By Bob Smith.
|
A meadow ower on Tullos Hill A maun confess a love fer trees Ye’ll hae wild flooers an ither plants Doonamang aa the grasses Hay meadows are rich in earthwirms |
Noo meadows provide nesting grun It’s reckoned ae hail acre Anither species faa wull benefit Jist ti waak throwe a meadow So awa wi yon feel ideas |
©Bob Smith”The Poetry Mannie” 2011
Image credit: Suzanne Kelly.
Controversial plans to plant 89,000 trees on Tullos Hill backed by Aberdeen City Council are under fire from the public, community councils, animal charities and experts. A new initiative to preserve this crucial wildlife habitat as meadowland was launched today by Councillor Neil Cooney and campaigner Suzanne Kelly.
This cull would cost the taxpayer approximately £8,000 over 2010-11, £14,000 over the following 4 years, according to Aberdeen City Council.
The scheme has already seen the City hand back £43,800 of grant money, as the previous planting failed for a number of reasons.
Reports show that the wrong size tree guards were used (120cm size had been recommended; 90cm had been used instead) and that soil issues and weeds were to blame in part for the failure. The deer were not the only factor in the tree failure, but the council stresses the need to use the ‘most economical’ means to plant the trees.
Vandalism has hit planting sites as well.
Some members of the Council now claim that culling is a normal part of land management and is required – this claim had not been made prior to the tree planting scheme as far as any research can demonstrate. The deer are not starving or suffering, and with 30 deer on the hill and 89,000 saplings proposed, humane methods of having tree and deer are possible, according to experts.
The council omitted mention of the deer cull from its public consultation which closed in January 2011, although this document went into detail about managing rabbits by means of fences. The council also omitted to say the planting would require 2-3 years of weed killer being sprayed on the hill.
The cost of this spraying, the effects on the existing wildflowers, animals and the public (housing, a school and factories are nearby) has never been fully explained. Tullos Hill also has soil issues and there are dozens of small archaeological remains which would be threatened or could even be destroyed by the tree planting.
After the cull plan was discovered and made public, the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals branded the move ‘abhorrent and absurd’, although the Society recognises the needs for deer culls for reasons of animal welfare.
A move was made to ask the public for money to avoid the cull by the City’s Housing & Environment Committee.
This move was called ‘blackmail’ by citizens and animal charities. Dame Anne Begg, MP, wrote at the time of the move saying that to ask the public for £225,000 to avoid the cull was “an appalling attempt to fudge their (the Housing Committee cull proponents’) responsibility.”
Suzanne Kelly, campaigner against the tree planting and the cull said,
“We have a beautiful meadow filled with plants and animals – it is a biodiversity haven. Nearby meadowlands at Cove are being given over for housing and development, and lands at Loirston which are grass and meadow will be turned into a football stadium. Aberdeen stands to lose a huge portion of its meadows south of the city centre, and yet wants to turn this meadow ecosystem into a forest.
“Thousands of concerned residents objected to the tree scheme by letter and petition once the cull was made public – and that was before we knew about the returned grant money and the weed killer. Four community councils are on record as opposing the scheme representing thousands more people. (Torry Community Council voted unanimously to condemn the cull and the scheme – but their letter somehow never reached the City).
“Yet the City refuses to listen. The City has been saying the scheme is ‘cost neutral.’ It now emerges that the application is not even finalised, and £43,800 in grant money had to be paid back for a previous failed planting on Tullos. This is hardly ‘cost neutral’ – in fact, calling this scheme ‘cost neutral’ seems positively misleading
“We hope this alternative – a meadowland – will capture the public’s imagination. In fact, the idea has come up again and again from the many people getting in touch – it is really a public initiative. The hill can be left as it is or perhaps enhanced with more wildflowers and the future of the deer and other animals can be ensured.
“The deer are most certainly not starving as some in the City would claim. In fact, some nearby residents tell me the deer are nearly tame. Meddling in the Hill’s ecology has not worked in the past, and our cash-strapped Council should just end their planting scheme forthwith.”
