Last week there was a post doing the rounds on tumblr, "Reblog this if you're older than Google" which, according to the post, is 13, so I suppose I should reblog 3 times then!
But it got me thinking about how much IT we use and how things have changed. My first computer was a sinclair XZ81 about the size of an ipad but with less juice than a pocket calculator never mind a basic mobile phone. To make it work you had to programme it (code it) - no nice easy already installed software, you want to use it? then write your own. Programmes were stored on cassettes which produced lovely white noise if you got them confused with your mix tapes of music recorded from the radio (the first playlists of 'illegal' downloads) to make them work you started your programme by typing in CLOAD followed by the line numbers and then went away to make a cup of tea whilst the tape machine whirred away and the cursor on the black and white (or green and white if you had a 'proper' monitor instead of the portable TVs most people used) screen flickered away - which come to think of it isn't that dissimilar from turning on my office desktop, waiting for windows to open and to log onto the office server (currently running at 20 minutes... time for a tune up). We spoke such strange things as "if, then, else" and "let x=x+1" which totally bamboozled the maths teacher. Then the BBC microcomputer arrived and now you could buy programmes but we still spoke in code only now it was BASIC and reasonably universal although I did manage to write one programme in two halves, one part for the graphics and one a series of education questions for primary pupils, in different 'modes' which even the IT dept at the local university couldn't marry up so my poor guinea pigs got the answers right (or wrong) but never saw the crying teddy bear or blasting off rocket. BBCs were the first readily available machines which used a floppy disk storage system (the really big, truly floppy ones which melted if you left them on the windowsill in the sun - oops) and wouldn't have been able to store the plain text draft of this blog post never mind all the formatting and tags. When we asked HB's children what was the picture on Word's save icon they hadn't a clue they just knew it was for saving what they'd done; they've never seen a floppy disk and once upon a not so long ago they were the greatest innovation.
When I first started at CJS we used put into the BUT section that people should be 'computerate' our abbreviation for computer literate. It was quite rare; now we don't bother because it is simply assumed that everyone can use computers; now only certain, usually specialist, software is listed. Likewise, the majority of people received CJS by post and a handful by fax (the time that a subscriber asked us to fax the 'list' the other way around "because the pages came out upside down" has gone down in CJS folklore) - no such thing as email. Job ads came by post or fax and artwork as 'bromides' by registered delivery. There was a general look of confusion when an agency asked it we could accept artwork as a PDF - a PF what? was the response. We soon learnt. And then the internet arrived in all its blocky technicolour million pages of (let's be honest) time wasting content - and that was before google (so more than 13 years ago then) when to find the right information was, shall we say, time consuming at the very least. But it changed the world and made life different if not easier, if only so that we can transfer things from a computer on one side of a 12foot square office to another on the other side - that totally blew Niall's mind the first time we did it when the network cable literally broke. Over the years we've become more tolerant of it's vagaries, when email was new and it stopped working it was met with disbelief now we just shrug our shoulders and say let me know if it's not there when it's back up.
I now think more easily at the end of my fingers via a keyboard than at the end of a pen but the office staff giggle at me signing and proofing documents with a fountain pen in hand!
On the flip side IT is ever present and can become an overwhelming presence. Here at CJS we've found that email can be an annoyance, when you're working on a project or dealing with various tasks to have to keep breaking off to check, respond and reply to every email as it arrives interrupts the flow and distracts from the task in hand. Thus, along with other companies we've instigated a new email policy; the email inbox is checked hourly and all correspondence is dealt with in one fell swoop, there is an autoresponder which lets emailers know and gives them the option of calling us if it's more urgent. If you've sent us a message in the last month you may be aware of the new policy. For the CJS Team it took a little getting used to, the urge to keep checking the inbox took a little while to simmer down but now we find that it's working well and we're generally more productive.
You can't escape IT either, it's infiltrated every corner of our lives. My Dad was a big Tomorrow's World fan and we sat down together to watch, one episode looked at the house of the future where as you put your canned goods into the cupboard the bar codes were scanned onto your database, they were scanned again as you took them out to use; thus your household inventory was always up to date, the presenters speculated that one day your cupboard could even order more food when there was none of a certain type left. Tescos little scanning app is just about there.
18 April 2013
04 December 2012
Why is prevention now not better than cure?
