions smaller groups can be drowned out by larger groups simply because the larger organisation is more well known and has the skills / funds to be seen and heard.
We went round in circles and didn't reach any conclusion, so one or two large groups or lots of smaller ones maybe with a high level of co-operation and resource sharing?
29 September 2012
28 September 2012
Funding
Yesterday we heard the sad news that The Grassland Trust has been forced to go into liquidation due a collapse in funding and they are unable to secure match funding to allow the charity to continue, even despite a programme of cost cutting. This is the second small charity providing vital support to a specialised area to go under, the first being FWAG earlier this year (and FWAG Scotland last year too). On the same day I read in the Shooting Times that the RSPCA and RSPB "Between them have an annual income of around £240million (Charity Commission Annual Accounts) and spend an average of £19 million per year on media activity". The same article also claimed that "In 2011, the RSPB received £27million in grants.". That's a awful lot of membership fees and coffee mornings being spent on publicity.
There seems to be a huge imbalance here.
Is there no way the larger charities can somehow help out the smaller ones? Not necessarily with cash but what about offering (more) assistance with staff and access to expertise. I'm not suggesting that where there is direct competition for funding one organisation steps back to let the other have a free run but isn't there room for co-operation? Surely an organisation that is spending millions on publicity would be able to offer pointers to a smaller struggling group after all we're all fighting for the same cause aren't we? To secure a long term, healthy, sustainable future for the British countryside and its wildlife.
Funnily enough the ST article was making a similar plea to the fieldsports organisations, well known for bickering amongst themselves, to work together and share expertise.
PS: The ST article makes no mention of other big countryside conservation charities such as the National Trust; I'm assuming they picked RSPCA and RSPB because they are seen as diametrically opposed to commonly held shooting opinions - now that's one for another day!
There seems to be a huge imbalance here.
Is there no way the larger charities can somehow help out the smaller ones? Not necessarily with cash but what about offering (more) assistance with staff and access to expertise. I'm not suggesting that where there is direct competition for funding one organisation steps back to let the other have a free run but isn't there room for co-operation? Surely an organisation that is spending millions on publicity would be able to offer pointers to a smaller struggling group after all we're all fighting for the same cause aren't we? To secure a long term, healthy, sustainable future for the British countryside and its wildlife.
Funnily enough the ST article was making a similar plea to the fieldsports organisations, well known for bickering amongst themselves, to work together and share expertise.
PS: The ST article makes no mention of other big countryside conservation charities such as the National Trust; I'm assuming they picked RSPCA and RSPB because they are seen as diametrically opposed to commonly held shooting opinions - now that's one for another day!
24 September 2012
Double standards?
Last Wednesday (19/9) Bert Burnett wrote a comment piece on the Scottish Gamekeepers Association's news pages, read it here. It was much discussed in the office. He raises some interesting points. Whether there really is a bias in what's permitted in conservation work or not and whether the authorities allow behaviour by conservation workers which would have members of the public (gamekeeper or not) under investigation is a tricky area. Does it come down to the ultimate aim and the (certified?) skills of those involved? Experts not listening to local / on site knowledge is up for discussion another day and is far more wide ranging than wildlife conservation!
The quoted example of ringing young birds in the cold and wet was concerning. I know tasks have to be done when staff and transport are available but surely some common sense could be used to ensure that the chicks are not unduly threatened and perhaps ringing could be left for a better day. Only this year it's been seen how extremes of weather threaten chick survival and were it not for the swift actions of the team at Dyfi after much heart searching one nest of osprey would almost certainly have been lost,. Having said that I have for years been concerned by the proximity of monitors and public viewing stations to nests but without watching all nests at varying distances how can we possibly know how much of an impact we're having in either the short or long term?
Some conservation activities by necessity cause significant disturbance to the species involved. Without a doubt translation work for species on development sites saves individuals and is carried out with the aim of creating minimum disturbance and to give the best 'new start' to the animals involved. In this case the risk of damage done is the lesser of two evils, better shaken up than squashed!