Councillor Neil Cooney asked crucial questions and presented facts previously omitted at the most recent Aberdeen City Housing & Environment Committee meeting held this month. Councillor Cooney said :
“Tullos Hill offers some of the finest views over the city. You don’t block out viewpoints by planting trees to hide the view. Nature created Tullos Hill. It is an area rich in wildlife, it is an important archaeological site and there are 4 important cairns there that were designed to be seen from each other and to dominate the landscape.
“It would make a lovely meadowland. Meadows are our most threatened habitats. Tullos Hill already supports fragile wild flower species, the Dames Violets are particularly spectacular when in bloom. Meadows also play a key role in carbon capture. We have a precious natural asset at Tullos Hill, if we destroy in now we can never reclaim it again. We have a duty to the next generation to preserve for them the environmental treasures that we enjoyed.
We can save money, save the deer, preserve the viewpoint, leave the archaeology open to enjoyment, and enhance Tullos Hill. This is far preferable to a dodgy tree planting project stained in blood.”
The value of this meadowlands scheme is supported by Saving our Magnificent Meadows, a campaign backed by Natural England, Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage, and Northern Ireland Environment Agency, and by Plantlife, as project host.
Ms Susan Kerry Bedell of Saving Our Magnificent Meadows had this to say:
“Wildflower meadows are the UK’s most threatened habitat. Since the 1930s, we have lost 98% (over three million hectares) of them across England and Wales and intense pressures continue to impact on remaining sites. There has been a similar scale of loss across the Scottish lowlands.
“These beautiful meadows are central to our national heritage. They are rich in wildlife, including many rare and threatened species, landscape character, folklore and archaeology, and they offer a range of ‘services’ to society, such as reducing flood risk. They are seen as vital to the long-term survival of bees, through whose pollination of crops much of our food production depends.
“Unless we act now to build a greater appreciation of remaining sites and promote sympathetic management, these ‘magnificent meadows’ and the rare plants and animals associated with them, will be lost forever”.
The Tullos Hill Meadowlands petition will launch online and by paper copy early the week commencing 14 November 2011. Suzanne Kelly is confident that the tree planting scheme would be put aside for the more economical, beneficial meadowlands scheme.
“There is pressure on Government budgets right now, and throwing good money after bad – particularly on such an unpopular and destructive scheme – is simply illogical.
“I await detailed budget information from the City, and a further press release will go into detail about how the City has handled this affair from start to finish. With an election looming, I would urge those councillors who have supported this scheme to ask themselves if they really are doing the right thing by Tullos Hill and the electorate.”
Petition can be accessed here: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/tullos-hill-meadowlands-deer-park.html
Further information on Saving Our Magnificent Meadows can be found at:
http://www.plantlife.org.uk/campaigns/saving_our_magnificent_meadows/
Further information and updates on Tullos Hill can be obtained by writing to:
tullosdeer@yahoo.co.uk
Contact Suzanne Kelly:
Email sgvk27@aol.com
Tel. 07752 356 455
Voice’s Suzanne Kelly explores the functions of wild meadows in Britain, looks at some of the existing meadows in Aberdeen and what the authorities have planned for those areas.
They are willing to kill the Tullos Hill Roe deer, discard our bronze age (and later) archaeology, displace birds and insects, remove gorse and wildflowers from Tullos Hill, and spray weed-killer for 2-3 years.
Never mind that they have previously failed.
Forget that Mother Nature has left this windswept, exposed hill as a grassy meadow: these experts will try a second time with our tax money to impose a new biosystem over the biosystem which exists on Tullos.
They consulted experts, so Valerie Watts, Peter Leonard and Aileen Malone keep insisting, and no other experts’ opinions (however valid, whether freely offered or not) are wanted. This refusal to entertain other advice or to compromise whatsoever calls into question their claim to scientific superiority. Additional flaws and omissions from initial submissions leak out constantly, but the tree and cull proponents will not budge. Not willingly anyway.
