These islands are too small and our population too many for conservation conflicts to be indulged. Scotland leads the way to reducing conflict by chasing consensus through mutual understanding and perhaps even respect. We have learned rather belatedly that consensus is vital. No longer will re introductions and protection be allowed to be automatically waved through by the conservation lobby working under the public’s radar. If there’s a case to be made, then it must be made in a manner that covers all bases and explores all unintended consequences and always demonstrates a clear exit strategy. The Moorland Forum has made a good start.
Right on cue, we have this new wildlife conflict growing in Scotland after years of under the radar Bavarian beaver release/escapes/turning a blind eye, the Tayside beaver supporters are dismissing illegal and claiming the “moral” high ground. This type of guerilla rewilding in Scotland has taken place on the watch of SNH despite repeated warnings from landowners and farmers. Belatedly SNH set up a trial in a remote area on the West Coast where obviously no conflict with farming occurred. Were they really unaware of the Tay beavers breeding and spreading through the rich, productive Carse of Gowrie farmland where a more meaningful impact trial could have been undertaken? No matter, as they say “the SH1T has now hit the fan, and the farmers and landowners, while acting within the law to mitigate damage to their drainage systems are now being portrayed as evil and bad. I despair.
Thanks Daye. Crucial consensus bypassed at peril! Though I’m acutely aware that ‘conservation without cash is just conversation’. Aka firstly, funds are required to organise these ‘finding-consensus’ workshops and secondly, more money is needed to implement solutions – incl. regular feedback meetings from all stakeholders etc on the ground. It can be done.
These islands are too small and our population too many for conservation conflicts to be indulged. Scotland leads the way to reducing conflict by chasing consensus through mutual understanding and perhaps even respect. We have learned rather belatedly that consensus is vital. No longer will re introductions and protection be allowed to be automatically waved through by the conservation lobby working under the public’s radar. If there’s a case to be made, then it must be made in a manner that covers all bases and explores all unintended consequences and always demonstrates a clear exit strategy. The Moorland Forum has made a good start.
Right on cue, we have this new wildlife conflict growing in Scotland after years of under the radar Bavarian beaver release/escapes/turning a blind eye, the Tayside beaver supporters are dismissing illegal and claiming the “moral” high ground. This type of guerilla rewilding in Scotland has taken place on the watch of SNH despite repeated warnings from landowners and farmers. Belatedly SNH set up a trial in a remote area on the West Coast where obviously no conflict with farming occurred. Were they really unaware of the Tay beavers breeding and spreading through the rich, productive Carse of Gowrie farmland where a more meaningful impact trial could have been undertaken? No matter, as they say “the SH1T has now hit the fan, and the farmers and landowners, while acting within the law to mitigate damage to their drainage systems are now being portrayed as evil and bad. I despair.
http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scotsman/20151126/281560879706691/TextView
Thanks Daye.
Crucial consensus bypassed at peril! Though I’m acutely aware that ‘conservation without cash is just conversation’. Aka firstly, funds are required to organise these ‘finding-consensus’ workshops and secondly, more money is needed to implement solutions – incl. regular feedback meetings from all stakeholders etc on the ground.
It can be done.