Environment Archives - Page 26 of 30

A Plea For The Deer – A Speech Unspoken

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Events, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

May 112011

Suzanne Kelly presents her speech which she was prevented from delivering at the crucial Housing and Environment Committee meeting yesterday due to an ‘incredible technicality’.

The committee voted down the opportunity to consider input from Ms. Kelly and a representative of Nigg Community Council, thereby ruling out further debate ahead of pressing ahead with the cull, in spite of the receipt of a 2400 strong petition, and 82 letters in opposition to the cull on Monday.

Councillors, thank you for allowing me to address your Committee today.

I am here to echo the sentiments of thousands of Aberdonians as well as national and international people, and ask you to stop any plan for a cull of deer on Tullos Hill.

I would like to propose you adopt one of two positions:

Halt the cull, and then plant trees once non-lethal measures can be put in place or …

re-launch the extremely flawed phase 2 consultation to the public – this time telling them that the tree planting will involve a deer cull.

There are some of you who insist that:

‘deer must be culled’,
‘we have taken advice from Scottish Natural Heritage’,
‘animal lovers should pay £225,000 for deer protectors’.

Let us examine those positions in a moment.

Firstly, let us consider how extraordinarily un-democratically – how against established good governmental practice the entire issue has been handled.

Irrespective of a Councillor’s personal views on animal culling, I hope we are all in agreement that there are established procedures for consulting with the public and consulting with Community Councils which have been wholly ignored. If you are upholding the law and the rights of your electorate, you must now stop this cull – at least until a proper consultation is launched.

The phase 2 public consultation for ‘a tree for every citizen’ closed at the end of January.

I read this document on the Council’s website; so did countless other people. The document tells me that there are rabbits in the area, and have been considered.

Who drafted this consultation and why did they omit the cull which was already being planned? We know the cull was being planned by the date of the letter from Scottish Natural Heritage, which I will come to presently. Who exactly decided to keep this cull from the public? Was it just an accidental oversight? Why were rabbits mentioned but not deer – the effect this had on me personally was to make me reach the conclusion that animals had been taken into consideration when the scheme was planned.

someone at the council or in the ranger service has decided to bypass normal democratic procedure

I can assure you that had a cull been mentioned, I would have most definitely objected to the plan while the consultation was open. And so would many other citizens of Aberdeen. I feel as if we have been robbed of our right to be properly consulted. In view of this point alone, the cull should not go ahead.

Another gross breach of protocol and established practice was the complete disregard shown to Torry Community Council. The City should by now have received a letter from Torry Community Council; as reported in the Evening Express, the Council voted unanimously at its April meeting to condemn this cull, and to complain that it was not consulted.

The Torry Community Council also confirmed that at no point was it alerted that a cull was part of the tree-planting scheme. Who, I would like to know, will take responsibility for this breach of established procedure? The City Council is already widely criticised for its failure to consult the Nigg Community Council concerning development plans for Loirston Loch. It is incumbent on this Housing Committee to stop any cull plans until it has addressed this procedural failure.

But now we come to the letter from Scottish Natural Heritage to ranger _________________. I contacted the ranger to whom the letter is addressed, and he referred me to Ian Tallboys, head ranger, for clarification.

Reading this letter – someone at the council or in the ranger service has decided to bypass normal democratic procedure.

Someone has told the SNH that fencing is a bad idea. Someone has even more incredibly told the SNH that tree protectors should not be used on Tullos Hill as they have ‘visual impact.’ ‘Visual Impact.’ On a coastal hill. Tree protectors are in use far and wide throughout this city in areas that have a great deal more traffic than Tullos Hill.

How can anyone for that matter decide for this Committee, for Torry Community Council, and for the citizens who should have properly been consulted that a subjective observation as to ‘visual impact’ condemn a small herd of deer to death?
Obviously this Committee will now realise that the SNH were led, by a person or persons yet to come forward, to decide that the lethal option was the only solution.
There are many, many non-lethal solutions to this issue of deer eating trees – this Committee acknowledges that the deer do not have to die.

Otherwise it would not have issued its highly controversial demand for money. The demand for money for fencing and tree protectors itself is a declaration that these are suitable options for deer control. It is of course a demand that is seen as nothing short of blackmail by myself, by animal charities, and the electorate.

This is one reason the avenue was not pursued: the City should be responsible for finding money, not citizens. The City has resources at its disposal – I note your new Robert the Bruce statue in front of the £60 million pound Marischal building, soon to be fitted with brand new furniture.

Are we really to understand that this city, with its vast real estate portfolio – which sells land at less than market value to property developers has no means of finding £225,000?

This city which hopes to borrow nearly £100 million pounds to fill in Union Terrace Gardens?