I have little people and have to take them uphill and downdale to nursery, now I am not old but what is going on with the state of the
winter roads. I remember when you could get about even if it had snowed. On
Friday I barely got to nursery due to the fact that it was below freezing. I
know there has been a lot of rain everywhere and therefore the roads are wet
and this then turns to ice. Due to the lack of funds our local Council is unable
to grit any minor roads, so it follows surely that they should make sure that
all gutters and drains are clear to carry all this extra water off the roads in
to the streams rather than have it running down the road to turn to ice.
I know the country is in trouble and Councils have to save
money somewhere but how many deaths are we going to see over the winter because
of road accidents due to the ice?
We need to bring back lengths men (or should I say people!) to
look after the roads, ditches, gutters and drains. I would enjoy an outside
physical job but apparently if you can't sit on a digger and do it, no-one
wants to do the work. Perhaps we could get offenders to do it as part of
community service, now that would be some good payback.
The Council re-tarmaced a small section of our very rural
road this year and in the recent downpours I watched the water spewing out of
the ditch over the new tarmac because it couldn't head down the blocked drain.
So precisely the reason the road needed new tarmac. Why is prevention now not
better than cure?
19 November 2012
State of birds in Goathland
A report by RSPB and partners out today shows that 44million birds have been lost since 1966. The numbers are frightening.
It was only this weekend that we were doing our usual quick garden bird count and were musing on how the population in our little patch has changed over the years. We've been here since 1984, when we arrived the most numerous species was the house sparrow, dozens of them squabbling in the hedges and playing tag around the garden at high speed seemingly mixed in with an almost equal number of tree sparrows but few if any dunnocks, or hedge sparrows as my Gran called them. We had chaffinches and greenfinches too, lots of blue tits who stole the top of the milk from the doorstep in the mornings, a few great tits and the odd coal tit. There were lots of blackbirds and thrushes as well as the resident robin and a wren or two. Wood pigeons or doves were neither seen nor heard, I distinctly remember missing their gentle cooing which had been the background music to my childhood playtime in Whitby, along with the raucous gull screeching.
Changes
Without really realising the change was happening the number of house sparrows declined and the tree sparrows disappeared completely. The chaffinch became the most populous bird for many years before greenfinches showed up in greater numbers, still as many chaffinches, just more greenfinches. We still have lots of chaffinches, I think their population has remained relatively steady but in the last few years the numbers of greenfinch have decreased and few sorry individuals have been seen with classic trichomoniasis symptoms.
Goldfinches
When the first goldfinches showed up on the road stripping the seeds from the thistle heads in the early 1990s it was worthy of noting, now goldfinches are the most numerous bird in the garden having over taken greenfinches in the last couple of years. We have a family tale that when I was small enough to be in a pushchair Mum took me round Pannet Park in Whitby and was accosted by an excited birdwatcher who, she swears, told her there was a goldfish in the tree. We think he meant goldfinch, but back then it was such a rarity he was so overcome he mangled his words (but then Mum thought her first guillemot was a penguin, easy mistake to make!).
The blackbirds have stayed through the years with slight fluctuations, thrush populations have waxed and waned currently holding steady with resident song thrushes and visiting mistles plus redwings in winter although we no longer seem to get the huge flocks in the field opposite.
Spuggies and long tails
We're fortunate in that we never lost our house sparrows, their numbers have waned in recent years with some years being better than others. The tree sparrows disappeared over a few years and were absent for fifteen or more but three years ago one individual started visiting our feeding station in the winter, he was soon joined by another and this year they are garden residents once again, bringing their fledglings to feed in the late summer. Dunnock numbers have decreased a little over the past few years, their decline seemingly mirroring the tree sparrow increase. The tit family have suffered varying fortunes. The great tits almost disappeared with one year we had a single individual visiting, the blue tit numbers go up and down in a regular fashion. Coal tits are doing very well, this year outnumbering the great tits and nearly as numerous as the blues. Long tailed tits are regular visitors, their twittering pinkness arrived around ten years ago and now they are often heard tseeping away to each other before descending en-mass to devour the fat balls.
Tree creeper and nuthatch
We have some big cypress trees and opposite some over-tall larches (a few have had their tops sheared off in recent storms) which have been a draw for tree creepers, one or two each year for the last decade or so. When they first arrived we double checked them in the big bird book marvelling at the colourful nutchatches, just like a garden kingfisher, on the next page. A few years ago one of those 'kingfishers' was seen flitting through the garden and they have become increasingly regular visitors ever since with two individuals in residence this year.
