"Mega reintroductions" - a convenient distraction away from our failure to halt wildlife declines?

The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) has been directly involved in reintroductions for over 80 years. These have all been part of planned conservation efforts to either halt local declines or re-introduce locally extinct species; such as our pioneering work on the water vole. Many other organisations have also achieved significant results on butterflies and other species; but are we now tempted by the discussion on "mega-reintroductions", of say the lynx, as a convenient distraction away from the harsh reality that we need a fresh approach to conservation? Is it easier to talk about romantic "once-native" reintroductions than it is to agree that our existing focus on protection and prescription alone is not enough? Is it easier than starting to discuss a whole new approach to conservation? Perhaps we all recognise that a shift is required, but struggle to fully embrace the thought and so are looking for a distraction? Reintroductions provoke many questions and Ian Lindsay, our Director of Advisory & Education, asked some of them in a fascinating article published in the NFU's Countryside magazine. I found it thought provoking and have included it in full for you. The links are mine. Enjoy.

Starts:
The recently-published State of Nature report, a comprehensive review of UK biodiversity carried out by a number of UK conservation organisations, paints a depressing picture of our attempts, to date, to meet important UK conservation targets.

Farmland birds continue to decline, upland waders in Wales, arguably, have reached functional extinction and many of our internationally-important species, black grouse amongst them, continue to suffer from significant range reduction.

Against this background, the fascination by the media and the profile given by conservation organisations and government agencies to the reintroduction of 'once-native species' may seem strange. Perhaps though, to a largely disengaged public, inured to a diet of unremitting environmental angst, it provides an easy win, a good news story diverting attention from our failure to reverse the declines of many species we already have. And, it seems, the bigger, more charismatic and celebrity-friendly, the better!

A high profile is being given to existing and proposed reintroductions, such as red kites, sea eagles, beavers and lynx. But parallel to this are concerns and substantial resources devoted to the control of introduced alien species, including North American mink, ruddy duck and parakeets.

The argument, of course, is that such species are non-native, that our indigenous animal communities lack evolved strategies to compete with them and, as a result, they pose significant conservation problems. Perhaps the best-known example of this is mink and their on-going threat to our endangered native water vole populations.

Of course, the reintroduction of red kites and sea eagles to the UK has proven to be a huge, well-publicised success. No doubt, these are magnificent birds adding to the pleasure of many people who visit the countryside. But how far are we aware, or, indeed, how much do we care about the impacts of many of these species.

Already, concerns exist over the impact of sea eagles on the distribution and abundance of golden eagles and hen harriers; iconic species in the own right, with high conservation designations. Elsewhere, there are concerns in the Chilterns over the impacts of red kite predation on local declining amphibian populations.

Of course, these species have shared evolutionary history and once co-existed in some post-glacial panacea but, like alien re-introductions, seam quite capable of exerting significant consequences on the status quo of today's fragile and fragmented ecosystems.

And all of this is quite apart from impacts on human activities, particularly in economically fragile rural communities. To an urban public or a government conservation department bereft of a good news story the loss of a few crofters' lambs' or the impossibility of keeping free range poultry may seem a small price to pay for the reintroduction of sea eagles, pine martins or even lynxes.

It certainly goes without saying that few crofters on Skye or Wester Ross were consulted as to whether they would actually like to host reintroduced sea eagles or whether they felt that efforts to restore, say, upland waders might be a more attractive conservation priority within their local communities.

Equally, in the case of beavers, in the midst of global warming, recent rainfall patterns and the increased risk to life and property from flooding, to many - particularly those with direct experience of their damming activities in, say, Scandinavia - their reintroduction to the UK might seem like an act of complete folly.

A large part of our problem in the UK is based on a lack of moral courage on the part of conservation agencies. Whether we like it or not reintroduction is 'forever' - a one way street with no prospect of any 'reverse gear' even when a reintroduced species, was shown to have significant and important impacts on property, livestock or other wildlife.

Perhaps even worse is the widely-held belief amongst affected communities of constructive 'censorship' on the part of conservation agencies to reveal the extent of alleged damage or to assess it openly. Imagine the scene: owing to and unseasonably wet summer with frequent flooding and widespread damage to property (or worse!, 'wash-out' from beaver dams has been strongly implicated in local damage.

Faced with urgent calls to protect life and property the Minister authorises the destruction of dams and the removal of beavers from affected catchments. Well, if he did he would be a brave Minister. Within hours aging rock stars would wrap themselves in earnest appeals to protect our wildlife and online petitions would be exploding in the urban blogosphere.

But the real point here is, in the context of our declining wildlife, are reintroductions a part of sound conservation management addressing key environmental priorities - or an expensive, cynical and high-profile diversion from it?
Ends.