Tuesday, 12 December 2023

Yes, UK Wildlife IS Heading Toward More Extinctions. Sit Back And Enjoy Your Pizza

The Soon to be extinct mammals

"The marten cat and the polecat, the badger and the otter. unless where the latter is strictly preserved for hunting purposes, are in many places very rare indeed, and the two former almost extinct, and were it not that the fox...happens at present, to be the petted animal which provides for rich and poor the sport of kings, healthy exercise, and employment for thousands, and puts more money in circulation, directly or indirectly, than all of the other wild animals in the world put together, he too -for, alas! he has many enemies -would in our islands, soon become a thing of the past, with nothing to remind future generations of the bygone glories, delights, and excitements of the chase, save a few antiquated volumes in our libraries, or perhaps a dusty and moth-eaten mask or brush hanging in the ancestral hall!"

Thus wrote Colonel J. S. Talbot in 1905. A true sporting psychopath. In fact, as noted before, there were extinctions of species in the UK that resulted in various species being imported into the UK to keep 'sport' alive. Talbot writes of the excitement and delight of men and women on horse back running behind large hounds all to enjoy the chase and the kill and try to snatch a foot or tail or even head (mask). The hounds themselves, described in Talbot's own words "devoured"the whole fox. The "beloved" hounds were treated despicably and starved to make them read to chase, kill and eat. Cruelty to fox hounds and horses is nothing new.

Talbot also notes how the three Old British foxes were driven to extinction or to hybridise with the newly imported foxes. The extinction of the Old foxes occurred around the 1860s and some may have clung on in remote parts of Scotland but they were said to have survi9ved in Ireland where no new foxes were introduced -one might ask why English hunts sent gift foxes to Irish hunts if the species survived there?

Talbot was a typical old duffer of the 'sport' and writes about how he and hunts would ride through crop fields in Egypt which natives did not like but, you know, bloody foreigners knew their place. In England crops and much more fell victim to riders and hounds which is why the 'hunt loving' countrymen started fencing off their land and fields with wire -so hated by the hunts.

Note also that Talbot states how the Marten cat and polecat had been driven to extinction in some areas and in others were what we would call today "critical status". All of these 'sportsmen' knew full well and wrote and spoke about hunting making species extinct and yet they carried on killing while "o woe-ing!" They could not stop themselves; they had to have the stalking, chasing and killing and souvenir taking of the true psychopath even though they knew they were wiping out species -new ones could always be purchased to continue the 'fun'.

Is it not 'funny' how the same thing is said here about how fox hunting raised and circulated more money and created more employment than any other animal hunted and killed in the world -a complete and utter nonsense and if Talbot believed this he was self deceiving on a grand scale. He was, in fact, stating that fox hunting benefitted the economy on a large scale. When government and local authorities want to push the destruction of green spaces and old woods and forestry to build offices, homes and, ooh, let's say wasting billions of GB£ on a rail network destroying habitat how often do you hear that those objecting are not thinking of the local economy, the benefits to the community and the many jobs that will be created? It is something always spouted and thankfully more people are becoming aware of this.

Yes, the "poor" (which would be anyone not rich enough to be called Middle class or afford to be a member of the local otter, hare or fox hounds) also killed these animals and not necessarily for 'sport' -many did so because they enjoyed killing the animals in question and there was a nice bounty to collect for what you killed. This was proudly and nationally known and accepted and the terms "vulpicide", "melecide" and "felicide" were used -"good work and congratulations" to those who wiped out badgers. Later it turned into a rich man and (grudgingly) woman's "bit of fun" but the British from top to bottom rungs of the social ladder all did their part.

Badgers were baited, poisoned, shot, snared and even simply clubbed while the 'sportsmen' accepted that the badgers were "simple and harmless creatures" -but, you know, "kill 'em!"

The fact that despite all of the melecide British badgers survived has always been something of a mystery (which I recently solved) and in the 1970s the species was give 'protected' status by the government and yet, in 2023 the same people who gave that protected are making a few people quite wealthy by paying for the slaughter of 250,000 badgers and that knowing full well that 60,000 plus are dying on our roads each year.

