The RSPB led wholesale slaughter has been condemned widely by
conservationists as CONservation hooliganism. This fiasco is costing
the British taxpayer in excess of 6 million pounds, the RSPB shooting
partners get to shoot a prize target and the RSPB profit greatly from
making up imaginary problems that need fixing. Fine you say but whilst
this rush for cash crop is going on, genuine conservation is
suffering. The RSPB are spending very little of their annual income of
60 million pounds on issues like the decline of songbirds, the loss of
sparrows etc and it's about time we kicked back.
================================================== ===
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/
SENSELESS SLAUGHTER
Animal Aid Director Andrew Tyler made the case against slaughtering
ruddy ducks at a recent RSPCA internal seminar that examined the fate
of the bird and wider issues of 'conservation versus welfare'. Read
his address here.
Special report: February 2004
SENSELESS SLAUGHTER
The case against the cull
What follows is the text of Animal Aid Director Andrew Tyler's address
to a RSPCA internal seminar that examined the fate of the ruddy duck
and wider issues of 'conservation versus welfare'.
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/campaign.../ruddyduck.htm
"Killing in the name of blood purity strikes me as dangerously
retrograde"
You are being asked today to choose between animal welfare and species
conservation. This is a false choice. The real choice is between
rationality and a pathologically warped notion of wildlife
'management'.
Let us consider what you are being asked to endorse
A species of duck - the ruddy - was brought over to this country in
the 1940s by the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust. Its function was
ornamental, decorative. Some ruddys escaped and bred in the wild.
Their numbers increased to several thousand and then came reports that
some had reached Spain where they were mating with a rare duck called
the white headed - rare because it had been hunted and its wetlands
habitat destroyed by people.
The product of this union between the ruddy and white-headed is
regarded by the conservation zealots who make policy at bodies such as
the RSPB as profoundly offensive. Labelled an impure hybrid, there
could be only one way to deal with it - the mutant had to be hunted
down and killed.
Now perhaps I'm missing something, but killing in the name of blood
purity - human or animal - strikes me as dangerously retrograde. We
went there in the 1930s with the human population - attempting to weed
out misfits and defectives. That project was immoral, scientifically
misguided, logistically a non-starter and thoroughly brutal in its
execution. Precisely the same objections apply to the ruddy duck cull.
I shall be dealing with each of the objections in turn.
But let me say at the outset that I am not alone in detecting
something extremely worrying about the impulses at work here - this
obsession with genetic purity. Nature is not pure. Nature is not
fixed. It is in flux - not least because of the dramatic and
continuing impact our own species has on the landscape. The mating of
close genetic kin - hybridisation - is a fact of bird life, just as it
is a fact of plant life.
Let me also say that I do not believe that the RSPCA has the option of
standing on the sidelines on this issue. The job of the RSPCA is to
confront wanton cruelty. Proponents of the mass slaughter (sorry
'control programme') argue that nature is served by the killing. It is
not. The killing is driven by the political and funding imperatives of
the conservation industry. It is about power plays, point scoring, the
hunger for grants and a reactionary view of nature that regards
animals - not as having intrinsic value - but as objects for our
gratification.
It does not matter to the white headed duck that she has produced what
the RSPB calls an impure hybrid. It only matters to the more extreme
bird listers and tickers.
And yes, it is particularly depressing that this slaughter has been
driven by the RSPB. Here is a body, so I believe, whose origins are as
an animal welfare body concerned about the cruelty inherent in the use
of bird feathers to decorate ladies hats. These days, the Society is
explicit in its disavowal of any welfare brief. It is decidedly not
concerned with bird welfare. Its concerns don't even centre on birds
in general but on bird species whose numbers are reduced. That is why
it is content for pheasants to be mass produced and shot for pleasure.
It allows pheasant shooting on its own land - and, it's been reported,
works in harness with wildfowling clubs (i.e. duck shooters) and the
BASC.
I have said that the cull is, in large part, about conservation
politics
Let me explain by taking you through its origins. The process seems to
have started with Tom Gullick, a leading British ornithologist living
in Spain, who carried out a survey of the lakes in the south of the
country in the 1970s. Together with a colleague called Makins,
Gullkick alerted the Spanish authorities to the precarious position of
white headed ducks - whose population had shrunk to just 20 or 30
birds; this was thanks, as I say, to them being shot and their habitat
destroyed. The Spanish took action to preserve the main breeding
grounds and their white headed population has since grown to somewhere
between 1,000 and 3000 birds.