The conifers also draw the occasional winter visitor of a gold crest or two, again they were absent in the early years here and have only been seen in the last five or so.
Migrants
The field is a big draw for the summer migrants of swifts, swallows and martins, originally both sand and house but the sand martins disappeared within a few years of us arriving as the bank where they nested was undercut by water. In the late eighties the house had close to thirty martin nests but one summer they were nearly all destroyed by what we thought at the time was a squirrel but I now wonder if it was an owl. Since then we've only had a handful of nests, sometimes none were successful, this year there were three successful nests. We always seem to have had a squadron of around a dozen swifts.
Cuckoos are a rarity now. Years ago the first 'cuckoo' was welcomed but a few weeks later when over a dozen were 'cuckoo-ing' their heads off in the very early hours you couldn't wait for them to shut up again! Now there are few, only one this year I think. In contrast the chiff-chaff is a new arrival heard down the valley for the first time last year, this year there were a few more, some of which had a second singing season in the autumn, and I confess it's one I could do without, their constant chiff-chaff, chiff-chaff drives me to distraction!
One off visitors
Over the years 'rarities' have varied from the triple hoot of a little owl, to the rasping croak of a nightjar and the "little bit of bread and no cheese" of the canary-like yellowhammer, along with a wonderfully aerobatic spotted flycatcher, all seen and or heard once or for one year only. And once a pheasant who mistaken strayed into the garden never to leave, having been dispatched very efficiently by a wolfhound!
Boom and bust
is a natural cycle in many populations. We've seen it in magpies (early nighties), jackdaws (late eighties), mallard ducks (although they had a little help, in the early 2000's) but the wood pigeons show no sign of busting. Their coo was first heard here in the early nighties, initially it was a welcome noise, a reminder of times past. Their numbers have slowly increased but in the past decade they have reached almost plague like proportions, huge numbers descending on gardens and devastating the veggie plot. The trees on the old railway line behind the house are perfect for them and they breed nearly all year, they don't seem bothered by the tawny owls or the growing rookery.
So what changed?
The field is still grass, cut for haylage rather than hay and grazed by sheep, no cattle any more. The moor has lots more bracken and white moor, the heather is confined to a purple strip at the top. The garden is still a mix of shrub, native hedging, a drystone wall, herbaceous, grass and what we can politely call wildlife garden (a tangle of weeds!). Garden bird feed mixes have changed and peanuts are no longer the 'top nosh'. Our avian dining table has a range of dry seeds and fat based products - no meal worms because no one eats them, live ones wander off or die and dried ones just sit festering - even the Labradors ignore those.
Maybe our increased quantity and range of bird food is drawing in more species and individuals, perhaps pressures elsewhere in the village are pushing them into our garden. Or like the report says, the precise reasons simply are not fully understood.
Read the report, and then think back about the birds you've seen, over your lifetime, in repeat visits to one site or like us in one location. We're fortunate in that we've got nearly thirty years of records and memories of one location.
It was only this weekend that we were doing our usual quick garden bird count and were musing on how the population in our little patch has changed over the years. We've been here since 1984, when we arrived the most numerous species was the house sparrow, dozens of them squabbling in the hedges and playing tag around the garden at high speed seemingly mixed in with an almost equal number of tree sparrows but few if any dunnocks, or hedge sparrows as my Gran called them. We had chaffinches and greenfinches too, lots of blue tits who stole the top of the milk from the doorstep in the mornings, a few great tits and the odd coal tit. There were lots of blackbirds and thrushes as well as the resident robin and a wren or two. Wood pigeons or doves were neither seen nor heard, I distinctly remember missing their gentle cooing which had been the background music to my childhood playtime in Whitby, along with the raucous gull screeching.
Changes
Without really realising the change was happening the number of house sparrows declined and the tree sparrows disappeared completely. The chaffinch became the most populous bird for many years before greenfinches showed up in greater numbers, still as many chaffinches, just more greenfinches. We still have lots of chaffinches, I think their population has remained relatively steady but in the last few years the numbers of greenfinch have decreased and few sorry individuals have been seen with classic trichomoniasis symptoms.
