Last Saturday I was glad to see two letters published in the Independent newspaper. Both were replying to an original letter by Guy Smith, a well-known and vocal farmer from Essex.
Mr Smith's letter was basically saying that although some species of birds have declined on farmland (I think he does accept that they have) others have increased significantly - particularly crows, magpies and raptors.
One of the replies was from another farmer, a Mr Harrison from Northumberland. Mr Smith's letter didn't please Mr Harrison at all and he wrote as follows: 'I cringe with embarrassment at the terrifyingly crass response to this vital issue by my "fellow" farmer, Guy Smith...' and his letter ends thus : 'It is sad that some farmers are defensive of their tragic modern role as a downtrodden link in a chain of huge chemical corporations, ruthless "food" manufacturers, and giant retailers.'.
The second letter was from a Mr Palmer from Nottinghamshire who may or may not be a farmer but is clearly a land owner who knows his birds. Mr Palmer suggests that better care of hedgerows should be required of farmers and that this would replace some of the invertebrate life that has all too often been lost from farmland.
Now you must make your own mind up about the rights and wrongs of the issues discussed. In fact, although I have had many a good-humoured difference of opinion with Guy Smith the point he makes in his letter is not completely off the mark even if it isn't completely on target either. But what I did enjoy was seeing a farmer speaking out so strongly and clearly for nature as Mr Harrison did. If the RSPB had written his letter then we would have been called anti-farmer whereas that is not a criticism that can be levelled at 'fellow' farmers.
Guy Smith is an NFU Communication Spokesman, and I see he was talking at the Suffolk NFU Annual meeting last week on 'Better communication for the NFU and farming.'. I wonder how much Guy Smith had to do with the NFU's response to the consultation on the Natural Environment White Paper.
The NFU's line, unless I have misinterpreted it (so do read it yourself), is that the environment is fine and that the big issue now is food production. I don't expect much environmental sense from the NFU and I don't find much compassion or understanding of wildlife issues in this response. I wonder what Mr Palmer and Mr Harrison would think of it. I wonder what Sooty thinks of it? I wonder what other readers of this blog think of it. I wonder what the average NFU member thinks of it. And I wonder what the public - who pays for the Single Farm Payment and agri-environment payments - might think of it.
The NFU line certainly flies against the Defra line of biodiversity being a top priority and 'getting more from less' so I also wonder what Defra Ministers might make of it.
When the NFU starts from the position that there isn't a problem then there is little common ground with conservationists. Little wonder that our best moments with farmers are working with those farmers who realise that there is a problem and are keen to put biodiversity back into our countryside. They are the farmers who are true farming leaders.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
Think someone said one large hawthorn bush/tree call it what you will has as many berries as 200 yards of hedgerow so if this is true we should promote this as it is not a big problem to leave one big bush in the corner of a hedge,must be a reason why so called environmentalists do not promote this,to keep a hedge stock proof 99% of population do not understand you have to trim a hedge every year,how many garden hedges cut every 2 or 3 years.Another case of general public saying do as i say farmers not as we all do.
mirlo, the stewardship schemes are policed, with hefty fines associated with them. Perhaps those farms you refer to are not in a scheme. Plus roadside hedge are allowed to be cut every year and are not part of the ELS scheme.
Out of interest I've always cut my hedges on a 3 to 4 year rotation to maximise the bird food and diverse structure. Recently I was verbally abused by one of the city gents who "lives" in our village, because I was making "his" countryside looking untidy, unlike my annual cutting neighbour, who knew how to farm properly. What do they say about pleasing everyone ... :-)
In relation to the comments about wildlife and hedgerows , FWAG produce an excellent leaflet about hedgerow management
www.fwag.org.uk/.../TIS3_Hedgerow_management_-_E2005.\
pdf
However in this part of the country (N. cumbria) very few hedgerows are managed in this wildlife friendly way. I would go as far as saying that the majority of hedgerows are almost wildlife free zones at least as far as our visiting winter bird migrants, Most hedgerows seem to be cut annually and are kept in a manicured form which doesn't allow the development of fruits and berries. This was brought home to me the other day when I was walking alongside a tall hedge covered in berries. There were hundreds of blackbirds, redwings and fieldfares and also a good number of bullfinches as well, The next hedge which was low and heavily trimmed held no birds at all.
i enjoy wildlife photography and know from experience that hedges with a taller diverse structure provide feeding and breeding habitats for many many times more bird, insects and mammals . Something needs to be done to ensure any environmental payments for maintaining boundaries are not wasted and are targeted at producing good wildlife friendly hedges.
The entry level stewardship conditions state that hedges should not be cut more than once in every 2 years. This certainly rarely happens as the vast majority are being cut annually and therefore some form of policing needs to take place to ensure that the environmental payment conditions are being followed
Jocky sad as it maybe that a permissive footpath closed i wonder if it was because people abused it for example lots of footpaths abused by dogs off of leads and no one comments on a permissive path opened.
Mark,think we all know there are unfortunately more corvids but it is more smaller birds we need and i have said many times each parish needs a couple of acres devoted to growing crops for small birds which would allow the rest of the parish to grow food that will be needed as at the very least it saves money on imports which at the moment must be important.Nothing wrong with HLS they work quite well in most parts of the country and nothing is perfect.Think farmers are adapting to being wildlife friendly but need time to adjust to today's environmental friendly ways.Do not think NFU speak for many farmers on wildlife or anything else for that matter,certainly when i was farming we crossed swords too often when they should have been on my side which when you are a member cannot be good.
Cannot understand the letter from Mr Palmer saying better care of hedgerows as even if trimmed each year which some people do not like cannot see it affecting the invertebrates and in fact may be better for them by keeping a nice thick hedge low down.
Think today we have to have a balance between efficient farming and wildlife but of course these forums are very biased as almost 60 million do not give a monkeys about wildlife or they would join RSPB or similar.
Wonder if it is true what wildlife the RSPB found at their stand that they had at a erotic show,i know people say increased membership but at the risk of looking prudish wonder how many will not renew membership,surely cannot be true they had a stand must be a April fools joke.
Once again the RSPB is getting stick from some commentators for daring to comment on the very real issue of wildlife loss in our countryside (maybe some people take it personally - they shouldn't) and once again those commentators are missing the point. How we protect our finite land mass from wholesale agricultural industrialisation actually matters a great deal to us ultimately and not just a few Blue Tits. If there was no protection and no one was held accountable we'd be back to the good old days of over production, indiscriminate use of pesticides, ripping out of hedges and ancient woodland to squeeze out every last drop of profit - I don't particularly want to go there and I suspect the majority of farmers don't want to either. And how can we as a nation criticise other countries for cutting down rain forests, resuming hunting for whales etc etc when we can't even halt substantial and serious declines in some of our most iconic wildlife species? Yes, there are practical issues to resolve - but to say there are no problems is short sighted in the extreme.