The suggestion the city has no money and cannot raise money is unacceptable. This Committee were offered the free services of a deer management expert: this was turned down. Some of the non-lethal methods which would work include: tree guards, fencing, using one of some 3 dozen types of trees which deer do not eat, planting crops nearby which deer will eat, planting the trees elsewhere, planting once the money can be found for these measures, using chemical deterrents on the young trees.

The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals calls your proposed cull ‘abhorrent and absurd’ – a sentiment echoed by thousands of people. The cull is not a suitable response: other deer will move into the area, as per the various animal charities I have consulted – many of which have made this plain to the Committee already.

We seem to be talking about a herd size of 30 animals. This is not over population.

As an aside, it would be nice to see the Council put up roadside ‘deer crossing’ signs in the area to warn motorists deer do live in Aberdeen.

I just mentioned the herd size. This was one of a half dozen relevant questions I asked as long ago as 28 February, Most of my questions were not answered at all. Some were answered only recently, and some were answered with the phrase that has become a mantra for pro cull councillors: we have taken advice – a cull is the only answer.

Well, you have not taken advice. You briefed SNH as to why you did not want the non-lethal options, and then presented their response to this briefing as being their unbiased professional opinion. The animal charities all give you non-lethal options, and some of you inexplicably reject them.

Back to these questions of mine.

some person or persons initially said that the tree planting scheme would be completely cost neutral

I asked a number of questions which would have provided material for me to start hunting for an appropriate grant for saving the Tullos Hill Roe Deer. The timescale was very tight indeed – but the lack of forthcoming answers made it completely impossible for me to try and find any kind of grant or fund.

Again, everything is being slanted towards a wholly unnecessary cull. The silence of the persons responsible for the ‘tree for every citizen’ scheme has blocked this avenue.

As an aside, in some of the documentation I read phrases such as ‘in a few years the trees will begin to pay for themselves.’ Is this tree scheme meant to be a source of income for the City? Am I wrong and no such plan to make money from the Tullos Hill plan exists? Where is there any consultation on this matter?

I will be pleased to hear that no plans for commercial wood exploitation exist, and will report back to the media and Torry Community Council. It is serious enough that the consultation was slanted, that the SNH were briefed to favour a cull, and that Torry Community was excluded from what should have been a simple scheme. But to have some form of commercial enterprise in mind that would forever change Torry certainly cannot be going on behind the scenes, and thank you for confirming this is not the case in advance.

To sum up the history of this whole irregular affair, some person or persons initially said that the tree planting scheme would be completely cost neutral. Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of finance would have realised that planting over 200 thousand trees would indeed be expensive.

It would also seem that the responsible person or persons will not be putting up their hand and admitting their mistake – and instead are pulling out all the stops so that £2,500 is spent on the cull rather than the more expensive, humane, ethical non-lethal options which most definitely exist.

Someone or other briefed SNH that the non-lethal options would mysteriously not work on Tullos Hill.

Someone or other created a public consultation that was by omission of the cull misleading.

Someone or other decided to ignore protocol and kept Torry Community Council’s elected members in the dark.

This same person or persons came up with a scheme to ask the public to come up with a quarter of a million pounds before today.

Someone or other sadly forgot to tell the corporate sponsors that a cull was involved.

Someone or other has a good deal to answer for.

What a pity that person or persons did not think to seek funding for fencing themselves as soon as it became apparent there were cost implications they had not previously recognised.

Ladies and gentlemen, whatever your personal feelings are on deer – although Mr Fletcher has made it plain that they are no different to rats or pigeons – you must acknowledge that in these circumstances you must vote against any cull.

If a vote goes ahead in favour of a cull, please rest assured that every aspect of the tree scheme and any cull will be put under a microscope not just by me, but by established animal welfare organisations and legal minds.

The mechanisms for such actions are, I can promise this Committee, most definitely being readied. The deer are not overpopulated; other deer will move in, and you will have someone killing these animals for some 5 years.

Perhaps you think the animal instantly drops down dead when shot? This is hardly the usual case. In many instances, the terrified, shocked animal will try to wander around in agony as it begins to internally drown in its own blood.

Trackers will be needed to follow the blood stains from the wound or from its breathing out of blood droplets (sometimes very hard to find) and finish the creature off. There are various types of hits an animal will sustain, this is not by any means the worst case scenario – some animals if not quickly found die an agonising, slow death that takes days.

On behalf of myself, the thousands of Aberdonians who signed the petitions, do not plant a tree for us if you are having a cull to do so.

Thousands Sign To Save Tullos Deer – Decision Looms

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Events, Featured, Information, News No Responses »

May 062011

With Thanks To Alan Robertson.

Aberdeen City Council are going to receive a petition signed by over 2,200 Aberdonians calling for the Council to abandon plans to kill 30 deer on Tullos Hill on the outskirts of the city. The wild roe deer are to be killed as part of a council project to create a new woodland and wildlife habitat. Local and national campaigners have condemned the planned cull as cruel, wasteful and unnecessary.