Talbot feared the badger was about to go extinct but it hung on and survived until the 21st century and over 100 years later humans are set to achieve that goal -recognised by many around the world as wrong. In A Field Guide To The Carnivores Of The World by Luke Hunter (Panthera, London, 2011) it is stated (p. 164):

"Persecuted as a pest and for illegal 'baiting' with terriers. Controversially culled as a carrier of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in the UK, despite strong evidence that culls do not reduce incidence of the disease. Red List"

Red List means that it is considered an endangered species and, of course, in the UK it is 'protected' by the same body (DEFRA/Natural England) that pays shooters a lot of money to go out and kill them. Scientifically if eradicating a supposed cause of disease has no effect then it is clear that said suspected cause is innocent. In the UK it has been suggested t6hat infected cattle can pass bTB to badgers and vice versa but there is no proven source and some data featured in reports seems inconsistent with facts. In Bovine Tuberculosis in Britain and Ireland – A Perfect Storm? the Confluence of Potential Ecological and Epidemiological Impediments to Controlling a Chronic Infectious Disease a paper by A. R. Allen, R. A. Skuce, and A. W. Byrne (2018) it is stated that:

"Even with such heterogeneity of approach across time and national boundaries, it remains startling that particularly in Britain, which came close to achieving eradication in the 1960 and 1970s bovine TB is resurgent "

Therefore we -I say "we" as in the British "animal loving" public- sit by and very few do anything. Well, save a species and try to help the environment or watch the latest TV soap "scandal story"....with a pizza and beer? Yes, the pizza industry is doing well.

Talbot and his kin -even as far back as the 18th century- were noting how they were wiping out any and every species for 'fun' but also to make an area better for the chosen sport whether pheasant and grouse hunting or hare coursing. They bemoan the species being lost (no sport when they went) but mass importation was there.

I am writing this knowing full well that it will be "in one eye and out the other". No one cares. Let's believe that badgers (not bad animal husbandry) badgers spread TB -kill the lot. Foxes are on the decline -so what? Thousands of species are dying every year on our roads. So what? The UK does not recognise the need for wildlife overpasses and underpasses nor want to spend any money on that nonsense.

"This green and pleasant land"

"A nation of animal lovers"

The Blood red Island

Get off of your asses and do something before we have another period of extinctions -EXTINCTION IS FOREVER

Thursday, 7 December 2023

Beavers: A Protected Species ...Subject To Lethal Control (killing)

This shows the falseness of the claim that an animal is a protected species

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/beavers-how-to-manage-them-and-when-you-need-a-licence#:~:text=Eurasian%20beavers%20are%20protected%20as,burrow%2C%20lodge%20or%20associated%20dam:

Eurasian beavers are protected as a European protected species in England.

It is against the law to:

deliberately injure, kill, capture or disturb beavers
damage or destroy a beaver breeding site or resting place such as a burrow, lodge or associated dam
keep a beaver or parts of a beaver you have taken from the wild
transport a beaver
sell or exchange, or offer a beaver for sale or exchange

You may need to manage beavers that are present on your land. Certain management activities will be possible without a licence, but some can only be carried out with a licence. This guide helps you decide if you need to apply for a beaver licence from Natural England.

Yeah, there you go with the "beaver management" and we ought to know what that means by now. In fact the page even states "lethal removal" -killing a beaver:

When you need a licence

You must have a licence if you need to:

modify or remove a burrow or lodge
modify or remove a dam that is associated with a burrow or lodge
remove a food cache where it is joined to a lodge
cause disturbance that affects a beaver’s ability to survive or breed
transport and release a beaver
kill, injure or capture a beaver
possess a dead beaver or its body parts
sell or exchange, or offer for sale or exchange, a beaver

You could get a 6-month prison sentence or an unlimited fine if you are convicted of these offences.

You do not need a licence to modify or remove a dam if it’s less than 2 weeks old or to modify or remove a day rest.