How much disturbance are we prepared to risk to allow study of species? Do we really know how much of an impact we're having? In January 2011 it was reported by the BBC that French researchers had found king penguins had 40% fewer chicks if they were banded (wearing flipper tags), and lived shorter lives. Like us you've probably followed the BTO's cuckoos with great interest, they are providing a wealth of information that very well may just help us to save the species but the risks to the individual birds are known and understood as highlighted by the decision not to retag Idemili once she recovered from her injuries. Only today the information provided by a satellite tag has been shown to be invaluable only this time in a much different way, the data from a tagged golden eagle may be vital in providing proof that it was illegally trapped and left to a slow death. The classic was Anders Moller and his barn swallows (I'm sure like me you had to read, learn and inwardly digest his animal behaviour studies, but just in case you didn't), by artificially lengthening the tail feathers of male swallows he was able to prove that tail length was a sexual selector but he also showed it was damaging to the bird with his artificially lengthened birds having substantially shorter tails in following years thus failing to breed. Yes, he proved something but in so doing damaged his birds, when we're working with rare and critically endangered species is that a risk we can afford to take? How important is it that we understand the minutiae of their lives, it maybe interesting but does it really add to our knowledge and ultimately our efforts to protect or save the species? Where do we draw the line?
We don't know but it was the general feeling that perhaps it's time to look more closely at some of our scientific studies and perhaps to consider less invasive and potentially damaging techniques.
It's a knotty problem, one to which we don't have the answer.
As ever your comments are welcome but we'd request that if you're disputing the examples given in the SGA article to contact them not us!
The quoted example of ringing young birds in the cold and wet was concerning. I know tasks have to be done when staff and transport are available but surely some common sense could be used to ensure that the chicks are not unduly threatened and perhaps ringing could be left for a better day. Only this year it's been seen how extremes of weather threaten chick survival and were it not for the swift actions of the team at Dyfi after much heart searching one nest of osprey would almost certainly have been lost,. Having said that I have for years been concerned by the proximity of monitors and public viewing stations to nests but without watching all nests at varying distances how can we possibly know how much of an impact we're having in either the short or long term?
Some conservation activities by necessity cause significant disturbance to the species involved. Without a doubt translation work for species on development sites saves individuals and is carried out with the aim of creating minimum disturbance and to give the best 'new start' to the animals involved. In this case the risk of damage done is the lesser of two evils, better shaken up than squashed!
How much disturbance are we prepared to risk to allow study of species? Do we really know how much of an impact we're having? In January 2011 it was reported by the BBC that French researchers had found king penguins had 40% fewer chicks if they were banded (wearing flipper tags), and lived shorter lives. Like us you've probably followed the BTO's cuckoos with great interest, they are providing a wealth of information that very well may just help us to save the species but the risks to the individual birds are known and understood as highlighted by the decision not to retag Idemili once she recovered from her injuries. Only today the information provided by a satellite tag has been shown to be invaluable only this time in a much different way, the data from a tagged golden eagle may be vital in providing proof that it was illegally trapped and left to a slow death. The classic was Anders Moller and his barn swallows (I'm sure like me you had to read, learn and inwardly digest his animal behaviour studies, but just in case you didn't), by artificially lengthening the tail feathers of male swallows he was able to prove that tail length was a sexual selector but he also showed it was damaging to the bird with his artificially lengthened birds having substantially shorter tails in following years thus failing to breed. Yes, he proved something but in so doing damaged his birds, when we're working with rare and critically endangered species is that a risk we can afford to take? How important is it that we understand the minutiae of their lives, it maybe interesting but does it really add to our knowledge and ultimately our efforts to protect or save the species? Where do we draw the line?
We don't know but it was the general feeling that perhaps it's time to look more closely at some of our scientific studies and perhaps to consider less invasive and potentially damaging techniques.
