Letter to The Herald from John Clarke
"Further to recent letters sent to The Herald on the subject of chough and the RSPB’s involvement in conservation measures, I have been heavily involved in chough conservation since 1982 - I lived on Colonsay for eight years and carried out historical research on Colonsay’s chough and agriculture on Islay, Jura, Gigha, and Colonsay. In 1992 and ‘93, I was involved in an intensive study of breeding-chough behaviour on Islay.
From this background I may not be qualified to speak about political or ethical matters concerning fund-raising or the ownership of land. However, I am qualified to speak about the chough and the management of land where it lives. Therefore I was not best pleased to read some of the RSPB’s Stuart Housden’s comments. In fairness, I can only assume that Mr Housden has been either misled or misinformed by those who really should know better.
For whatever reason, the RSPB is attempting to tell us that once it takes charge of a site, then the chough news gets better. To back these claims, Mr Housden uses observations and figures taken completely out of context and ignores what we understand about the natural population functions of chough.
For example, he states that since the RSPB began managing Smaull Farm on Islay over 40 chough have used the farm. What he does not tell us is how many were using it prior to RSPB’s involvement. I know the farm, which was formerly managed by Eric and Sue Bignal (internationally acknowledged experts on chough), and I am sure that their records would show that similar numbers used the area pre-RSPB.
Furthermore, the same chough still use the other farms that the Bignals manage - and indeed other sites, so the implication that the chough use Smaull because of the RSPB may not be false but it is clearly misleading.
The RSPB took over Oronsay, I believe, in 1995. It claims that since then, numbers of wintering chough have increased and that a pair has attempted to breed. All this, Mr Housden says, has contributed to the relative health of the nearby Colonsay population. I find these claims equally outrageous. Surely they can only be designed to mislead the public or to boost somebody’s credibility within the RSPB.
The RSPB gives no credit to the previous incumbent on Oronsay - or to the other farmers and crofters of Colonsay, most of whom were actively managing land for chough long before the RSPB arrived. They were doing this through their farming practices and schemes drawn up by SNH, the Agricultural Department, or the Scottish Chough Study Group - and often with advice from SCSG members such as myself.
In truth, in the early 1900s chough were rarely seen on Colonsay. Then in the early ‘70s a pair began breeding. Since then, the numbers have steadily increased especially during the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. We estimated that in winter and spring 1994 the population of chough on Colonsay was 30-35 birds (30-plus had been seen on Oronsay).
Stuart Housden states that the RSPB recorded 31 in winter, December 1999, so not much change there! Incidentally, a pair nested and laid eggs at a site on Oronsay in 1985, 10 years before the RSPB arrived! Again, the claim may not be false but it is a long way short of the true picture.
Regarding management, our (and others’) observations show that the wintering chough on Colonsay and Oronsay feed about equally on the larvae in rotting kelp (on the strand line, which is not managed!) or on mining-bee larvae in the dune systems (grazed). We found that the largest accumulations of mining bees occur where there is either lower grazing or seasonal exclusion of grazing.
However, at a chough seminar in 1999, RSPB speakers seemed obsessed with an assumption that intensive grazing is the answer. True, intensive grazing produces masses of dung, which for the few warmer months of the year will be colonised by dung invertebrates for chough to feed upon. However, I and many others believe intensive grazing also reduces populations of a whole range of other invertebrate chough prey, including mining bees (so important for the local chough population), needed at other times of the year.
This information - and so much more - has been passed to the RSPB. I do not understand why it chooses to ignore hard facts and expert opinion, and when subsequently criticised in public, couches its replies in such a misleading manner.
It gives me little satisfaction to criticise the RSPB. However, as a long-time supporter of its work nationally, I am saddened by what I have too often seen it doing on Islay and Colonsay. It is so easy to be convinced by the RSPB’s greater PR machine that the voices of criticism are those of uninformed cranks or people with grudges.
Not so, RSPB! The fact that we are not in "your team" does not necessarily place us "on the other side". Most of us care deeply about the chough, the associated wildlife, and the farming communities who look after them - why else would we often work unpaid and unfunded? Letters like this are our only method of redressing the balance by airing our views and giving the public real facts.
And one real fact is that, to date, I have seen no clear eviodence that the RSPB’s direct involvement with land management has benefited the Scottish chough. That is not a criticism, nor am I concerned with scoring political points. I feel that it is just the honest truth."
Footnote:
RSPB = Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. SNH = Scottish Natural Heritage. Chough are a great feature of Colonsay and their numbers have soared in recent years - they are amongst the most entertaining and attractive of our birds. At the present time, Colonsay is probably their most important stronghold. A visitor to Islay might see one here and there, in Colonsay they would be hard to avoid. John and Pamela Clarke carried out a lot of natural history research in Colonsay during their years in the island and many of their published papers are available locally. Their booklets on Colonsay Birds and Colonsay flora are on sale at the bookshop. They lived at Milbuie and their monuments include the neighbouring woodland which they raised entirely from native Colonsay seed; it was John and Pamela who proved that A’ Choille Mhor had been coppiced, and it was they who arranged dendrochronological tests on the Loch Fada stumps (4,700 years old). Good to hear John in such fine form, and many thanks to S.C. for submitting this extract from an obviously stimulating debate.
|