A small delegation of campaigners will deliver the petition to the council at The Town House, Broad Street at 3.30pm on Monday.

Aberdeen City Council Housing and Environment Committee gave pro deer campaigners until May 10th to come up with £225,000 to pay for tree protectors and deer fencing. As campaigners have not attempted to raise this “blood money” it is expected that the Council Housing and Environment Committee will, at their meeting on May 10th, confirm that the deer cull will go ahead.

Campaigner Jeanette Wiseman states:

“We hope that the Housing and Environment Committee will listen to the thousands of Aberdeen voters who have asked them to stop this needless slaughter. There is still time for an eleventh hour reprieve for the deer on Tullos Hill. Aberdeen City Council can stop this shameful act.”

The public consultation that was launched by Aberdeen City Council on 29th October 2010 ( closed on 28th January 2011) made no mention of the proposed deer cull at Tullos Hill, despite the fact that a delegation from Scottish National Heritage had visited Tullos Hill on 15th November to assess the option of a deer cull at the request of the Council, and wrote to the Council on 25th November.

The letter from SNH makes it clear that, while the public consultation was still active, someone at the City had briefed SNH to steer the decision making towards a deer cull, despite the fact that there are other options. The briefing by the Council to SNH was therefore biased, the consultation was flawed and the handling of both these matters by the Council requires investigation.

See: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/Consultations/ArchiveConsultations/cst_tree_every_citizen.asp

The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is completely against the proposed cull, as are other animal welfare organisations, thousands of Aberdonians, and many concerned people living further away. Scottish SPCA Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn said:

“We firmly believe culls should only take place to protect the public or for animal welfare reasons”. He went on to say that: “It is absurd and abhorrent to undertake a cull because it would be too costly to protect trees which have not even been planted. We would suggest these trees should either be planted elsewhere or not at all. Trees should certainly not be planted at the expense of the lives of animals.”

Lush Aberdeen and Lush Edinburgh are actively involved in trying to save the roe deer ; the Edinburgh Lush team cycled to the Aberdeen store to raise awareness and funds. and Lush were actively involved in circulating petitions against the proposed cull.

A Facebook site to Save the Tullos Hill Roe Deer has been highlighting the main issues and over 2100 people have signed up to the site.

The fact is, that the Council are not using the normal city-wide procedure for tree planting at Tullos Hill and that is the reason the deer are to be culled. Elsewhere in the City, tree protectors are being used – even in areas where there are no roe deer, and will require maintenance that will cost money; these facts are being kept from the public to make it appear that Tullos Hill is too costly, when in fact it needs to be considered in the bigger context – as part of the Tree for Every Citizen initiative.

The precedent of how tree planting has been handled at Kincorth Hill and other areas of the City, where no deer were culled shows this to be be true.

Aberdeen City Council Housing and Environment Committee at their meeting on 1 March 2011 resolved:

”to extend an invitation to the individuals and organisations who have objected to these deer control measures to raise the sums necessary to provide and maintain alternative measures, including fencing and rehousing of deer, by no later than 10th May, 2011.”

With only days before the decision is taken, anyone who feels strongly about the proposed cull should contact members of the Housing and Environment Committee to forward their concerns.

It’s like a Jungle Sometimes – Wildlife gardening 2011

Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information No Responses »

May 052011

By Suzanne Kelly.

Tulips in Torry - plant them once, they come back for years

Spring has sprung and the weather’s glorious: it’s garden time. Some of us will take strimmer, mower and other power tools to our gardens until there isn’t a weed in sight. But before you chop down that tree or cut all of your long grass, here’s something to consider. Aberdeen City and shire are losing green space at an unbelievable rate; new housing developments are planned for virtually every patch of open land.

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.

A bee on quince blossoms: take care of the bees and the bees will take care of us

I don’t clear dead leaves and debris away at the first sign of warm weather as there are as likely as not insects and eggs dependent on this temporary mess.

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.

A mini meadow in my garden is a feast for wildlife

A good nursery or website will tell you what plants flower when, and will be happy to help pick plants for your particular garden.

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.

Old Susannah’s Journal No. 32

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Creative Writing, Information, Satire and Humour No Responses »

Apr 222011

Voice’s Old Susannah casts her eye over recent events, stories, and terms and phrases familiar as well as freshly ‘spun’, which will be forever etched in the consciousness of the people of Aberdeen and the Northeast.

There have been a fair share of animal cruelty stories in the last few months; Donald Forbes will soon have is day in Court (looks like 16th May at Aberdeen Sheriff Court – if you’re free, do stop in and wish him well). But there are some other charming people who deserve a mention this week.

