A bit of light entertainment

A couple of years ago I bought my mother a wooden hanging bird feeder that supplied peanuts via a basket and other items on a tray. It was not quite what I had in mind but served the purpose, so I thought! Well, the peanuts were attractive to the Blue and Great Tits, but I had trouble getting more nuts from local shops - I think the local residents bought the cheap peanuts for their curries! Unfortunately, the local squirrels also thought they were great.

Eventually the feeder collapsed, perhaps because of squirrel attention, but probably because it was very poorly built! My brother William rennovated it last summer and we had hopes it would be back in use for some years to come. We had not bargained on a very determined squirrel that literally ate the wood retaining the wire mesh for the peanut feeder. Sadly, the wooden bird feeder was no longer viable for peanuts. I therefore looked for more robust squirrel-proof replacements.

Once I found some caged alternatives I bought three - one for fat balls, one for sunflower seeds and one for peanuts. Thus, we now have four feeders in the apple tree! The original wooden one is used for suet pellets for the Robin. These new feeders have been an absolute revellation. I now have to buy vast quantities of fat balls and sunflower seeds but amazingly the peanuts last for ages! There is quite a significant differentiation between usage too. The Blue Tits love the fat falls and also sunflower seeds, but will also go for the peanuts; whereas the Great Tits mainly go for the sunflower seeds. Occasionally we get a flock of Long-tailed Tits that also seem to prefer the fat balls.

Feeders in action the sunflower seeds are ever-popular with the Great Tits

All that bird activity has wrought havoc with the lawn - Pilfering Pigeon waiting for me to put out suet for the Robin!

I had hoped that we would get finches in the garden and that the resident House Sparrows would make use of the feeders. I've yet to see a House Sparrow on any of the feeders but have seen Goldfinch on the fat balls. Chaffinches also visit occasionally, but seem not to visit the feeders; instead they pick up seeds from the ground, which was a real surprise for me as we used to see them on the peanuts and bird table 40 years ago (as did the Sparrows).

What I had not bargained on was seeing Great-spotted Woodpecker at both the fat balls and the sunflower seeds. The other day we had one on each at the same time! Nor had I bargained on Pesky Parakeet - one discovered how to get at the sunflower seeds and now he brings his mates round too! Oh for an air rifle or catapult but thankfully I have neither as I would probably only break windows!

The other big surprise was that the Magpies worked out how to balance on the wooden bird feeder to take suet pellets. I don't mind them too much because they are actually quite interesting from a behavioural perspective. I do object to Ferral Pigeons doing the same! There is one that has developed the skill and now I run a constant fight of shooing it off - so in addition to Pesky Parakeet, we also have Pilfering Pigeon!

There is a different assemblage on the ground. The Wood Pigeons and Ferral Pigeons regularly visit to clear up the steady stream of seed discarded from the fat balls and sunflower seeds. They make sure no seed is wasted. Likewise we also see the occasional Hedge Sparrow (there are two that regularly use the garden), a House Sparrow now and again, and a Chaffinch or two intermittently. The Robins are rarely visible but to make quick visits to the wooden feeder when I put suet pellets out. Occasionally I hear a Wren but rarely see it.

I've never been a huge fan of pigeons, but they do provide some entertainment and some exhibit quite remarkable behaviour. There is one extremely aggressive Wood Pigeon who spends a lot of its time chasing off others. It is a real thug and I greatly dislike it (I hope it was the victim of the Sparrowhawk that got something the other day!). Interestingly, it takes no notice of the Ferral Pigeons or Magpies, and the Ferral Pigeons show no obvious rivalry other than displaying males.

The Magpies will come down when I put food waste out (cheese rind, fish skins, bits of rice etc) but they are remarkably timid and quickly retreat when the pigeons arrive! They will grab a piece of food and fly off to a nearby roof to consume it before dropping in again to attempt another theft from the Pigeon's table! And, up in the nearby Birch trees, one or more Carrion Crow keep an eye on proceedings but never visit the garden even when I put out the remains of the Chicken for the birds to pick over (suitably boiled first to generate stock!).

All of this stemming from a rather poorly built wooden bird feeder! I now find that I will have to change house in Stamford because I really must have a garden and a view onto the bird feeders!

Are the potential specialists of the future being put off posting on Facebook groups?

Is it time to set up a separate Facebook group to help people who want assistance with identification of pinned specimens? In the past, I have felt that it was not a good idea to separate photographic recording from collected specimens. It always seemed to me that there was something to be learned by everybody when a specimen was posted, and that it was important to try to emphasise that identifying specimens is a critical part of data assembly. However, recent experience on the BWARS Facebook Group has made me think again.

How many people are being put off making such posts because they then get targeted by people opposed to lethal methods? I don’t know the answer to this but I think it is an issue that we must confront. If negative comments and what might be perceived as ‘bullying’ behaviour by those opposed to specimen retention is putting off members from posting, then we have a big issue. I have heard that this is the case on both the BWARS and HRS groups but am not clear how big the impact has been.