Wildlife licences for managing beaver activity

There are 3 beaver class licences that Natural England can issue for beaver management to:

modify or remove beaver dams – for farmers, landowners, fishery managers, foresters, land or water managers, and their advisers or consultants
modify or remove beaver burrows, lodges and dams or possess dead beavers or their body parts – for employees of public bodies or authorities, fishery managers, land and water managers, and their advisers or consultants
capture, transport and re-release beavers, modify or remove burrows, lodges and dams or possess dead beavers or their body parts – for beaver management groups, experts and specialists

If these licences do not cover the action you need to take, such as lethal control, you can apply for an individual licence from Natural England.

What a surprise so unlike red squirrels that forestry folk can kill off (their land and they can do what they want) if a beaver is a 'nuisance to forestry or any made up 'nuisance' it can be killed -look what legal protection has done for the rapidly going extinct badger. We also know that if someone wants a beaver subject to "lethal control" on their land they will do exactly what they have always done and that is pay a local shooter to take care of things "on the quiet" and dispose of evidence. They do this for any wandering dog (even if just wandering", badgers and foxes and it's all a nice earner for them.

Introduction and conservation when it is convenient. Absolutely no animal or bird wiped out by humans in the UKL should ever be "reintroduced" -they will still end up being killed.

We know that beaver have been introduced intro certain areas before the current 'legal' releases planned. In some cases beaver may have survived in a remote area but things get very complicated. Read this from 2017 -beavers are definitely not living safely:

Beavers Are Mysteriously Back in Britain

But the government is concerned about the mysterious return of a potentially destructive animal long thought extinct.

BY CHRISTOPHER WERTH

PUBLISHED 2 NOV 2017, 12:30 GMT

PHOTOGRAPH BY ARTERRA PICTURE LIBRARY, ALAMY

Tom Buckley was overjoyed. The retired environmental scientist proudly documented the first family of beavers living wild in England since the species was hunted to near extinction in Britain several hundred years ago—a discovery that came almost by accident.

He first noticed a few tree stumps gnawed to pencil-like points on the River Otter, a shallow watercourse near his home in the town of Ottery St. Mary. The find prompted him to place a night-vision camera on the riverbank that soon produced a grainy, black-and-white video of three beavers happily frolicking in the water. "It was marvelous to see," said Buckley, whose images made international headlines.

But if it sounds curious that beavers should suddenly reappear on an island like Britain after a centuries-long absence (in a river and in a town named after otters, no less), the government certainly isn't pleased. Following those initial news reports, it announced plans to trap and remove the beavers.

While one theory suggests they escaped from a nearby nature reserve, it's far more likely they were released illegally by what's known in the trade as "beaver bombers"—in other words, wildlife vigilantes who operate under the cover of night. And with animals of such questionable origins, Britain's environment department cites the risk of a tapeworm sometimes found in beavers in continental Europe.

That is, assuming they're Eurasian beavers (Castor fiber) and not the North American variety (Castor canadensis), a separate species that, like many things American, can grow larger than its European counterparts.

Environmental Change

More important, however, beavers cut down trees, build dams, and flood waterways. Apart from humans, no other species alters its environment more. And in its decision, the British government raises a much broader question about the animal's place and potential impact in modern Britain.

"Beavers have not been an established part of our wildlife for the past 500 years," said a department spokesman. "Our landscape and habitats have changed since then."

In truth, no one's sure exactly when the beaver went extinct in Britain. The rodent was highly valued for its fur and medicinal glands. The last written record is a bounty paid for a beaver head in Yorkshire in 1789, although the species would have vanished from other regions of the country long before then. What is certain is that the beaver is native to Britain and the River Otter is just the latest front in a contentious, decades-old battle over whether to reintroduce the species, with a cadre of ecologists on one side that touts the beaver's environmental benefits, and farmers, landowners, and fishermen on the other who fear the animal could disrupt a way of life to which the British have grown accustomed.

The beaver seen here, at night along the River Otter, is thought to be the only one of its kind living wild in England.

PHOTOGRAPH BY TOM BUCKLEY, REX FEATURES, VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS

In Ottery St. Mary, Jenny Hill, a local resident, wiped crumbs from a tablecloth after a church social event. "I think it's awful," she said of the government's intent to capture the beavers. "I really just hope they leave them alone."

To rally support, Buckley has plastered shop windows around town with signs that read "Save Our Beavers," urging people to sign a petition.