But what other options are there for Tullos Hill and for Aberdeen?
There is a new breed of expert and new school of thought, backed by virtually every environmental agency in the UK and by Europe. This wave of expert opinion says that our meadows and grasslands are absolutely vital.
It is not impossible; it certainly would not be as expensive as imposing 89,000 trees.
By the way, the deer cull is not enough. Weed killers – we don’t know what kind or how toxic – are recommended by one arm of experts for two to three years. Cost: unknown. Toxicity: unknown. Effectiveness: unknown.
Who are these people claiming meadows and grasslands are not only desirable but definitely essential?
Since the 1930s, we have lost 98% (over three million hectares) of wildflower meadows across England and Wales
Plantlife (www.plantlife.org.uk ) is the UK’s leading charity working to protect wild plants and their habitats.
They identify and conserve sites of exceptional importance, rescue wild plants from the brink of extinction, and ensure that common plants do not become rare in the wild.
Here is what they have to say on the importance of meadows and grasslands – like Tullos Hill:
“These are arguably the UK’s most threatened habitats. They are rich in wildlife, landscape character, folklore and archaeology, and they offer a range of ‘services’ to society and the environment. Despite this, our wildflower meadows have suffered catastrophic declines over the past century and intense pressures continue to threaten those that remain.
“Since the 1930s, we have lost 98% (over three million hectares) of wildflower meadows across England and Wales. Wildflower meadows now comprise less than 1% of the UK’s total land area.
“Despite some good work being carried out to restore wildflower meadows, the trend continues to be an overall decline in extent and condition of these habitats. The Countryside Survey 2000 showed a decrease of a further 280,000 hectares of wildflower meadows in the UK between 1990 and 1998. The survey also showed a continuing decline in the species diversity of these habitats.
“Once lost, our species-rich meadows and grasslands cannot easily be restored.
Susan Kerry Bedell, Funding Manager for Saving Our Magnificent Meadows, has corresponded with me about the need for protecting our remaining meadow lands. She has sent me a summary document which can be found at
[http://www.plantlife.org.uk/campaigns/saving_our_magnificent_meadows/ (NB The summary will be put up in the next couple of weeks). The summary paper stems from a three-year project funded by Natural England, Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage, Northern Ireland Environment Agency and Plantlife. Some of its key messages are:-
Despite their high nature conservation value, our wildflower-rich grasslands are in decline, both in extent and in quality. Many of our meadows in the UK were lost during the last century.
Despite conservation legislation, including an EU Habitats Directive (which incorporates six BAP priority grassland types in Annex 1), planning legislation and two decades of agri-environment schemes, wildflower-rich grasslands continue to disappear or decline in condition.
Once lost, these species-rich meadows cannot easily be recreated.
What can you do to help reverse this decline in meadowlands and grasslands?
Forests are wonderful. And so are Meadows. We need both, and not just one or the other.
Finally, I am launching a petition to keep Tullos Hill the wildlife-supporting meadow it is, stop the tree planting scheme, and to stop any cull. If you would like to sign, or get a copy of the petition to collect signatures on, please contact me via Aberdeen Voice ( Link )
Last week in the first of this two part investigation, Suzanne Kelly described how The City Council and its officials were dealing with the Tullos Hill roe deer cull and tree-planting issues. Part 1 also covered the decades of arson on ‘The Gramps’, the excellent quality of Tullos Hill as it is, local community councils’ opposition to the cull, and the considerable public anger at the City’s refusal to even consider modifying its plans.
This is why our City Council – as a LibDem election pledge – want to turn it into some gargantuan 40,000-tree profit-making (ie lumber-producing) forest.
We now look at other important aspects of this issue, challenge the government to comment, and propose some actions.
‘Kissing is out of fashion when the gorse is not in bloom’ goes an old saying – based on the fact gorse virtually always has blossoms. This is an extremely useful plant for bees. If you’ve not been made aware, bee populations around the world are in serious trouble.