Goldfinches
When the first goldfinches showed up on the road stripping the seeds from the thistle heads in the early 1990s it was worthy of noting, now goldfinches are the most numerous bird in the garden having over taken greenfinches in the last couple of years. We have a family tale that when I was small enough to be in a pushchair Mum took me round Pannet Park in Whitby and was accosted by an excited birdwatcher who, she swears, told her there was a goldfish in the tree. We think he meant goldfinch, but back then it was such a rarity he was so overcome he mangled his words (but then Mum thought her first guillemot was a penguin, easy mistake to make!).
The blackbirds have stayed through the years with slight fluctuations, thrush populations have waxed and waned currently holding steady with resident song thrushes and visiting mistles plus redwings in winter although we no longer seem to get the huge flocks in the field opposite.
Spuggies and long tails
We're fortunate in that we never lost our house sparrows, their numbers have waned in recent years with some years being better than others. The tree sparrows disappeared over a few years and were absent for fifteen or more but three years ago one individual started visiting our feeding station in the winter, he was soon joined by another and this year they are garden residents once again, bringing their fledglings to feed in the late summer. Dunnock numbers have decreased a little over the past few years, their decline seemingly mirroring the tree sparrow increase. The tit family have suffered varying fortunes. The great tits almost disappeared with one year we had a single individual visiting, the blue tit numbers go up and down in a regular fashion. Coal tits are doing very well, this year outnumbering the great tits and nearly as numerous as the blues. Long tailed tits are regular visitors, their twittering pinkness arrived around ten years ago and now they are often heard tseeping away to each other before descending en-mass to devour the fat balls.
Tree creeper and nuthatch
We have some big cypress trees and opposite some over-tall larches (a few have had their tops sheared off in recent storms) which have been a draw for tree creepers, one or two each year for the last decade or so. When they first arrived we double checked them in the big bird book marvelling at the colourful nutchatches, just like a garden kingfisher, on the next page. A few years ago one of those 'kingfishers' was seen flitting through the garden and they have become increasingly regular visitors ever since with two individuals in residence this year.
The conifers also draw the occasional winter visitor of a gold crest or two, again they were absent in the early years here and have only been seen in the last five or so.
Migrants
The field is a big draw for the summer migrants of swifts, swallows and martins, originally both sand and house but the sand martins disappeared within a few years of us arriving as the bank where they nested was undercut by water. In the late eighties the house had close to thirty martin nests but one summer they were nearly all destroyed by what we thought at the time was a squirrel but I now wonder if it was an owl. Since then we've only had a handful of nests, sometimes none were successful, this year there were three successful nests. We always seem to have had a squadron of around a dozen swifts.
Cuckoos are a rarity now. Years ago the first 'cuckoo' was welcomed but a few weeks later when over a dozen were 'cuckoo-ing' their heads off in the very early hours you couldn't wait for them to shut up again! Now there are few, only one this year I think. In contrast the chiff-chaff is a new arrival heard down the valley for the first time last year, this year there were a few more, some of which had a second singing season in the autumn, and I confess it's one I could do without, their constant chiff-chaff, chiff-chaff drives me to distraction!
One off visitors
Over the years 'rarities' have varied from the triple hoot of a little owl, to the rasping croak of a nightjar and the "little bit of bread and no cheese" of the canary-like yellowhammer, along with a wonderfully aerobatic spotted flycatcher, all seen and or heard once or for one year only. And once a pheasant who mistaken strayed into the garden never to leave, having been dispatched very efficiently by a wolfhound!
Boom and bust
is a natural cycle in many populations. We've seen it in magpies (early nighties), jackdaws (late eighties), mallard ducks (although they had a little help, in the early 2000's) but the wood pigeons show no sign of busting. Their coo was first heard here in the early nighties, initially it was a welcome noise, a reminder of times past. Their numbers have slowly increased but in the past decade they have reached almost plague like proportions, huge numbers descending on gardens and devastating the veggie plot. The trees on the old railway line behind the house are perfect for them and they breed nearly all year, they don't seem bothered by the tawny owls or the growing rookery.
So what changed?
The field is still grass, cut for haylage rather than hay and grazed by sheep, no cattle any more. The moor has lots more bracken and white moor, the heather is confined to a purple strip at the top. The garden is still a mix of shrub, native hedging, a drystone wall, herbaceous, grass and what we can politely call wildlife garden (a tangle of weeds!). Garden bird feed mixes have changed and peanuts are no longer the 'top nosh'. Our avian dining table has a range of dry seeds and fat based products - no meal worms because no one eats them, live ones wander off or die and dried ones just sit festering - even the Labradors ignore those.