Instead of killing the animals, the government hopes to find them a new home in captivity. But even then, the decision has infuriated Buckley. "I can't think of anything more horrifying," he said as he gazed out on the River Otter. "I've spent so much time with these beavers, probably more than anyone else."

Since his initial sighting, the 61-year-old has diligently chronicled the beavers. He can identify each one by the markings on its tail, and he filmed three brand-new, baby kits. If the adult beavers weren't born wild on the river, Buckley asserts, their offspring most definitely were.

On the opposite side of the debate is Mark Owen of Angling Trust, an organisation that represents the interests of anglers in England. It has lobbied ministers in London to remove the beavers, concerned their dams will block the migration of salmon and sea trout. "All fish species need to move around the river system in order to properly complete their life cycles," Owen said.

A Country Transformed

Although beaver and fish would have coexisted in Britain for tens of thousands of years, and continue to do so in other countries, he believes the British countryside has been transformed beyond recognition since the last beaver disappeared.

"The majority of our rivers have been impacted by man, either by dredging, straightening, or widening. We also presumably, at that point, had very good and high fish stocks. Now we don't," Owen argued.

"Not enough scrutiny has been given to the effects of beaver reintroduction."

However, most pro-beaver folks will tell you the case in favour of beavers is already well established. Britain lags far behind the rest of Europe, where the beaver's comeback is widely regarded as an environmental success story. Reintroductions on the Continent began in the early 20th century, after the population sank to a mere 1,200 survivors. It now stands well above 300,000.

PHOTOGRAPH BY NG STAFF; JOEY FENING. SOURCES: SCOTTISH BEAVER TRIAL; NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH

Likewise in North America, where the fur trade decimated the species, millions of beavers are now thriving across Canada and the United States. Under European Union law, an onus is placed on member states like Britain to consider reintroducing lost species, but Scotland is the only territory to have made any real strides on behalf of the beaver (the Scottish government makes its own decisions on such matters).

Wildlife conservationists there have just completed a five-year reintroduction trial, and a public poll found 60 percent of Scots support re-establishing the beaver as a native species.

Beavers Easy to Reintroduce

"Beavers are one of the easiest extinct animals to reintroduce," said Derek Gow, an ecologist who operates a farm a short drive from the River Otter. "It's something we should have done a very long time ago."

In conservation circles, Gow is often referred to as "The Beaver Man." And with his large frame and round, bearded face, the man very much resembles the creature. He sees the beaver as an essential keystone species that's vital for creating the kind of complex wetlands that support greater biodiversity and, in response to the Angling Trust, healthier fish stocks.

To demonstrate, Gow has released dozens of beavers into large, open enclosures on his land. We made our way down into a wooded ravine where the animals have been re-engineering an ordinary stream into a cascade of small dams and shallow pools filled with amphibian eggs.

"Before we put the beavers in, there were no clumps of amphibian eggs at all," Gow said. "By the time the beavers finish manipulating this site, there will be thousands and thousands. If there are no beavers building dams, then things like amphibians simply can't exist. And of course, these amphibians are, in their own right, a very important prey base for a host of other species."

It's a habitat Gow says Britain has been missing for the past few centuries.

If Adrian Lloyd Jones had his way, beavers would already be hard at work in the Welsh countryside. For nearly a decade the 45-year-old has run the Welsh Beaver Project on a shoestring budget, working to bring the species back to Wales, which like Scotland has its own say on reintroductions. When we met, he was showing off a taxidermied beaver named Hanc to a group of children at a summer funfair on the Afon Rheidol, a small river that winds through a bucolic valley full of sheep and spindly hedgerows.

Jones plans to release beavers nearby and needs as much local support as he can get, so he had made the trip down in a beat-up old van, sleeping in the back next to Hanc to save money. He smiled as the kids prodded the stuffed animal and their parents politely asked questions.

"I haven't had one person against," he said.

Welsh Government Opposition

Elsewhere, though, Jones has run into fierce resistance, including heated town hall meetings, and his experience proves just how fraught species reintroduction can be. The Welsh Beaver Project was supposed to have released its first batch of beavers, but as Jones claims, the Welsh government scuppered those plans.

