Read on Twitter
As @Rebirding1 has spectacularly failed to given any context or recognition of reality, I will give it a go. Others have written lots of other great responses too (one of which I have already retweeted). I wanted to make some new points with regards to this. Thread! https://twitter.com/Rebirding1/status/1323186845954527232
Scrub control takes place every winter on nature reserves across the country. It is often done by volunteers, who work hard to do it. It is often done on a rotational basis - it grows back. It is done to preserve open habitats and maintain the mosaic feel on a site.
It is necessary because many rare habitats and species need open areas. Our reserves are often small and need keeping open to help these species survive. Often grazing alone is not enough, or not possible on such small sites. Thus the scrub control is done manually by people.
@Rebirding1 misses some key points from his tweet:
1. They are not removing all the scrub.
2. They appear to be splitting a block in two.
3. There are genuine conservation reasons for doing it.
Context and understanding are vital in these types of debates.
1. They are not removing all the scrub.
2. They appear to be splitting a block in two.
3. There are genuine conservation reasons for doing it.
Context and understanding are vital in these types of debates.
His tweet also uses inflammatory language which to my mind demonstrates a desire to polarise, not educate. Talking of suing and implying that it is being done to harm bullfinches. This is all out of the classic attack playbook. It is poor communication. Poor use of twitter.
Every reserves officer knows that any action you do on a reserve has positive and negative consequences. You have to assess the action and do your best. This is made harder on small sites. I'm sure we'd love more scrub on our reserves, but do we have space on small grasslands?
This is never being done out of tidiness. These rare species and habitats will be known to be a priority regionally and nationally. There will be action plans and management plans. Rationale behind the decision. It is not because they think scrub is evil!
I acknowledge that scrub is often, by some, an undervalued habitat. Some scrub control work can be a bit aggressive. I have been in charge of delivering scrub control programmes in the past and I have always tried to be holistic and sensitive. We need to do this more.
I am sure we can find space for more scrub or successional processes on some of our nature reserves. But are species-rich grasslands the right place? I would suggest probably not.
I think @Rebirding1 focuses his attack in the wrong place. Why attack conservation charities for saving rare species and habitats? Why not bemoan the lack of thick hedgerows or scrubby headlands in the agricultural landscape? Surely this is where our collective effort should go?
I also bet if the image had shown some cattle or bison and had said that they were going to smash up or break up the dense scrub to allow flowers and edge to proliferate, people would have lauded it. Yet when humans to it the rewilders scream bloody murder!
This tweet is another example of the death of nuance on twitter. I wrote about it here: http://www.wildlifephelps.com/rip-nuance We have to call it out and ask for better standards of communication. I hold myself to such standards and am trying to be more respectful of the complexities.
This debate is much more complex than the 'scrub good - scrub bashing bad' message given out by @Rebirding1.