Picture this: you are frail, in your 80s, and a youngish girl has been sent as your carer. Just hope it isn’t Kirsty Rae, a home carer for Aberdeenshire Council. She has been caught apparently stealing hundreds of pounds from elderly, vulnerable older women – one believed to be 89 years old. It is a crime how little money our oldest residents are expected to live on to start with – but can you imagine the stress for these women – thinking you had lost your money – and worrying if you were losing your senses?

Allegedly Ms Rae has previous form – she is one to watch in future – actually just watch your older relatives and your wallets if she is within a few hundred yards.

No doubt she has a problem, maybe had a tough childhood, money problems or some other reason we should all feel really sorry for her – and no doubt has reasons why she should not get a custodial sentence. As for me, I will reserve my sympathy for the robbed women – who have lived through World War II, probably worked hard and scrimped and saved all their lives.

Nice one Kirsty.

My second man to watch in the news is the Aberdeen Football Club fan who apparently head-butted a 12-year-old boy.

The boy was asking for it – he had the nerve to be wearing a Celtic jersey AND was in a shopping centre – with his parents. Matthew Brown is thought to be pleading to avoid a football ban – he had been drinking you see. I guess that makes it all right.

The little boy will obviously be very apprehensive and intimidated for some time to come, and was nauseous and ill after the vicious attack. But hey, Matt probably won’t do it again. Unless he has been drinking. Matt – it is only a game, and not an excuse to attack children who choose a different team than yours. No need to get the younger generation involved in any of your personal gripes. Deal?

There is of course no reason why a party would want to stick to the usually generous promises it makes in a manifesto

On a happier note, spring is in the air (well, the haar is pretty thick anyway), and election fever is gripping the City and Shire. In the pubs and clubs the talk is all around the AV – Alternative Voting system referendum, and with the exciting leaflets flooding through the letterboxes explaining how honest, gifted and wonderful each candidate is, it is all anyone is thinking about.

Is the suspense getting to you? I would love to hear your thoughts on this exciting election looming for the 5th May. But what does it all mean? What will it mean for the Country? For our great democratic, unified City? Perhaps looking at some of the terms in depth will help.

Manifesto: (Noun) Work of fiction used to deceive; usually deliberately written to be so long and tedious that anyone who tries reading one will utterly forget their own name, let alone remember the manifesto’s economic policy on EU agricultural subsidies or educational targets.

A party just isn’t a party without a good manifesto; the manifesto gets to have its own ‘launch’ party at which the press stifle yawns and try to think of interesting questions on a document that is ultimately as exciting as a telephone directory – only a lot less believable. There is of course no reason why a party would want to stick to the usually generous promises it makes in a manifesto.

Some parties – for some reason Liberal Democrats in the last prime ministerial elections come to mind – promise the world. Free education for all, ice cream for everybody, and two cars in each garage.

I know – perhaps we can have a consultation on this: maybe the public can be given a choice of route options

They then find themselves with a tiny bit of power, and needing to have a slice of the pie, they fold like a cheap suit and do as they are told by the more powerful party (for some reason I think of the Tories). If your manifesto promises no tuition fees, there is some possibility that one or two of the voters will notice if you are a bit less than good to your word. But then again, it is not as if they can do anything about it.

I’ve had a look at the 89 page Liberal Democrat Manifesto, and see that they intend to deliver something called the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route; this pledge is filed under the phrase ‘for efficiency’. I know – perhaps we can have a consultation on this: maybe the public can be given a choice of route options and vote on the matter after some road shows.

Old Susannah is getting old and her memory is going, because I mistakenly remember sitting at an ‘Aberdeen Civic Forum’ meeting in the town hall, where NESTRANS promised that the route would be finished in 2012. Maybe I got that wrong: perhaps it is the LibDems that will be finished.

But there is good news: The LibDems care about wildlife: From the manifesto:

“The nation’s farmers are also stewards of the countryside, playing a key role in protecting Scotland’s wildlife and habitats”.

Presumably, with the exception of inconvenient deer.

Polling Station: (Noun) A place where, if you are lucky enough to find it, you will be given a numbered piece of paper, have your name written on a numbered sheet of voters names – and then be told that your vote is totally anonymous.

You will have a choice of parties to vote for – Raving Monster Looney party being amongst the more conservative and long lasting of them.

You will wonder if you are looking at photographs of fashion models and movie stars at first

It is the 21st century and we are a technologically advanced society. This is why we are voting using pieces of paper which are stuffed into a wooden box, then later taken to a larger counting area and people hand-count the votes for hours into the night and the next morning.

Mistakes are never made, and no one ever counts incorrectly. You might think that an electronic voting system would be a good idea, but there is something to be said for this method. I’m just too polite to say it.

I said it can be difficult to find your polling station – particularly as some 14,000 Aberdeen residents received their polling cards telling them where to go to vote: to a school that had been closed down some months before. To be fair to the Council, it would be awfully hard to keep track of all the schools we’ve closed, and you cannot be expected to check all the fine details when you print a couple of thousand polling cards.