The minister for natural resources in Wales, John Griffiths, who oversees such decisions, declined a request for an interview. That's perhaps because beavers can be a political minefield in this country. While polls like the one in Scotland reveal general support for beaver reintroduction, farmers often abhor the idea, and they're an important voting block, particularly in Wales where agriculture remains a key component of the economy.

"Over 90 percent of the farmers and landowners have signed a petition against having any beavers on the river," said Gareth Daniels, a tall, 62-year-old sheep and cattle farmer who owns 190 acres along the Rheidol. His family goes back several generations in the river valley, which saw intense flooding in 2012, and he worries beaver dams would only exacerbate the problem.

Daniels drove his pick-up truck across the Rheidol's shallow gravel bed as his cows watched from the riverbank. "I call the beaver a vermin," said the Welshman, using the term applied to a number of species hunted to extinction, or very near it, under England's so-called Vermin Acts of the 16th century. "I'm not really interested in bringing species that have been extinct back. I would rather it not happen."

Dafydd Jarrett of the National Farmers' Union in Wales agrees. While Jones argues that beaver-created wetlands would actually retain water and minimise flooding, Jarrett isn't convinced farmers will have the liberty to remove problematic dams or even kill particularly troublesome beavers.

"The public outcry ... could potentially put any control programme at risk," said Jarrett, who fears beavers in Britain could earn European legal protection just as they enjoy in other countries.

He points to places like Bavaria in Germany, where farmers frequently come into conflict with beavers whose underground burrows can erode farmland next to riverbanks.

"Epidemic" Destruction

And in the U.S., growing beaver populations have been known to cause what the U.S. Department of Agriculture called "epidemic" destruction to crops and other property.

In response to such complaints, Jones has moved his proposed reintroduction off the main trunk of the Rheidol, away from farmland. He hopes the Welsh government will finally give him the go-ahead next spring.

On the River Otter, Tom Buckley says he's seen wildlife agents scouting for a place to set their beaver traps, although the environment department declined to confirm this. Rumours abound of other beaver families living up and down the river, and a local wildlife trust is pleading with the government to let the beavers stay so it can study their environmental impact.

George Eustace, the British undersecretary who announced the planned capture, did not respond to an interview request. Yet even if the government removes the animals, or if Wales never grants permission for a release, many proponents believe beavers will recolonise Britain, whether farmers and anglers like it or not.

"If we don't do an official reintroduction, it'll happen anyway," said Jones as he strapped Hanc into the back of his van with a bungee tie. He points to the Tay in Scotland, currently home to an estimated 200 to 300 beavers living wild on its banks and tributaries.

Beaver advocates claim their numbers have grown out of a handful of escapees from nearby enclosures over a decade ago. But privately, other beaver experts admit a population of that size would have to be the result of illegal releases, and the future of the Tay beavers is uncertain. Scottish ministers are expected to decide next year whether they can stay.

"There's no doubt that beaver bombers are putting pressure on the government," Jones said. "If they don't do it properly, it's going to happen by the back door, and happening by the back door wouldn't be a good thing. It's far better to do it in a planned, coordinated, and organised way."

But he warns many beaver proponents have grown increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of progress. Off the record, some express a willingness to take matters into their own hands. "You can't stop people doing this. I've heard, probably third hand, people say, 'For every one beaver they take, we're going to put ten back,' " said Jones. "There's probably, in truth, enough beavers out there that in 30 years' time, they'll start to appear on lots of rivers."

Badger Killing Is Unscientific and Wrong and Face Facts About Squirrels

It appears that people are still spreading the same old dogma because (a) it's easier to copy and paste and (b) humans MUST have a species that it can scapegoat for its own actions.

Enter the grey squirrel and the badger. In the case of the badger it is being eradicated from the UK countryside so that in a few years it will be a rarity. 250,000 killed so far and up to 60,000 per year killed by cars. Bad animal management practices are to blame for bovine TB and unless you are mentally deranged you will have been made aware at some point that there is no science behind the killing of badgers. A number of sources evenb state that badgers "became a scapegoat species in the 1970s".

