Everyone's talking about white-tailed eagles, it seems. Even my taxi driver this morning in London had a view - amazingly he lives in Suffolk! And for what it's worth, he was very much in favour of the reintroduction scheme.
There are some great comments on my earlier blogs on this subject including one posted yesterday by Derek Moore which it is well worth reading for its forthright nature.
Tom Tew, the Natural England Chief Scientist, was on the radio earlier this week dispelling some myths and spreading some common sense and you can listen to it for the next few days by following this link.
On the more sceptical end of things, following Libby Purves's not very accurate article in the Times there have been two letters published on the subject in this same newspaper, one by Songbird Survival and the other by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust. Neither is very positive about the reintroduction which appears to be The Times's own line since it hasn't seen fit to publish any contrary views although we know they have received some.
The Daily Telegraph published one article on the subject which took the Robin Page line - funny that, he writes for the Telegraph! - including the view that there is scant evidence that white-tailed eagles used to live in East Anglia. Well we know that is a myth.
What is lacking is any evidence to back up the claims of Robin Page and others that white-tailed eagles will do harm to livestock or wildlife. The comments posted here on my blog (some from true experts in the field) , and all the discussions I have seen, suggest that the landowners of Suffolk have nothing to fear from eagles and that the wider public have much to look forward to in respect of a beautiful bird and the economic benefit that it will bring with it in terms of tourism revenue.
On Mull, an RSPB economic study indicated that the white-tailed eagles brought in annually about £1.5m to the local economy - we would now think that figure is closer to £2m per annum.
If there is hard evidence from where white-tailed eagles currently live that they might do harm in Suffolk then let us please see that evidence now. That's one of the things that a consultation period is for. The RSPB is keen to see any evidence on this subject, but uninformed hysterical opposition to what is, let's face it, just a big bird, in the early days of the 21st century seems very sadly misplaced.
Sooty - I too have lived all my life in the countryside and amongst farming communities. You are right there is now legislation to prevent hedgerow damage and sometimes helpful coppicing and management is seen as damage by the ill-informed. However in my life time farmers were encouraged to remove miles and miles of hedgerow leaving much of our arable countryside devoid of any shrubs or trees. This is the period when huge declines in farmland wildlife took place.
The farming fraternity are not alone to blame in this - as usual politicians must share most of the responsibility.
Remember that any improvements we have seen with farmers doing positive things for wildlife are the result of conservationists (some farmers included) , the farming fraternity and politicians working together to provide legislation where appropriate and agri-environment schemes to hang on to our wildlife resource.
I was part of some of the pionerring work so know this to be true.
A lot of farmers and landowners have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept the agri-environment schemes. It is the same type who are now scare-mongering about the re-introduction of White-tailed Eagles.
Hi Mark back page of Telegraph so assume correct,perhaps Monday,they did say that RSPB had said that so if incorrect I owe RSPB apology but more so the telegraph owes RSPB apology,sorry can't say which day but paper goes to a friend.Each day telegraph back page right in the centre is nature note,it was there.
shagger I have lived on farms all my life and just about everything you say is incorrect i have not the time to go through it all but as an example farmers would not cut hedges to the ground(what good would a hedge like that be)and it is illegal to cut during the nesting season and you cannot collect conservation subsidy if you do it.Hedges need to be flailed each year to keep a thick growing hedge which in turn benefits nesting birds.Suggest if you want to criticise you at least get your facts right.Sometimes conservationists need to stand back and ask farmers why they do things because generations of farmers have created quite a good landscape and what you fail to understand is it is in the farmers interest to have a good landscape as he spends 24-7 in that landscape you may only spend a small % of that time.If you have read some of my comments you have evidence that conservationists sometimes do exactly the opposite of what farmers would like and benefit the wildlife.
Bob - thanks. I am looking forward to seeing, here or elsewhere, well argued concerns over white-tailed eagles that we can all get our teeth into and evaluate.
Sooty - the first winter feeding suggestion is well taken. I'm not sure that it would be needed though. On your other point about RSPB 'having a below the belt go' at farmers - I don't recognise that. Can you remember where you heard it or what it was, please?
Shagger - welcome. Interesting name!
Dear Mark,
I am definitely in favour of the reintroduction of the Sea Eagle if no substantial impacts on livelihoods are identified from studies. I think that the tone and the language used in the Purves and other articles does suggest a kind of hysteria, and the number of articles printed, the inaccuracies paraded as truths in most of them smacks of a concerted campaign to discredit the RSPB, Natural England and conservationists in general.
Quite apart from the fears presented as facts by the writers, it is ironic that the people who accuse conservationists of meddling and gardening speak out in defence of farmers and landowners, the single categories most responsible for the drastic modification of the environment. Just how relatively sterile the countryside has become is not apparent to most people under 40 years old. Series of small changes have resulted in a terrible impoverishment of farmland which does not compare with the insect and bird rich environments of the 50s and 60s.
Sooty should not worry that land is being unnecessarily devoted to conservation. Firstly the bulk of our land - speaking largely of England - is already under cultivation or used for livestock rearing. Although many farmers try to do something, very many receive their grants paid from the public purse, and pay only lip-service to conservation. For proof of this you don't even need tables of statistics on bird, plant and invertegrate declines - just go for a walk in the country. You will see hedges flailed to the ground, cut during the nesting season, fields ploughed right up to the field-edge and complete fields with hardly a simple weed or non-crop plant in them.
I applaud the RSPB's work with the farming community and would welcome competitions designed to highlight the useful work farmers are doing, but a recent list of candidates for awards revealed a farm covering several square miles in which the conservation initiative was largely confined to an area of less than 40 hectares. If this is the scale on which conservation initiatives are being implemented we should not worry about the amount of food production that is being sacrificed.
After years in which a positive conservation message has been transmitted there appears to be very-highly organised and sometimes fairly unscrupulous campaign to attack all those who think of quality of life and believe we should share this planet with other organisms. In this conservation organisation are sometimes to blame. The tone of the Natural England document on the White Tailed eagle reintroduction was too easily represented by the enemies of conservation as arrogant and devious. I prefer to think that as the threats faced by wildlife and the countryside grow, so the conservationsits have tended to borrow the cocksure and manipulative language of the "developers".
Just listened to Tom Tew and if I heard it right suggesting intensification of pigs might be on the cards to prevent Eagles taking the piglets,now I don't want to be rude but he is having a laugh isn't he.Everyone complains including RSPB about farming intensification and then farmers go free range pigs now leading scientist wants them back intensively.How do farmers know what to do.He also said I believe about managing the Eagles,what is that all about has someone learnt to communicate with them and tell them when and where to go.
I saw a couple of days ago that RSPB had a below the belt go at farmers getting £2billion subsidy and not doing much for the environment,talk about good relations I don't know but my guess is they are wrong as most in fact almost all goes to European farmers not UK farmers and UK farmers to claim the subsidy abide by the rules or they do not get it.Have said before if Government(influenced by RSPB and N E)tells farmers what they have to do to claim,farmers will do it but as is obvious from Tom Tews remark they seem to want just what individual organisations want at any one time.Food will become an increasingly important commodity in future decades and I wonder that these people who are keen for farms to become wildlife refuges if it gets to looking at wildlife but no food will they stick to principles.The consequences of the sea taking back the fens as some are advocating would be disastrous in the long run for our food supplies.For sure at some point we shall not be able to import so much food.