In the interests of balance, we must also recognise that some potential contributors have been put off the existing groups BECAUSE pinned specimen photographs are posted on them. Should we recognise this issue as well and cater for them too? 

Does it matter?

My short answer is ‘yes it does’. The longer answer lies in what we are aiming to do with Facebook Groups? If they are simply going to be appreciation societies for people wanting a rough identification of an animal photographed whilst out for a walk, then it won’t be an issue if nobody posts photos of preserved specimens. There are Facebook Groups that work in this way, and they serve a useful purpose.

Unfortunately, only a proportion of most insect groups can be identified from field photographs and that IF we are to assemble data that cover all taxa then we must accept that lethal methods are part of the mix. In the case of hoverflies, I think that probably 40-50% of our fauna cannot be done reliably from photographs on most occasions. That is not to say that the remaining 50-60% cannot be done at all from photos, but they will be the exceptions rather than the norm. And, in the case of those species where examination of the male genital capsule is essential, it will remain nigh-on impossible to provide an ID from a photograph.

The UK Hoverflies and UK Bees, Wasps and Ants Facebook groups were set up as an educational and mentoring tool, to provide people with a deeper interest in the groups with a way of interacting with the respective Recording Schemes. They have played a vital role in developing a much broader skill-base for both schemes. They are also a really valuable vehicle for feeding back results of data to the people who generate it. As such, they should be there for both photographers and people who retain specimens.

Nevertheless, data generated by substantially photographic methods HAVE shifted the balance in the datasets and the HRS has growing evidence that this shift is affecting the outputs of occupancy models that are being developed to investigate changes in the abundance our wildlife assets. The message is quite clear that a shift away from the retention of specimens is accentuating the modelled rates of decline for some species (and for the family as a whole by about 7%). This is VERY serious because we need the data to be reliable and unchallengeable. If those who don’t want to face up to (and address) declines in biodiversity can find a way of discrediting the data then they will do so; and, in so doing, they will reduce the prospects of effective action to address the problem.

A new approach? 

Perhaps it is time to set up a bespoke group for people who want assistance with specimens? We might do this as a joint HRS/BWARS page or as two separate pages? A very sizeable part of the specialists on both the esiting pages do take an active interest in both Orders. Similarly, many of the most active participants in the existing groups also do both Diptera and Hymenoptera. What we don’t know is the level of demand there might be for a closed group (invitation only or strict vetting) that allows people to post specimens to seek technical advice.

Having been inclined against such a route in the past. I am now more convinced, although I fear that it would be a further step towards good science slipping into the shadows. It seems to me that we need a debate on the subject and in particular to hear from those who might have been put off posting specimen photos and are missing the mentoring they might otherwise get.

At the moment, the technical expertise on both BWARS and HRS Facebook groups stems primarily from people who have spent decades looking at specimens under the microscope. Many of us are of advancing years and we must look to the future and make sure that we train a new generation to take over from us. If people are put off posting photos of pinned specimens, might we then be losing our next generation of technical specialists? Or, is this telling potential technical specialists to avoid social media and operate strictly out of wider visibility? In either case, this is not good for the future of the existing groups, and in the long-term it is not good for conservation because we will have insufficient comprehensive data to track the fortunes of our wonderful wildlife.

Collecting insects on SSSI – we need a practical licensing solution

A thread on the NFBR Facebook group posted yesterday highlighted one of the big problems for the most active recorders of taxonomically challenging insects. If ‘collecting’ is listed on ‘Operations Likely to Damage’ for a particular SSSI, it could be construed that collecting should not be consented. Most Natural England (NE) staff interpret this sensibly and recognise that without the use of lethal methods there will be no data on any but the most obvious insects. And, it is far better to know what is on a site than to work in ignorance. Indeed, Natural England itself commissions consultant entomologists to survey using lethal methods as part of its site monitoring programme. So, where is the difference between sending in a consultant and allowing a national or regional specialist to visit and use lethal methods? Especially so if they are a recording scheme organiser and make a significant contribution to our knowledge of taxonomically difficult invertebrates!

There is no straightforward solution unless there are clear policies concerning the use of unpaid specialists in data-gathering. I’m not aware that Natural England has any such policies, and if it did it would not be allowed to have them because Government says NE has no policy-making role! So, NE is stuck in the middle too – it needs a policy but cannot develop one without contravening Government limits on its role! In the end, that means that staff have to come up with their own interpretations. As in all walks of life there are some who will be relaxed/enlightened, and others who will take a very narrow interpretation or indeed may be hostile on personal grounds. In the end, that alienates the very people NE needs to provide the data that underpin conservation management (and Government policy changes). No data means no informed policy, means no enlightened or specialist conservation.

Now, clearly, NE want data. They have been strong supporters of the NFBR and in particular the National Biodiversity Network (NBN). Recently they have been less keen on Local Environmental Records Centres (LERCS) and have cut funding for them. However, their central tenet seems to be that they want as much data as possible and will support initiatives to improve data accessibility. So, denying a taxonomic specialist permission to collect is counter-intuitive. It won’t improve data availability and may actually put some specialists off visiting those parts of the country where permission is difficult to obtain.