Maybe our increased quantity and range of bird food is drawing in more species and individuals, perhaps pressures elsewhere in the village are pushing them into our garden. Or like the report says, the precise reasons simply are not fully understood.
Read the report, and then think back about the birds you've seen, over your lifetime, in repeat visits to one site or like us in one location. We're fortunate in that we've got nearly thirty years of records and memories of one location.
31 October 2012
To cull or not to cull is that the question?
Along with lots more questions.
The black and white stripy beasts and the now postponed cull not to mention bovine TB have been a hot topic and so far we've remained silent because, well, we're not really sure what to say. But we all agree that something has to be done to tackle the problem - we're still not sure what that something is.
I'm not going to go into all the stated arguments for or against the planned cull - we'd be here for ever. If you want more detail have a look at CJS's archived news.
Having gone round in circles we don't have an answer, does anyone?
Here are a few of things we did manage to agree upon.
bTB is not good, for cattle or badger.
A widespread apparently uncoordinated badger cull to combat bTB is not the best solution, especially one which seems so 'lackadaisical'. That the cull was given permission to proceed on estimated population numbers and without a starting baseline population count demonstrate a lack of scientific rigour. Demonstrated by the postponement at the eleventh hour because of the much higher than anticipated numbers meaning that the cull could not be completed within the timeframe, culling has to be complete by end of November.
We don't think the current policy of culling all cattle reactors is the right one, it seems to be the opposite of evolution, taking out the strong individuals and leaving the weaker ones (cattle can be exposed and develop an immunity without actually contracting the disease but the current test doesn't show this); more a survival of the weakest.
Modern dairy (and to some extent beef) cattle are little more than clones, the genetic pool is small and decreasing, proven bulls sire many more calves by AI than is naturally possible thereby increasing their genes in the pool, excluding others over time creating an ever decreasing availability of genetic material. For production this is good giving guaranteed high yields, but for animal health it's a potential disaster; should a weakness to any disease become evident, without the genetic diversity of hybrid vigour offering resistant characteristics, chances are it will rage through the population at possibly pandemic speed. In this time of non-existent profit margins it's not welcome to hear that perhaps a decrease in yield by introducing new genetic material from less productive animals would be of long term benefit by widening genetic diversity.
A solution to bTB in cattle is needed, our feeling is that vaccination is the way forward, now whether we need a new vaccine, a new tuberculin test or new laws is still up for discussion, whichever is fastest and easiest to achieve seems to be the consensus.
Badgers are territorial and generally don't move house very often, but a newly available food resource (ie an empty territory) may be sufficient enticement for territory expansion if not creation of a complete new sett resulting in greater badger population movement.
Badgers are cute but lethal (have you seen a hen house after a badger attack? much worse than a fox).
Being one of the few species that an unroll and eat them badgers have a detrimental affect on hedgehog populations as well as much of our other wildlife.
Badgers have few, if any, natural competitors or predators in the UK.
A few unresolved questions.
Yes, badgers can infect cattle and vice versa but are they the only agents of infection?
Which, if any, other species could be agents of infection? We've heard deer and rats mentioned but no evidence.
Is it possible that competition, change in food and overcrowding has led to a less healthy badger population resulting in badgers that are more susceptible to infections?
Does the food badgers eat influence their susceptibility and infectiousness (the maize query)?
When vaccinating badgers how can you be sure all the individuals in the area have been vaccinated, how can you check whether the animal had already been inoculated? (and if you can check does anyone do so before inoculating again?)
How long does the badger vaccine (or any successful cattle) last? It's reported that annual vaccinations will be required and of course vaccination doesn't work on any already infected animals.
Can we test badgers rather than cattle? And if so could infected setts be culled rather than the proposed whole population reduction.
It is generally accepted that the cost of losing the UK's cattle export market (that's beasts, beef, milk etc) is prohibitively high, but what about in the short term? Could we vaccinate cattle until the problem is brought under control, might it be a short term pain for long term gain?
Instead of the huge culls planned could the funding be better used in expediting the creation of cattle vaccines that are acceptable to exportation rules or into development of a new bTB test which can distinguish between vaccination and infection.
Here is where our opinion maybe diverges from many people.
There are too many badgers.
Now there's a statement! The badger was protected in law at a time when the population was low and badgers were being persecuted and baited towards extinction. Since then they've done very well, the protection has worked, badger populations are now at very high levels in some areas. Consequently we feel that some form of population control would be advantageous: ideas ranged from hunting (would take out the weaker individuals) to selective removal of individuals (could keep a generally lower population) to selective removal of a whole tribe and their sett (for areas with an excessively high population).