Flyer: (noun) Printed page delivering short, factual, truthful messages. The means by which political parties remind you of all the good they have done and will do.

The person receiving a flyer through their letter box will religiously read all flyers and save them for posterity, if the dog hasn’t chewed up the flyer and the flyer deliverer’s hand first. They come in fabulous colour schemes such as sickly gold and dark purple to seem all the more cheerful. You will wonder if you are looking at photographs of fashion models and movie stars at first, then you realise it is pictures of your would-be elected officials.

Remember, if it is printed in a flyer, it is true. Candidates are very careful not to promise more than they can deliver, and with our services and society in the shape they are today, there is very little left to promise anyway.

NEXT WEEK: news on FOI requests into Union Terrace Gardens and City property sold to Stewart Milne; Deer update (the deer have 19 days left as things stand before the blackmail ultimatum is up), and more definitions.

Open Letter To Cllr. Aileen Malone

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Apr 222011

Voice’s Suzanne Kelly has over the past 10 weeks campaigned tirelessly in her efforts to oppose Aberdeen City Council’s proposed cull of roe deer on Tullos Hill, writing letters and liasing with groups and individuals on both sides of the debate. Suzanne wishes to share with Aberdeen Voice readers her latest letter to Cllr. Aileen Malone and the Housing and Environment Committee in the hope that others might be encouraged to add their own voice to this controversial issue.

20 April 2011
Councillor Aileen Malone
Convener, Housing Committee
Aberdeen City Council

Dear Ms Malone

Re: Tullos Hill Roe Deer

I am writing this open letter to you in your role as Convener of the Housing & Environment Committee and leading proponent of the ‘A Tree for Every Citizen’ Scheme.

I am sending this letter to you in this format for two reasons. Firstly, you ‘accidentally’ deleted an email I sent you (with my street address) in which I protested against the Tullos Hill Roe Deer Cull, which is being planned as a result of the tree scheme, and I would hate for you to similarly lose this letter.

Secondly, I want to enlist the help of as many Aberdeen citizens and others opposed to this senseless cull as possible: if anyone reading this letter agrees with it, kindly add your name and address, and send it to Ms Malone.

Your committee came up with the ultimatum to citizens: give us £225,000 before 10 May – or we will kill the deer. ‘Blackmail’ is the word that springs to mind. I would never have believed a City would consider blackmailing its citizens. To do so after what seems like deliberately concealing the planned cull from the ‘Phase 2’ consultation which closed in January is inexcusable.

It has been demonstrated that before this consultation was launched, someone involved in the ‘Tree’ scheme had been briefing Scottish Natural Heritage and deliberately steering them away from the many humane alternatives to a cull that exist. I thought it was very clever to leave out the deer from the consultation but to mention rabbits – it certainly fooled me (and no doubt many others) into thinking that all animals had been duly considered, and that only rabbits were worth mentioning. Some might call that sneaky.

If the public consultation ending in January mentioned a deer cull or the need to raise money for tree protection, there are hundreds of people who would have objected. The opportunity was lost to them because the consultation was so very flawed.

The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is completely against the cull, as are many other animal welfare organisations, and thousands of Aberdonians as well as concerned people living further away.

I recall how you went to the Press & Journal and said something to the effect that ‘only about one’ local resident had contacted you protesting the cull.

You later made private apologies to me and others who indeed had contacted you – you ‘accidentally’ deleted my email. (I waited and must have missed it, but I never did see an apology in the Press & Journal for your error. It is almost as if you did not want to set the record straight).

There are dozens of ways in which the deer can be saved (tree guards – which someone told the SNH ‘had visual impact’ are being used elsewhere in the city such as Forrit Brae; dozens of types of trees are deer resistant, fencing could be used, trees could be planted elsewhere…). I can only hope that someone with sense within the C ouncil is striving to find a solution other than this cull.

But here, Ms Malone, is my counter-offer to your ‘blackmail’ demand for £225,000.

Call off the cull and plant the trees after suitable alternatives have been found to protect the deer, and make a public announcement to that effect by 3 May 2011, or:-

I will lodge a formal complaint against you with the Standards Commission for Scotland with a view to its censuring you (I do have rather an impressive list of complaints on your handling of this issue it must be said)
I will start a campaign calling for both internal and external auditing and inquiries into the entire ‘Tree for Every Citizen’ campaign focussing on who briefed SNH towards a cull and how the public was treated
I will start a campaign calling for your immediate resignation from the Council
I will call on your political party to censure you
I will call on as many people in and outside of Aberdeen to join me in these aims as possible

I expect your reply by 3 May, after which date if there is no halt to the cull, I will begin to take these actions against you and seek legal advice as well on preventing the cull.

Maybe my one letter won’t carry much weight with you; maybe no one will join me. But even if no one else signs this letter and sends it to you, I will continue to fight you on this very sad state of affairs until I have prevailed.