We need a practical solution

The problem for individual recorders is that there is no single umbrella body to enter into discussions with NE. What about the likes of the Royal Entomological Society, British Entomological and Natural History Society, Dipterists Forum, BWARS etc? Well, maybe, but no one body represents taxonomic diversity and I’m not sure that any is in a position to take the initiative. That must mean that there is an obvious role for the NFBR or for the NBN. Indeed, it seems essential that one or other engages with NE.

The question then arises: what should a consent or licence look like?

As I understand the situation, it is the landowner’s responsibility to ensure that conditions placed on SSSI management are adhered to. So, if collecting insects/invertebrates/other organisms is listed as an Operation Likely to Damage, the landowner must seek NE consent. In practice this system often leads to the entomologist going directly to NE to seek consent, but that can be a tortuous and sometimes difficult process – as was discussed in the NFBR post. Either way, there are a number of public and voluntary organisations that might benefit from establishing a concordat and an overarching consent (licencing) process.

If NE and others want data, they need to encourage specialists to gather it. If they place obstacles in the way of such specialists, they will hinder data collection and the data will be increasingly skewed towards those taxa that can be identified without resort to lethal methods. Would that matter? Well that depends upon your point of view, but bearing in mind that in most of the bigger Orders a relatively small proportion of species can be identified in the field, we could descend into a dark age of knowledge about some of our most sensitive bellwethers of environmental change! That would suit the agrichemical industry and those who would like to greater industrialise agriculture. It would also assist developers who want to destroy wildlife sites. I firmly believe that without taxonomic specialists who use lethal methods, invertebrate conservation will be working one hand tied behind its back and the knuckles broken on the other hand.

So, is it beyond the wit of man to come up with a practical system to consent visits by taxonomic specialists to SSSI? Consent to collect should not equate to ‘consent to access’ unless land is ‘public open space’. But, surely, the bearer of such a consent could be provided with sufficient freedom to minimise the paper trails and bureaucracy that can severely limit a valuable (free) source of data.

If such a system was in place, it might be necessary to have a system for checking the credentials of new recruits. Old-timers like me are well-known enough but if you are a relative novice how can you persuade the consenting organisation that you are bona-fide? Perhaps one way would be to limit such consents to full members of recognised organisations – RES, BENHS, DF, BWARS, LNU, YNU, LNHS etc.? In so-doing that might also provide some impetus for people to actually join such organisations and see them as relevant to their interests! In my vision, participating organisations would have blanket consent to allow 'collecting', whilst a consent (with conditions) could be given to bone-fide applicants that would allow them to collect on particular land-holdings. In the end an awful lot of bureaucracy could be avoided.

The Big Wasp Survey

Having listened to Adam Hart’s piece on Radio 4 (I was vaguely aware of the project last year) I found myself asking ‘why do we need this project when we already have BWARS, the most comprehensive dataset on aculeate Hymenoptera in the UK?' In the course of the programme, I expected to hear a little bit about BWARS but, no there was nothing! Why not? Maybe the academics knew nothing about BWARS? (I have come across other academic proposals to conduct studies that would miror the work of existing Recording Schemes).

The Radio 4 programme was interesting and addressed a much wider issue about killing insects, but it seemed to me that it missed most of the critical points about killing insects. Yes, the Krefeld project was mentioned, so too was work on dung beetles, but I felt there was a serious omission. Most of our understanding of insect distribution and abundance is dependent upon specimens that have been killed and stored as ‘voucher specimens’. Almost all Red Lists of invertebrates are entirely dependent upon people who are prepared to take specimens and supply data to conservation organisations. They are not in the academic world and therefore get ignored!  No insect collecting equates to no capacity to develop species status reviews or to take the necessary measures to conserve critical habitats.

In many ways, this piece mirrored the problems I had with the hype surrounding the Krefeld project: It is a very narrow academic presentation of what is going on. There are vast numbers of records streaming in from what the academics like to call ‘Citizen Scientists’ many of whom are the ‘real’ 'experts' (I prefer the term 'specialist'). Yes it is possible for an academic study of a dozen or so social wasps, but what about the other 500+ aculeates? Did we need a study that used the public to generate a questionable dataset? How many of the less common Vespids were recorded and did the data match those already held by BWARS?

I ask these questions rhetorically. Of course the study was needed because it raised profile for social wasps - they are critical ecosystem regulators. Likewise the Radio 4 programme was valuable because it highlighted an important scientific and social issue surrounding the retention of insect specimens. BUT, to my mind, both failed to highlight the most important points: that most of our knowledge of species’ abundance and distribution is actually generated by organisations such as BWARS (and the HRS), and that for almost all of the time the data that are critical are dependent wholly upon volunteers who compile data without support from the academic world.

I suspect that we can probably say as much about social wasps from BWARS data as was gathered by the ‘Big Wasp Survey’. But, have we actually got any further in justifying the use of mass-killing projects? I doubt it, but believe that there are compelling reasons for supporting the continued use of lethal techniques to ensure that sufficient data exist to understand what is happening to our invertebrate fauna.