The black and white stripy beasts and the now postponed cull not to mention bovine TB have been a hot topic and so far we've remained silent because, well, we're not really sure what to say. But we all agree that something has to be done to tackle the problem - we're still not sure what that something is.
I'm not going to go into all the stated arguments for or against the planned cull - we'd be here for ever. If you want more detail have a look at CJS's archived news.
Having gone round in circles we don't have an answer, does anyone?
Here are a few of things we did manage to agree upon.
bTB is not good, for cattle or badger.
A widespread apparently uncoordinated badger cull to combat bTB is not the best solution, especially one which seems so 'lackadaisical'. That the cull was given permission to proceed on estimated population numbers and without a starting baseline population count demonstrate a lack of scientific rigour. Demonstrated by the postponement at the eleventh hour because of the much higher than anticipated numbers meaning that the cull could not be completed within the timeframe, culling has to be complete by end of November.
We don't think the current policy of culling all cattle reactors is the right one, it seems to be the opposite of evolution, taking out the strong individuals and leaving the weaker ones (cattle can be exposed and develop an immunity without actually contracting the disease but the current test doesn't show this); more a survival of the weakest.
Modern dairy (and to some extent beef) cattle are little more than clones, the genetic pool is small and decreasing, proven bulls sire many more calves by AI than is naturally possible thereby increasing their genes in the pool, excluding others over time creating an ever decreasing availability of genetic material. For production this is good giving guaranteed high yields, but for animal health it's a potential disaster; should a weakness to any disease become evident, without the genetic diversity of hybrid vigour offering resistant characteristics, chances are it will rage through the population at possibly pandemic speed. In this time of non-existent profit margins it's not welcome to hear that perhaps a decrease in yield by introducing new genetic material from less productive animals would be of long term benefit by widening genetic diversity.
A solution to bTB in cattle is needed, our feeling is that vaccination is the way forward, now whether we need a new vaccine, a new tuberculin test or new laws is still up for discussion, whichever is fastest and easiest to achieve seems to be the consensus.
Badgers are territorial and generally don't move house very often, but a newly available food resource (ie an empty territory) may be sufficient enticement for territory expansion if not creation of a complete new sett resulting in greater badger population movement.
Badgers are cute but lethal (have you seen a hen house after a badger attack? much worse than a fox).
Being one of the few species that an unroll and eat them badgers have a detrimental affect on hedgehog populations as well as much of our other wildlife.
Badgers have few, if any, natural competitors or predators in the UK.
A few unresolved questions.
Yes, badgers can infect cattle and vice versa but are they the only agents of infection?
Which, if any, other species could be agents of infection? We've heard deer and rats mentioned but no evidence.
Is it possible that competition, change in food and overcrowding has led to a less healthy badger population resulting in badgers that are more susceptible to infections?
Does the food badgers eat influence their susceptibility and infectiousness (the maize query)?
When vaccinating badgers how can you be sure all the individuals in the area have been vaccinated, how can you check whether the animal had already been inoculated? (and if you can check does anyone do so before inoculating again?)
How long does the badger vaccine (or any successful cattle) last? It's reported that annual vaccinations will be required and of course vaccination doesn't work on any already infected animals.
Can we test badgers rather than cattle? And if so could infected setts be culled rather than the proposed whole population reduction.
It is generally accepted that the cost of losing the UK's cattle export market (that's beasts, beef, milk etc) is prohibitively high, but what about in the short term? Could we vaccinate cattle until the problem is brought under control, might it be a short term pain for long term gain?
Instead of the huge culls planned could the funding be better used in expediting the creation of cattle vaccines that are acceptable to exportation rules or into development of a new bTB test which can distinguish between vaccination and infection.
Here is where our opinion maybe diverges from many people.
There are too many badgers.
Now there's a statement! The badger was protected in law at a time when the population was low and badgers were being persecuted and baited towards extinction. Since then they've done very well, the protection has worked, badger populations are now at very high levels in some areas. Consequently we feel that some form of population control would be advantageous: ideas ranged from hunting (would take out the weaker individuals) to selective removal of individuals (could keep a generally lower population) to selective removal of a whole tribe and their sett (for areas with an excessively high population).
29 September 2012
Funding again
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?
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?
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)