In A Field Guide To The Carnivores Of The World by Luke Hunter (Panthera, London, 2011) it is stated (p. 164):

"Persecuted as a pest and for illegal 'baiting' with terriers. Controversially culled as a carrier of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in the UK, despite strong evidence that culls do not reduce incidence of the disease. Red List"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6008655/#:~:text=Even%20with%20such%20heterogeneity%20of,resurgent%20(as%20discussed%20above).

There is mention of low, medium and high density badger populations which, frankly, showed that the authors were unaware of badgers in the UK. 250,000 have been killed and in some areas there are badger free zones where the population has been wiped out. There is still bTB. If anything there are only what can be described as low or medium density badger populations and on top of that some 65,000+ badgers are killed on the roads each year and an unknown number snared, shot or baited. High density populations is a fantasy.

One question the authors do not mention, they are after all looking at dairy cattle, we have large urban badger populations and they have been at established locations for many decades if not a century or more (many village badger setts are now part of larger cities and towns) and yet...where are all the deer coming down with bTB? Every dead badger I have recorded in the Bristol Badger deaths Register is the victim of a car or lorry. With larger "densities" of badgers why are we not seeing bTB sweeping through our gardens and parks?

Reading the paper it almost seems as though the authors are about to claim bad animal husbandry but step back -after all don't want to upset dairy farmers and their in pocket politicians. We had BSE of course and know the cause there:

"A cow gets BSE by eating feed contaminated with parts that came from another cow that was sick with BSE. The contaminated feed contains the abnormal prion, and a cow becomes infected with the abnormal prion when it eats the feed. If a cow gets BSE, it most likely ate the contaminated feed during its first year of life."

In fact quite a lot of farmed animal diseases are down to contaminated foods and bad animal husbandry -some of the most outright and illegal things farmers were guilty of was during the UK BSE outbreak when cattle were moved around and infected cattle moved to other areas. In effect bad animal husbandry combined with problems in the food production side of things contributed and still does to many farm animals. Another aspect may be the genetics of cows bred and the type of cow we see in fields today are completely different to the old British types that were seen as more rugged and hardier.

How does bTB get into cattle in an area where there have never been any badgers? Another good question is why there is never any bTB testing of the badgers killed in culls and WHY are we prevented from carrying out such post mortems by the UK Health and Safety Executive "because of the risk of bovine TB"?

Then we have the Grey squirrel.

Humans introduced the grey squirrel mainly as a novelty specimen for estates and menageries. As with other human interferences with nature an unnatural evolution took place. What they like to call the "survival of the fittest" -though this is only applied when it is an animal humans want to encourage for some reason. In this case 'sporting shooting'

Another truth is that humans -game keepers, country squires and the wood industry have been trapping, snaring, poisoning and shooting red squirrels for a long time ("shooting a few brace before lunch" -"brace" being a pair- was a little bit of 'fun sport'.

From 1977 until DEFRA attempted to stop my being a Partner Against Wldlife Crimes (PAWS) in 2015 (police forces do still consult me) I had to speak to pest controllers, game keepers, estate managers, farmers and estate owners and one after another would refer to the "pests" or "vermin" they had to take care of and one of these was the red squirrel. "Why the squirrels?" I would ask. "Vermin" was the response 99% of the time but the other 1% found it a "fun shoot". I soon became aware that local authorities, DEFRA and the police were turning a blind eye using a few down pat excuses about private property etc. Red squirrels are classed a endangered and even the Young Peoples Trust For the Environment continues the lie of the grey menace

https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/squirrel-red/territory

In 1945 there was a huge red squirrel population compared to that of the grey as this map from Wildlife Trusts demonstrates https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/saving-species/red-squirrels

Red squirrels distribution map

Before we get on to the next question it has to be pointed out that the reds of the late 19th century on are not the Old British red squirrels that were decimated by hunting in the mid 19th century and "new stock" was imported to continue the 'fun'.

So how did the Greys start winning so much territory from the Reds and why? Simple; following the as outlined in The Gazette https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/102333

"The Forestry Commission was founded to restore the nation’s timber reserves in the wake of World War 1. Here's how 100 years of forestry has helped to shape our landscape.