As long as we still want our plants to be pollinated so we keep eating, we are well advised to do all we can to encourage bees. My research leads me to conclude that gorse is far better for bees and several other species than trees are (particularly trees which will be cut down for profit when the Council chooses).
Don’t take my word for the importance of gorse. Do take Dr. Ian Rotherham’s word:-
“Gorse is an incredibly valuable habitat for wildlife – supporting a diversity of invertebrates and many birds and mammals. It provides dense cover plus abundant nesting sites, invertebrate food associated with the gorse, and of course the blaze of flowers during much of the year. Butterflies, bees, hoverflies, spiders, badgers, whinchats, stonechats, yellowhammers, chaffinches, linnets, greenfinches, meadow pipits and skylarks for example, all thrive in gorse-rich areas.
“As the biomass of gorse builds up it loses vigour and beings to die back. If there is a fire then the gorse is reduced to ground level and will quickly regenerate for the next 30-40 years or so. Clearly fire risk can be a problem but not for the gorse or the associated wildlife (except at the immediate time of a conflagration).
“Cyclical cutting of gorse, grazing, and cutting of fire-breaks are positive ways to reduce risk and damage but to maintain what is a rich but often unappreciated wildlife habitat. The establishment of a friends group to watch over the area would also help reduce risk. The gorse in bloom is also a wonderful landscape feature. A plantation wood does not provide a biodiversity resource or a landscape feature to match this. Trees are often planted at the expense of the wildlife habitats and landscape features because of the misconception that they are inherently better for wildlife – which they are not – and because money is available as grants to do this.”
( Dr Rotherham is a Professor of Environmental Geography, Reader in Tourism & Environmental Change, International Research Coordinator, associated with universities around the world. He is editor of several important academic publications including International Journal of Urban Forestry, Journal of Practical Ecology & Conservation, and International Urban Ecology Review )
I would be interested to hear from any City Council officer, ranger or pro -Tullos Hill tree plantation consultant wishing to comment on Dr Rotherham’s statement.
In the meantime, Ian Talboys, Countryside Ranger for Aberdeen wrote to me on 6 June:-
“The amount of gorse on the site will be substantially reduced to make way for the tree planting
which again reduces the risk of wilful fires”.
Why should a countryside ranger particularly be keen to change an ecosystem such as Tullos to a profit-making, lumber-producing forest? Where is the evidence that replacing gorse with saplings and trees will reduce wilful fire risk?
I spoke to a person connected to the countryside services for the Council. They advised me that like virtually every branch of our local government, they are now expected to find income streams and do all they can to make money.
It is not enough that our environment is under threat from over-development, pollution and loss of biodiversity – our environmental conservation activities are supposed to make money for the City. Would our rangers’ time be better served in patrolling the fire-prone areas, educating people and engaging in active conservation, or are we asking them to look for grants such as the tree-planting ones and to make money at all costs?
If I get an answer to this question, I will share it with you. Again, I invite comment from the City.
I still await a reply as to how this timber business is going to be set up, and for a copy of the business plan. Should any of this information ever be forthcoming from our elected officials, I will share it with you. Again, should any City proponents of the scheme like to come forward and (finally) explain how the timber business will work, I invite them to do so.
It has just been announced that despite negotiations with Unions being incomplete, the City has signed an agreement with external consultants to make £120 million worth of budget savings over a five-year period (cost of these consultants has been estimated at between £500k to £600k). Perhaps they will have their own opinion as to the viability of a timber business venture on an arson hotspot which has already resulted in the City returning £43,800 to the Forestry Commission…
In a ten-point complaint I clearly asked for clarification of a £44,000 debt for a failed tree plantation which I had heard of. The City’s Chief Executive Valerie Watts wrote in early June to deny any money was owed.
Proof that this payment was made was given to me almost immediately after Watts’ denial – but as of 21 July,Wattshas not explained the failure to disclose the repayment.