As a reminder, here are the questions I asked you and others by email on 8 March of this year (my comments in red)

When was the cull first planned? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
Can the proposed trees not go elsewhere? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
What will be the cost of the cull? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
What is the cost of the alternatives? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
Are we proposing to create a habitat for squirrels and deer as your email suggests – by first culling deer? – (APPARENTLY YES)
What is the cost of fire damage to the ‘Gramps’? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
When exactly were the voters of Aberdeen asked if they would prefer to have saplings than deer? – (NEVER HAPPENED)
Was a deer struck and killed by a vehicle during the recent ‘capping’ exercise? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
You refer to the area as ‘Urban’ – patently it is not an urban area at all – but is an area in danger of being destroyed by urban sprawl -comment please. – NO ANSWER GIVEN
How many deer precisely are on Tullos Hill? – NO ONE ANSWER GIVEN – RANGES FROM ‘A FEW’ TO ‘ABOUT 30’ HAVE BEEN SENT OR SEEN IN THE PRESS
Are all of the rangers and environmental experts convinced culling is the only way forward? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
Which department/arm of the council is charged with preventing further urban sprawl? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
What other deer populations are there in the coastal Aberdeenshire area? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
Have the local community councils been consulted, and if so, do they agree with the cull? – NO ANSWER GIVEN

Scottish Natural Heritage in its 26 November letter suggests that the public might not be in favour of a cull and need careful handling. They offer to help you with a robust communication plan. So, Ms Malone: how is that working out for you?

Yours,
Suzanne Kelly

Also signed by ________________________________________________________________________

Name and Address

(if anyone wishes to sign and send Ms Malone this letter as well, please keep me informed and send a copy if possible to sgvk27@aol.com. Thank you)

* Aberdeen voice is grateful to Ian Britton and Mark Aert for photographs.

Parking Space – The Final Frontier

Articles, Creative Writing, Featured, Satire and Humour No Responses »

Apr 222011

Aberdeen Voice is proud to present the following comic strip originally created by local artists Dave Smith and Graham Murdoch. The cartoon strip first appeared in an issue of the sorely missed Keltik Komix in the late 1980s. However, readers will find the subject matter not only topical, but uncannily familiar. It is very likely that the particular issue of Keltix Komix in question was funded by Aberdeen City Council – for which we are extremely grateful.

Our Deer Friends – Lush Edinburgh Cycle Into Aberdeen

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Apr 222011

Voice’s Suzanne Kelly joined those gathered outside Lush cosmetics in Union Street in Aberdeen to welcome the 5 campaigners from Lush in Edinburgh who had cycled all the way from our capital city, collecting support, and highlighting opposition to Aberdeen City council’s proposed, unnecessary cull of roe deer on Tullos Hill.

12:30pm on Wednesday 20 April – an intrepid group of 5 Lush Edinburgh staff cycle the last few minutes of an epic trek from the Lush Edinburgh shop to Lush Aberdeen.

They are all kitted out in T-shirts with a photo of a deer, with the slogan ‘Too Deer A Price To Pay.’ They are here in answer to Aberdeen City’s Council’s threatened – economically motivated – deer cull.

The Committee told Aberdeen citizens and animal lovers: Give us £225,000 by 10th May for fencing and tree protectors – OR WE WILL CULL THE TULLOS HILL ROE DEER.

This shocking, outrageous move by the City has prompted outrage throughout not only Aberdeen, but also throughout the world and amongst the major animal rights organisations. The City has been largely silent on the matter, and was not answering this writer’s questions and the many pleas against the cull. Local groups became active against the cull; Animal Concern started campaigning, and Lush got involved.

A team of over a dozen local animal lovers, animal rights activists and concerned people from all walks of life were on hand to give the cyclists a warm welcome. There were anti-cull campaigners from all over Aberdeenshire, Philadelphia, Australia and everywhere in between. They carried signs and handed out hundreds of flyers to passers-by and many passers by stopped to chat and voice their concern – and anger – over the Council’s threatened cull.

I spoke with Helen Patterson; she had heard about the cull on SHMU FM, Aberdeen’s local station. She phoned into the programme and has been following the matter ever since, and in her words:

“this cull is just terrible.”

The Lush involvement pretty much started when local campaigners had asked Debbie, manager at Lush Aberdeen if Lush would make the petition available in its shop for customers to sign. She sought approval and then things began to take off.

These Lush employees who spent days cycling here to highlight this sad state of affairs, also did it on their own personal holiday time. The Lush team – who are cyclists: Alan (trainee Manager at the Edinburgh shop), Hannah, Karen, Ross and Josette – truly gave a shot in the arm to campaigners here. Within an hour of their arrival, local radio Northsound and Scottish TV came down to cover the story. Lush had successfully given the issue much-needed publicity.