In September 1919, the first Forestry Act, which created the Forestry Commission and recognised the importance of forestry to the UK, came into force.

The beginnings

By the end of World War 1, the UK’s timber supply was much depleted. Britain’s forests had already suffered a steady decline since the Middle Ages, and the additional strain of the war – especially trench warfare – left the nation’s woodlands in a state of disrepair.

From a countryside that was once largely forest, just 5 per cent of tree cover remained, and urgent action was required to address growing concerns.

In 1918, the Acland Committee reported to then prime minister, David Lloyd George, that an organisation with state backing would be the most effective way of restoring and restocking the nation’s forests.

On 1 September 1919, the Forestry Act came in to force, establishing the Forestry Commission and granting it responsibility to look after woods across England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales (Gazette issue 31837).

By Christmas of the same year, the first Forestry Commission trees had been planted at Eggesford in Devon, turning the tide for post-war woodlands, and paving the way for the future of forestry in Britain.

Post-war planting

In the years that followed, the Commission was given the confidence and freedom to focus on acquiring and planting new woodland. Hundreds of thousands of acres were planted, but more turbulent times lay ahead.

As tensions mounted across Europe, the Commission had to draw up felling plans in the event of another war. The Forest of Dean and New Forest were hit hardest, and while scores of trees were felled, the Commission continued to expand; growing its workforce and planting more forests.

The subsequent decades witnessed a dramatic increase in productivity for the Commission, as forests were expanded due to fuel demand for a burgeoning timber trade.

Technologies and mechanical equipment simultaneously improved, alongside a growing awareness of public recreation needs, and the importance of conservation for wildlife and the environment.

Woodland grants schemes, which had existed since the formation of the Commission, evolved and provided different incentives. These included awards for broadleaf planting, and for landowners who considered public access"

Despite all the talk of preserving red squirrel habitat the one thing officials and various organisations keep quiet about is "the squirrel as a pest" -damage to young saplings and mature "timber" -business and estates lose money. Get rid of the squirrels while 'protecting' habitats (until the wood there is needed).

The Grey squirrel is often cited as the "perfect example" of what authorities like to term "invasive species" and these need "eradication" (killing). Odd that the red squirrel population is stabilising and not just due to the mass killings of grey squirrels. Greys have found towns and gardens far better habitats -bird feeders and a very wide selection of foods.

Bird watchers tend to hate red and grey squirrels as "nest robbers" and a few of these people relish killing grey squirrels (and where they can out of sight reds). Today you will see the RSPCA telling you it is okay to trap and kill grey squirrels as well as other online sources stating that if you catch one you must kill it and vets (who mainly have no interest in wildlife as it does not bring in money) presented with a grey squirrel with even a minor ailment will not question the law and will kill it.

Humans introduced grey squirrels centuries ago while wiping out red squirrels and it is about time that the hunting term "vermin" as well as the money making (for pest controllers) term "pests" were dropped. In the year 2300 are we still going to see non stop killing of a species that is for all intents and purposes native?

hunting wiped out a lot of deer to the point that in the 1800s more had to be imported from Europe (hence DNA showing EU deer). They wiped out hares and imported more from Europe. Otters -ditto. Wild cats also. In fact, wild cats being released, hares, any number of deer with EU DNA, foxes, beaver on and on and on -all foreign species imported and released so invasive species?

Saturday, 2 December 2023

Face Book -Time To Stop Supporting Wildlife Killing (even if you are Americans)

Image from Face Book

Face Book thought that suggesting one of its pages Coyote Hunting would be something I am interested in.

Me, a conservationist specialising in felids and canids.

Lots of grinning psychopaths holding up dead coyotes, showing footage of their killing coyotes and so on.

So I reported it as violence and animal abuse.

I do not think that at a time when canids world wide -foxes, wolves, coyotes, dingoes and others are facing death on a massive scale that FB should be providing social media (and there are a good few 'sport' pages that are showing illegal activity) for what amounts to 'killing for fun' and wildlife destruction.

Time FB stopped thinking about the money and data snatching and more about the world we are living in.

image from Face Book

PayPal Donation Link