The proof is a letter the Forestry Commission sent to the City earlier this year which was copied to Ian Talboys. The question is whether Watts knew of the letter when she wrote to me or not. Until she explains her answer, the whole planting programme should be put on hold. It is not just returning money for the past failure (we had to pay interest) but the implications for this new planting that need to be considered, which could be significant for the cash-strapped council’s taxpayers.
Watts was made aware of this repayment by me, and possibly earlier by others. What is beyond the pale is that Freedom of information Officers continued for some weeks afterward to advise that no debt was owed. All of the requests I have seen referenced the £44k figure; mine specifically asked for clarification of the matter.
If the City tries to use the excuse that since the debt was paid in March and the questions arrived in June, then that would be the most disingenuous logic coming from Town Hall in memory. I am sure it is beyond the Council’s lowest standard to try and make pretence of using such a childish defence. When we will get the truth is crucial – they must not be allowed to stall this matter until cull season opens. If anyone trying to prevent the cull could ask their elected officials to have these issues addressed and investigated fully as an urgent matter, it will help. I have asked the FOI office to explain whether or not it discovered this letter in its search to answer my question. I have asked it to advise whether or not it made a deliberate decision to not disclose this letter. I await the outcome of the investigation.
Yet another Freedom of Information anomaly exists regarding Grampian Fire.
The previous article covered the problems of arson. Confusion emerges as to the number of fires. There was a FOI request response from Grampian Fire which shows a nominal number of deliberate fires. At the time of writing I await permission to share or reproduce these figures, as they are apparently ‘copyright’. I have officially applied to print them, but cannot do so until Grampian Fire’s officials approve my written request.
However I came across an internet document which shows a rather different, substantially higher number of fires than the FOI request revealed, entitled ‘Grampian Fire and Rescue Service Category 2 – Advancing Community and Citizen Well-being’ . This document states there were over 70 fires for 2006, and claims the figures were going down; it had partial 2008 figures and said only 11 fires started that year. It is worth mentioning that there have been at least half a dozen fires in the Gramps since May of this year. In any event, the paper’s numbers are not the same as the recently supplied figures, which are lower.
I will try to discover an explanation for the discrepancy, and will cover whatever explanation Grampian Fire sends in another article. Both email addresses for the FOI officer and the above paper’s writer are at the address ‘@grampianfrs.org.uk’, which leads me to conclude the same organisation might be responsible for distributing contradictory figures.
I add this to the ever growing list of things I am trying to discover, and yet all the while a cull remains the City’s goal, and the clock is ticking.
Scottish Natural History have been taking great pains to gain media coverage recently (BBC and local press), saying in effect that deer are great, but to stop them being killed in road accidents and over-populating, they have to be ‘managed.’ They launched a consultation, which many animal groups felt had a strong bias towards hunting and culling red deer and roe deer equally. First, what kind of animal are we talking about exactly?
What are roe deer?
Recognition: Small deer, reddish brown in summer, grey in winter. Males have short antlers, erect with no more than three points.
Height: Average height at shoulder 60-75cm (that is less than 3 foot tall). Males slightly larger than females.
Weight: Adults 10-25kg
Lifespan: The maximum age recorded for wild roe is 16 years, but most die before 7 years.
Diet: Their diet is varied and includes buds and leaves of deciduous trees and shrubs, bramble, rose, ivy, herbs, conifers, ferns, heather and grasses.
By permission, the Mammal Society,
http://www.mammal.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&id=228
So in short these tiny creatures, of which we seemingly have 30 on Tullos Hill alone jeopardise a 40,00 tree plantation. (The Council has made absolutely no mention of how they will tackle the weed problem cited by the Forestry Commission as a partial reason for the previous expensive failure – again, I have asked for this information with no reply).
Glasgow has made a strong statement against these types of culls which can be found at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/291204/0089678.pdf and the relevant section starts on page 5.”
Here are some relevant extracts:-
“….collaborative deer management is not necessary for Roe deer in urban environments as there is no scientific justification for this.
2.4 There is no mention of the positive role of wild deer on natural habitats. Large herbivores help to create and retain glades and rides within woodlands, which provide habitat for a range of other species.
