19/2/2016

Response to the Thunderer: our letter to The Times

Partridge Count SchemeSir,

Rob Yorke states that the best results for threatened species come when NGOs take land managers’ observations into account as well as scientific evidence (Thunderer, 17 February). The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust strongly agree with this statement. Indeed, our Advisory team work closely alongside land managers to help them integrate better quality habitats within the farming business, which in turn benefit not only their wildlife, but also soil and water quality across the landscape.

For example, every year around 1,000 farmers voluntarily take part in the GWCT’s Partridge Count Scheme, using scientific findings to improve land management. From 2000-2010 an 81% increase in partridge numbers was achieved. However, national figures for the same period show a decline of 40%. Although the counting methods used were different, the trends are still comparable and strongly demonstrate that these partnerships make a significant difference.

Peter Thompson
Biodiversity advisor

Help us continue our vital conservation work

Please donate so that our team of dedicated scientists can continue conserving the Great British countryside.

Please donate now >

DonategameA large proportion of our income comes from kind donations, both from members and non-members. Right now we need support for:

✓ Our conservation initiatives for the Biodiversity Action Plan species - the grey partridge, black grouse and brown hare

✓ Our work which engages with government and its agencies over countryside and wildlife policies

✓ Building our education programme so that the public appreciate the importance of managing the countryside not simply protecting it

✓ Our studies on songbirds to determine the importance of predators

✓ Our research on wild brown trout which is investigating whether or not fish stocked into rivers and streams improve the wild population

Please donate now >

Comments

Land Managers Observations

at 13:49 on 19/02/2016 by Ian Whittaker

There is no dichotomy between the source of observations as suggested here and no connection between that and achieving the best results for threatened species. We should be careful to differentiate between the taking of observations, whether it is very welcome information provided by land managers or through other "citizen science" initiatives promoted by the RSPB/BTO, and the analysis and conclusions that should follow. They are not the same thing and the former should always precede the latter. Good science is always best founded on the widest possible set of observations which is then put to the test within appropriate parameters and an understanding of all relevant factors. Conclusions based on observation alone are fundamentally flawed without the necessary scientific process and this mistake can be compounded when actions are proposed on that basis. This applies to both NGO and land manager and is a critically important principle if we are to balance current land management practice with conservation objectives. For either side to claim they know best and trumpet that based on the performance of a few species, leads to continued conflict and is no long term answer to improving bio-diversity.

Make a comment