Gullick is grateful for the authorities' intervention. But he is
thoroughly opposed to the ruddy cull. He describes it as a pointless
and extremely expensive massacre. In a letter to Bird Watching
Magazine, he said he believed there was very little hybridisation
involving ruddys and white headeds; that the ruddy ducks who did reach
Spain were most likely coming from neighbouring France where they are
kept in waterfowl collections; and that the Spanish should concentrate
on further restoration and management of their wetlands.
Gullick subsequently told the Times that the cull proponents 'will
never succeed in the total eradication of the ruddy duck. It's a
scandalous misuse of rare conservation money. But I think too many
people have stuck their necks too far up above the parapet to admit
that they are wrong.' Quite so.
Now for the politics. From conversations I've had with various
well-placed individuals, my understanding is that Spain was feeling
under pressure from other EU countries for its lack of action in
protecting the Spanish steppes from the ravages of intensive
agriculture - the steppes being important for the survival of species
such as the black vultures. Spain retaliated to the chiding by
demanding action on the ruddy duck, which it claimed was threatening
the survival of the now cherished white headed.
The RSPB, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and others took up this
challenge - not only because of pressure from the Spanish but because
of a phenomenon identified by British Birds magazine in May 1999:'
When faced with a long list of biodiversity actions, many of which are
difficult, intangible, expensive and not necessarily in the short-term
interests of the economy, politicians and environmental agencies will
always tend to jump on easy targets.' The ruddy duck, in the
magazine's view, was most certainly an easy target - far easier than
confronting powerful industrial and agricultural interests whose land
development and polluting activities are responsible for the
decimation of any number of species.
Then came the so-called trial culls to prove the ruddy duck could be
eliminated
"The ruddy duck was most certainly an easy target"
One took place in 1993-4. The shootings resulted in a significant
number of birds dying in protracted agony. According to the DoE
report, one bird was shot 13 times and was still alive when retrieved
from the water. Another took two hours to die.
Largely through Animal Aid's campaigning, the DoE cancelled plans for
a mass slaughter in 1997 and English Nature told us it was 'definitely
off as far as we're concerned'.
But in December 1997, the Bern Convention told the UK to proceed with
the mass slaughter without further delay.
This was the justification the pro-cull elements - notably the RSPB -
were looking for. Bern had to be obeyed, even though another Bern
edict on the reckless use of snares in this country had been opposed
and neutralised by British interests.
The so-called UK White Headed Duck Task Force set in motion an even
bigger trial cull than that conducted in the early 90s. In Anglesey,
the West Midlands and Fife, the Central Science Laboratory
orchestrated the slaughter of 2651 ducks - many were shot on their
nests.
This time we had no data on the associated carnage and suffering. The
information was deliberately suppressed.
In its report to DEFRA, the Central Science Lab said that some 3,000
ruddys survived across the country and that if total eradication were
to succeed, the killing gangs in future would need access to all land
on which the ducks were resident. That would mean the government
amending the Wildlife and Countryside Act to allow compulsory access
to the property of non-compliant landowners. Non-compliance was
certainly a feature of the trial cull they had just completed, with
around 50% of land owners refusing access.
In response to the Central Science Lab report, DEFRA has committed
itself in principle to eradication. But it said more research needed
to be done into such things as non-lethal control - i.e. egg pricking.
In the meantime, it has essentially removed all the protection
previously enjoyed by the ruddy. Any land owner or other authorised
person can now shoot ruddy ducks, so long as they return some basic
information about numbers and gender to DEFRA having done the deed.
And in Essex, just this past week, government killing gangs appear to
be back in action, even though the local authority and the Essex
Wildlife Trust are in opposition.
Let us take a look now at this phenomenon of hybridisation
I've already made the point that it matters not in the least to the
white-headed that her offspring has some ruddy duck genes. It matters
only to the more extreme bird watching bigots.
The pro-cull lobby have encouraged the view that the randy ruddy
bullies its way into the nest of the white headed female, scaring off
the male before raping her. In fact I am reliably informed that the
white headed male is 30% larger than the ruddy male and is anything
but fearful of him. This information comes from watchers who have seen
the two species inter-acting. This evidence has obliged the
pro-cullers to now talk of the ruddy sneaking its way into the white
headed's nest when the male is absent. But again I am reliably
informed that this scenario is implausible. It is females who have not
succeeded in mating who take the opportunity to liaise with the
'foreigners'.