2.5 This section of the Bill has the potential to perpetuate and reinforce the perception of deer as pest species. Whilst this will promote the interests of a minority who have a vested interest in deer management principally through culling, it goes against the reason for the inclusion of native wild deer on the Scottish Biodiversity List, Le. the appreciation of these animals by the general public who wish to see them left unharmed.
2.6 Glasgow City Council believes that this section in its present form promotes an unbalanced view of the rationale behind deer management, whilst acknowledging that there is scientific justification for the management of red deer in parts of the Highlands.
Deer in Scotland – General Comments.
2.7 GCC object to the blanket statement that ‘Deer therefore need to be managed … ‘ for the following reasons:
• The terms manage/managed/management are not defined but appear to relate to culling deer, which is not the usual definition of management. This needs to be clarified.
• If the above is the case, then deer do not always require to be culled because in some areas an increase in population size could be beneficial.
•Red Deer and Roe Deer are quite different animals not only in size but also in habits etc. Why are they covered by one piece of legislation and why do they both have to be managed?”
The various animal charities I’ve communicated with all remain against this cull and have their own experts who explain the flaws in the entire premise.
A personal observation. The section of Aberdeen I live in, Torry, has fewer trees on its main streets than any other part of the world I’ve lived in, city or suburb. The streets are however covered with cars and trucks 24/7, and the exhaust fumes have air quality implications.
A few trees would do a good deal to clean the air. It would be costly and difficult to plant and protect them. But it would not be impossible. We know from the Council’s websites that parts of Aberdeen (Wellington Road in particular) have serious air pollution issues. We also know trees help reduce vehicular pollution. In the course of my research I learned that the indigenous fir trees for the Grampian area have been greatly depleted over time – yet there is no plan to replace these native species.
Conclusion: Stop this destructive, unwanted plan now and cancel any deer cull. Plant fewer trees. Plant in other locations
Last week a media contact asked me to supply the statement below, which sums up my conclusions and reflects the opinions of the vast majority of the people I have spoken with:-
The public have in no way given up on stopping the deer cull on Tullos Hill. Tullos is an important and beautiful ecosystem as it is, and the deer population has been stable for many years.
Putting up signs to warn motorists that deer are in the area is sensible; putting 40,000 trees on this arson hotspot is not sensible. Four Community Councils have told the Council they do not want the trees if it means a cull – these elected councils represent thousands of people.
The City had to repay £43,800 for a planting on Tullos that failed due to deer browsing AND weeds. The City initially omitted this when I asked for clarification- and I patiently await sensible answers to this and other questions. The tree planting was a Liberal Democrat election promise – it is amusing that it is this unpopular promise they are so stubborn about keeping.
Finally, Peter Leonard has written to say that the Community Councils don’t understand the issues and they only know what they got from the media. I find his remarks unbelievably patronising and insulting, particularly when it was down to the Council to communicate the details of its scheme in the first place.
The Council kept the deer cull out of the phase 2 public consultation and is now claiming people don’t have the facts. This is wholly unacceptable, and I am pleased that my sources tell me there is a great deal of unrest, with an official calling the situation ‘a hot potato’.
Unfortunately the lack of timely, sensible answers looks to many people as if the City is stalling and hopes to get away with a cull. There will be no cull without repercussions at the ballot box in May.
I am creating a presentation to give to any community council that wants it, particularly aimed at those councils which will have the City’s experts present their side. Direct action is being considered by some animal rights/concern groups.
If you have any feelings one way or the other, then I urge you to contact your elected representatives (you may also wish to contact Scottish Representatives Roseanna Cunningham and Stewart Stevenson who are backing the proposal).
Good luck to the roe deer and the wishes of the people of Aberdeen in the face of our government.
Image Credit: Roe Deer Standing Still © Catalin Pobega | Dreamstime.com
By Suzanne Kelly.