It's a knotty problem, one to which we don't have the answer.
As ever your comments are welcome but we'd request that if you're disputing the examples given in the SGA article to contact them not us!
20 September 2012
What we really think about potash.
Earlier this month I wrote a very bland fact based piece about the plans for a potash mine not 10 miles from the CJS Office, read it here.
This is more along the lines of what I wanted to say but being bound by CJS's rules of impartially didn't feel I could.
On the whole I think it could be a good thing for Whitby and I really hope they do use local labour as much as possible. As long as Sirius stick to the plans I don't think it will be too damaging, in fact it looks like it will be less intrusive than the test rigs which have been lighting up the night sky and booming across the valley for the past few years.
I have two concerns one is more obvious: traffic. The site is on a small B road, access onto the site from the road seems fine but the potential numbers of vehicles could be problematic. Will they go through Ruswarp and Sneaton or along the Scarborough road and in from the other side? Both options present problems more particularly the Ruswarp route - the road is simply not wide enough and without demolishing buildings can't be widened. Scarborough road access looks a better choice but that means Whitby workers will be going through Helredale which is already under pressure from the industrial estate and the new Sainsbury's and Homebase stores which is already causing problems further back in the road network right into town. Scarborough workers will be travelling across the moor via Cloughton (another very narrow, can't be widened road). Mention has been made of using a park and ride system, that sounds a good idea, Flyingdales used to bus workers on and off the base, it depends upon where the park section will be. But, big but here, what about during the construction phase? Heavy machinery will be needed and it can't be teleported onto site. I'm sure Sirius will talk about remedying any damage and no doubt upgrade the road but there is little mention of this in the proposals, or least those which are readily accessible (sorry, I'm not wading through the NPA's Planning Portal just to double check, it's not that vital).
My second concern is less visible: energy usage. Boulby uses vast quantities of electricity, the new mine will use as much if not more with the plans to transport the extract underground. How is the electricity going to be supplied to the site? It was earlier this year that the area was blacked out by wet snow which caused wires to snap and poles to fall. I many cases it was shown that the network was very old and in major need of an upgrade. How is this ageing grid going to cope with the huge demands made by heavy industry?
No doubt answers to all these (and probably many more questions I've not yet thought of) will become apparent in the fullness of time.
This is more along the lines of what I wanted to say but being bound by CJS's rules of impartially didn't feel I could.
On the whole I think it could be a good thing for Whitby and I really hope they do use local labour as much as possible. As long as Sirius stick to the plans I don't think it will be too damaging, in fact it looks like it will be less intrusive than the test rigs which have been lighting up the night sky and booming across the valley for the past few years.
I have two concerns one is more obvious: traffic. The site is on a small B road, access onto the site from the road seems fine but the potential numbers of vehicles could be problematic. Will they go through Ruswarp and Sneaton or along the Scarborough road and in from the other side? Both options present problems more particularly the Ruswarp route - the road is simply not wide enough and without demolishing buildings can't be widened. Scarborough road access looks a better choice but that means Whitby workers will be going through Helredale which is already under pressure from the industrial estate and the new Sainsbury's and Homebase stores which is already causing problems further back in the road network right into town. Scarborough workers will be travelling across the moor via Cloughton (another very narrow, can't be widened road). Mention has been made of using a park and ride system, that sounds a good idea, Flyingdales used to bus workers on and off the base, it depends upon where the park section will be. But, big but here, what about during the construction phase? Heavy machinery will be needed and it can't be teleported onto site. I'm sure Sirius will talk about remedying any damage and no doubt upgrade the road but there is little mention of this in the proposals, or least those which are readily accessible (sorry, I'm not wading through the NPA's Planning Portal just to double check, it's not that vital).