Such bird hybridisation is not uncommon. Collins Bird Guide gives two
pages to wildfowl hybrids - offering by way of illustration seven
variations that resulted from mating between four species of duck.
Mallards, for instance, hybridise with green winged teal, which is one
third of its size. And there is more such evidence in British Birds
magazine.
Does such hybridisation lead to species loss. The evidence says no. In
fact, Tom Gullick, the ornithologist who alerted the world to the
plight of the white headed, is convinced that competition from the
ruddy male has prompted a robust response from the white headed male
and caused white headed numbers to increase more than they would have
done.
Let me now say a bit more on the logistics and the science
"The ruddy duck cull is about scapegoating"
Clearly, I object to the cull on the grounds of morality and sanity,
but even if it were a good thing, can it be done. Can the ruddy duck
be eliminated? Plenty of experts have said no.
The ruddy duck can be found on 1,000 sites in the UK and in personal
collections in 20 European and North African countries. There is talk
of these countries coming on board the control programme, but it seems
some have still taken no action.
And remember, this alleged plague of hybrids supposedly arose from
just a handful of escapees. So any leakage from whatever source
potentially undoes all the diligent killing that has taken place to
date.
The Central Science Laboratory report talked confidently of reducing
numbers down to 95 per cent of the current population - but even this
was based on two flawed assumptions: one was that the resistant
landowners could ultimately be overcome; the other was that the
comparatively easy kill-rate achieved during the trial could be
maintained even after numbers are reduced and the birds start
dispersing to many more sites.
These are important impediments to the masterplan of ruddy duck
extermination.
The intractable nature of the problem can be seen by the population
estimates issuing from official sources. After the last trial cull the
government said 3,000 ruddys remained. Weeks later, Press Association
was reporting a figure of 6,000. Do the authorities not know how many
ruddys remain or are the numbers on an impossibly rapid incline?
Let me round up by saying that this is about much more than several
thousand ruddy ducks
It is about what constitutes rational and humane species conservation
for the new century. I believe in species protection but I believe you
achieve that by habitat protection, which means squarely confronting
those who seriously encroach upon and pollute the last sanctuaries on
which wild animals depend.
The ruddy duck cull is about scapegoating. It is about cynical
politics and muddled reactionary thinking. It is too easy to blame one
species for the perilous condition of another, while failing to
acknowledge our own environmental vices. The grey squirrel is blamed
for the plight of the red, Lundy rats for the plight of the island's
ground nesting birds, and so on - when it is we who are the guilty
party.
How far have we gone down this road? A shockingly long way when you
consider the list of species targeted by agricultural and game bird
production interests. The hit list includes mink, rats, moles, crows,
gulls, seals, badgers, magpies, hedgehogs, foxes, rabbits, muntjac
deer, red deer, sika deer, wood pigeons, feral pigeon, Canada geese...
All are being curbed or killed. Any animal species you care to name is
suitable for scapegoating as long as a commercial or political
interest is served.
In fact, I cannot think of any species that are actually tolerated
except song birds - and they are paying the price of modern
agricultural production methods which leaves them with a depleted,
poisoned environment.
If you say yes to the ruddy duck cull you say yes to all that. You say
yes to the notion that environmental harmony can be achieved through
the barrel of a gun. I urge you to say no.
Delivered February 10, 2004 at an RSPCA Internal Seminar. Other
speakers were Dr Mark Avery, director of conservation of the pro-cull
RSPB; Professor Morris Gosling, of the Evolutionary Biology Group,
University of Newcastle; Professor Michael Reiss, School of
Mathematics, Science and technology, Institute of Education,
University of London; and Dr Chris West, Zoological Director,
Zoological Society of London.
For more information about ruddy ducks click here.
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/campaign.../ruddyduck.htm
Animal Aid, The Old Chapel, Bradford Street, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 1AW,
UK
| campaigns | press | about us | hall of fame | search | youth | shop |
email
(E-Mail Removed), web
www.animalaid.org.uk
tel +44 (0)1732 364546, fax +44 (0)1732 366533
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