We will have to wave goodbye to the meadows near Loirston Loch, and Union Terrace Gardens are a stone’s throw from being filled in with god-knows-what kind of shopping mall/parking area ( ‘it’s only full of grass’ says Councillor John Stewart ). A massive bypass will cut through pristine shire at some future point and nine hundred homes will be built by future president Trump on what was once a wildlife paradise.
If habitat loss weren’t enough of a problem, climate change is most definitely driving many species into areas they have not previously inhabited.
Where will wildlife go when the habitats go? It’s a wonder we still have any wildlife at all. Consequently, please consider making part of your garden a wildlife haven.
The long grass you are about to strim is likely providing food and shelter for insects including some of our rarer butterflies and moths. The tree you might prune or cut down is cleaning your air, housing birds, and feeding a host of creatures you might not have considered. If you don’t have to turn your grass into a concrete patio ( sorry, I meant ‘vibrant space’ not concrete patio ), you are again helping the birds by giving them area to look for worms. Bird lovers might want to keep a bird feeder going all year round ( which is current RSPB advice ) and having a small bird bath and a source of drinking water.
My back garden is probably an eyesore in the eyes of my much neater neighbours. There are large sections of dense herbs growing as well as dandelions and plenty of long grass. On the whole, it’s totally none-suburban. On the other hand, it supports a fairly large bee population (there are a few varieties), many kinds of birds, a few butterflies and moths, and one year even a toad took refuge under a tree.
There are many spaces for all kinds of creatures to live, breed and hibernate in a garden like mine and it doesn’t cost all that much in terms of time and money. In return I get fresh herbs, fruits, amazing flowers – and the knowledge that I’m playing some small part in helping wildlife.
Even if you don’t have much time to devote to gardening ( I definitely don’t ), it’s not hard to grow a few herbs and flowers which will help our dwindling bee, moth and butterfly populations. There are nurseries such as Poyntzfield on the Black Isle ( http://www.poyntzfieldherbs.co.uk/ ) which can help. They provide plants which are increasingly rare in the wild, plants native to Scotland and exotics from around the world. Poyntzfield’s outdoor plants are particularly hardy with many of them specifically cultivated to manage in our cold winters.
When buying plants and seeds, you might also want to consider that the EU have just virtually banned herbal remedies – this could be a good time to start your own backyard collection of traditional medicinal plants such as Echinacea, St John’s Wort, Valerian and so on. Again, Poyntzfield is a great resource for medicinal plants.
The news has been filled with stories about the declining bee population worldwide.
If you can believe it, there are ‘bee rustlers’ stealing bee colonies from bee keepers in parts of Asia; thankfully this is not a problem we have just yet in the Deen. The bees in my garden seem to gravitate towards sage blossoms, quince flowers, roses, lilac and a variety of herbs and heathers. It is best to have flowers supplying nectar for as much of the year as possible.
Small bee habitats can be bought inexpensively or made from hollow reeds bound together (think of those godawful Pan’s pipes that fake South American bands play).
When plants are no longer flowering but bees are still around, leaving sugary water in shallow dishes makes a nectar substitute.
Butterflies thrive on nettles, so if you have a corner where the nettles won’t bother you too much, you’d be helping the butterfly population by growing some (you might even like to try making some nettle soup). If nettles are a bit too extreme for you, then you might consider buddleia. Poyntzfield recommend hyssops, mints, rosemary, thymes, lavender and basil for bees and butterflies.
Edible fruiting plants will benefit wildlife as well as you and your family – strawberries, blaeberries, raspberries (which need attention and isolation so that they don’t take over) can with little effort provide you with fresh fruit for most of the summer and early autumn. When you serve a meal containing herbs you’ve grown or fruits you’ve grown there’s a certain amount of satisfaction to be found.
As well as Poyntzfield, you might want to visit the Organic Growers’ Alliance website at http://www.organicgrowersalliance.co.uk/links There are seeds for sale, courses, and information for all kinds of gardeners from the new to the experienced.
Whatever you choose to do in your garden, please think about attracting wildlife – they need all the help they can get.