My second concern is less visible: energy usage. Boulby uses vast quantities of electricity, the new mine will use as much if not more with the plans to transport the extract underground. How is the electricity going to be supplied to the site? It was earlier this year that the area was blacked out by wet snow which caused wires to snap and poles to fall. I many cases it was shown that the network was very old and in major need of an upgrade. How is this ageing grid going to cope with the huge demands made by heavy industry?
No doubt answers to all these (and probably many more questions I've not yet thought of) will become apparent in the fullness of time.
Introduction
Why start yet another blog?
CJS remains impartial and will not come down in favour of one side or another, neither will it be a vehicle for a cause. But The Team behind CJS are not so even handed and quite often we have long running heated debates about the current issues of the day.
When I was writing the blog post about the proposed potash mine it took me nearly a week to write and rewrite trying to present a balanced, unbiased account (it ended up very bland) when what I actually wanted to say was: Look, it's happening, we all know it's happening, no matter how much you jump up and down it's going to be pushed through. I've writen an update on potash read it here.
When you're pulling together the news for the CJS website and newsletters you read much more that perhaps you would under normal circumstances. You see the blinkered views, those open to suggestion, those which seem to come from another planet, reading all the main press sources you see the spin put on items by the media all with their own agenda. We try to track back to source and to read the original publication or paper to see what was originally meant and thereby work out some reactions and arguments on both sides. With all that information it makes it very difficult not to formulate your own opinion and even worse trying not to put that across, sometimes days alter I re-read pages I've done and see that in trying to be unbiased I've actually included more information from people and organisations with views opposed to mine!
Who's writing? Mostly me I suspect, Kerryn I'm the CJS Editor.
The views expressed in this blog are personal to the writer and in no way reflect CJS.
You are welcome to post comments and we may respond (no promises we're very busy with the main job of keeping the CJS show on the road). Please keep your comments, polite, clean, unthreatening, no trolling, no flaming or generally bad behaviour will be permitted.
In short: play nicely boys and girls :0)
All comments will be moderated before they're published.
We won't post on every subject or even every week and sometimes it might not be relating to a current news story - you just never know what's going to be discussed over coffee and chocolate biscuits!
If you'd like to be involved, would like to write a post or suggest a topic for us to research and tussle over then please contact us (click the tab above).
CJS remains impartial and will not come down in favour of one side or another, neither will it be a vehicle for a cause. But The Team behind CJS are not so even handed and quite often we have long running heated debates about the current issues of the day.
When I was writing the blog post about the proposed potash mine it took me nearly a week to write and rewrite trying to present a balanced, unbiased account (it ended up very bland) when what I actually wanted to say was: Look, it's happening, we all know it's happening, no matter how much you jump up and down it's going to be pushed through. I've writen an update on potash read it here.
When you're pulling together the news for the CJS website and newsletters you read much more that perhaps you would under normal circumstances. You see the blinkered views, those open to suggestion, those which seem to come from another planet, reading all the main press sources you see the spin put on items by the media all with their own agenda. We try to track back to source and to read the original publication or paper to see what was originally meant and thereby work out some reactions and arguments on both sides. With all that information it makes it very difficult not to formulate your own opinion and even worse trying not to put that across, sometimes days alter I re-read pages I've done and see that in trying to be unbiased I've actually included more information from people and organisations with views opposed to mine!
Who's writing? Mostly me I suspect, Kerryn I'm the CJS Editor.
The views expressed in this blog are personal to the writer and in no way reflect CJS.
You are welcome to post comments and we may respond (no promises we're very busy with the main job of keeping the CJS show on the road). Please keep your comments, polite, clean, unthreatening, no trolling, no flaming or generally bad behaviour will be permitted.
In short: play nicely boys and girls :0)
All comments will be moderated before they're published.
We won't post on every subject or even every week and sometimes it might not be relating to a current news story - you just never know what's going to be discussed over coffee and chocolate biscuits!
If you'd like to be involved, would like to write a post or suggest a topic for us to research and tussle over then please contact us (click the tab above).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)