The cycling event is only one part of what Lush is doing – Erica from Lush did not cycle up – she had been working round the clock managing this event and its many aspects. She tells me:

“Each Lush shop has a green helper and environment representative – which is what I am.

“We keep an eye on issues, and I have been working on press releases, posters, and Facebook updates.”

Lush are giving the campaign a boost by promoting the issue on their famous, long-running ‘Charity Pot’ moisturiser.

Lush supports an astounding number of environmental, animal and human welfare initiatives around the globe; sales from the ‘Charity Pot’ moisturiser go to these charities.

The labels for the pots describe the different projects; I bought one some time back which was for an organisation opposed to the massive ‘wall of death’ fishing techniques which are depleting our oceans indiscriminately and killing seabirds. Hundreds of people visiting the Edinburgh shop were shocked to hear of this situation, and have been signing the petition and buying the ‘Charity Pots.’

Lush has always shown this dedication to environmental causes. Its products are never tested on animals; the natural ingredients are responsibly sourced and worldwide producers are paid fair value for their ingredients. There is no animal testing – but there are moves afoot in the EU which may make animal cosmetic testing a horrible reality again. If this worries you, then please contact your MEP, do some research, and say NO to this potential bureaucratic threat.

How can you help the deer?

Sign a petition – information can be found on Facebook – search for ‘Tullos Hill Roe Deer’

– or drop into Lush (Union Street near Market Street)

Write to Aileen Malone, Convener of the Aberdeen City Housing & Environment Committee

Contact your local City Councillor and tell them what you think.

Sustainable Electricity In Aberdeen

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Apr 082011

By Ivan Mejia Cajica.

The United Kingdom has a large portion of the renewable energy resources available in Europe; it has the greatest wind resource of any European nation; and its long coastline suggests plenty of opportunities for power generation firms to develop wave and tidal renewable energy projects.

The outskirts of Aberdeen has a considerable share of these resources.

This wealth of renewable resources has largely been overlooked in light of the UK’s reserves of coal, oil and gas, as well as losing out to the nuclear industry in terms of obtaining allegiance for financial support.

By embracing the EU Renewable Energy Directive, the UK has made commitments and established targets to increase its renewable energy generation capacity. To achieve those targets, which are the most challenging of any European Union member state, the UK Government has put in place mechanisms to support the development of electricity generation from renewable sources through the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) System (Ofgem 2010). Through the Renewable Obligation Certificate System, UK electricity suppliers are obliged to increase the proportion of their electricity generation from renewable sources.

At the regional level, according to the Aberdeenshire Local Plan 2006, Aberdeenshire Council adopted the “Renewable Energy strategy”, which aims to encourage the generation of electricity from renewable sources (Aberdeenshire Council, 2010).

Since the various privatizations of the public utility firms during the 1980s, the customer acquired the right to choose an energy provider. One of the key aims behind the privatization process was the goal of stimulating competition within the electricity industry whilst reducing electricity prices to consumers. Another key objective of the privatisation process was the belief that a liberalised market would contribute as well to continuous improvement in quality as the public utilities had done.

This is the moment to envision the future for Aberdeen and its citizens

However, some of these objectives remain unfulfilled. The environmental impact caused by the electricity industry is still high. In fact, in 2008 UK electricity consumption accounted for 42% of end-user carbon (CO2) emissions, according to the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC, 2010).

According to OFGEM, the electricity industry regulator, there has been little consumer desire to exercise choice and support the electricity generation from renewable sources. In fact, despite commitments at both state and regional levels, in 2008 the electricity generation from renewable energy resources amounted to only 6.5% of the total electricity generation in UK.

This figure is lower than the portion of renewable electricity generation in others European countries such as Portugal (32%), Denmark (28%), Spain (19%), Germany (15%), and Ireland (12.5%) or of the average of the European Union as a whole (17%).

How can Aberdonian citizens have a more active role in redirecting the path of Scotland’s electricity industry?

Since the 1970’s Aberdeen City has played a leadership role in the Oil and Gas Industry. However, now that the North Sea’s reserves are diminishing, there is a general agreement within the industry that renewable energy has an important place in Aberdeen’s future. This is the moment to envision the future for Aberdeen and its citizens with a better quality of electricity and environment.

A study is being carried at The Robert Gordon University in order to provide some insights on the roles assumed by Aberdonian citizens in the purchase process of electricity.

This study will contribute to a better understanding of the future that Aberdonians envision for the city and for the electricity generation industry.

To participate in a survey and share your opinion on this topic of electricity generation and how you purchase electricity, please follow the web link: http://edu.surveygizmo.com/s3/506003/RGU-Sustainable-Electricity-Research

Shhh! – Don’t Mention The Pre-planned Deer Cull

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Apr 052011

Planting trees, creating habitats, using trees to clean the air: no one could be against such a plan, particularly if it would be ‘cost neutral’ and the citizens of Aberdeen would wind up with forests to enjoy down the road. However, in light of new information, Voice’s Suzanne Kelly takes a different view.

What probably started out as a good idea is now a contentious web of extremely poor advance planning, politics, blackmail, vandalism and international outcry at a secret, but long-planned deer cull.

It is time to examine what should have happened, what went wrong, and what should and could be done.

The initial scheme

An Aberdeen City news release of 29 October 2010 explains that 210,000 trees will be planted in several stages, that this programme had funding for the first phase, and was winning awards. The news release goes on to explain how important trees are – they will such up pollutants and CO2; they will provide habitat for animals (presumably there should be a tree planting near Loirston Loch, but a stadium is to be planted there instead). This news release, stored on the Council’s website, also explains that funding is being sought for Phase 2.

It is a bit more difficult to find any record on the Council’s website of the deliberate vandalism which destroyed trees planned in Torry and elsewhere. There is no report on how vandals will be prevented from destroying further plantings. But within a month or so of this news release appearing, certain people in the Council involved with the tree scheme were already scheming some destruction of their own – and they certainly didn’t want either you or me to find out about it until it was too late for us to do anything about it. I refer to the plan to keep us in the dark about how Phase 2 of the scheme was being deliberately led: people behind the scheme were actively steering deliberately towards the cull of the Tullos Hill Roe Deer.

Scottish Natural Heritage: A view to a cull

On 25 November 2010 (while citizens were being ‘consulted’ on Phase 2’), Scottish Natural Heritage wrote a letter to a member of the arboreal staff at the Council. (See letter in full below this article). This letter raises a number of serious questions as to how the scheme was handled. The letter certainly seems to be replying to a briefing of some sort. The writer – James Scott of Scottish Natural Heritage’s Wildlife Operations Unit – is addressing issues which should have been made known in the consultation.

At the time of writing, Mr Scott has been informed that someone in Aberdeen Council has already taken several decisions.

an advantage of using contracted deer shooters is that it might distance the Council from the act

Fencing – It has somehow been decided by someone that fencing would be impossible, as there is a public footpath. The UK is covered with such paths and suitable gates are used. Fencing might not have been perfect – but oddly that is part of the blackmail offer the council now proposes.

Deer population – If the fencing controversy is not confusing enough, the letter admits that the number of deer is unknown. How many would be culled is apparently to be decided after SNH personnel visit the site under cover of darkness and make counts. It is not known if such a count has taken place yet, or what the results are. SNH say that tranquilising deer to move them doesn’t work (50% success) and then inexplicably says this would probably be illegal to do. If the law says that killing creatures is better than moving them, then it is time to change the law.

Humane options – the SNH suggest ‘frustrating’ deer – remove gorse, implement other measures, yet our officials rejected these proposals. Again, no recourse to the citizens here.

‘Visual Impact’ of tree protectors they are ruled out – The City told SNH that it would not be using tree protectors on the grounds that they might blow over, creating litter – and because they ‘have visual impact’. The visual impact of something is a personal, not a scientific, issue. It is not sufficient grounds to condemn a population of deer to death.

“there is the issue of reducing available habitat for deer and the fact that we would consequently expect a reduction cull. You have also decided not to use tree guards due to the visual impact and the likelyhood of these being blown away, possibly damaging trees they are meant to protect and creating a littering issue.” – James Scott , SNH

The word ‘deer’ does not get so much as a single use – yet it is now clear that a cull was in the cards

Without any regard to consultation, someone at the City has given this and other reasons leading SNH to conclude the deer should be culled. No one wanted to ask the citizens if we’d rather look at tree protectors (which cost money), or have the trees elsewhere in order to save deer. But the City and SNH were interested in keeping us in the dark….

Keep them in the dark – SNH actually says that an advantage of using contracted deer shooters is that it might distance the Council from the act:

“it may be preferrable to be seen to be doing it in house and have greater control rather than using contractors, or it may be preferable to utilise the distance between instruction and deed that comes from using contractors” – James Scott , SNH

The Aberdeen citizens should also be managed with care – with a ‘robust communication plan:-

“Having visited the site I am content that appropriate deer management can occur in a safe manner. Communicating this to access takers and the wider public may be more of a task which will require a robust communication plan. I would suggest that a suitable deer management plan will help in this regard and I am more than happy to offer assistance in this” – James Scott , SNH

It seems as if the ‘robust communication plan’ is an indication that some people might not like deer shot to save money. If a cull were needed for welfare reasons, a reasonable person might not like the idea, but they would understand. It seems that as no logical reason except cost savings exist for this cull – otherwise there would be no need to keep it out of the consultation or to have a ‘robust communication plan’.

Phase 2 Consultation: No options given

The Consultation which resides on the Aberdeen City Home page gives the reader no idea whatsoever that any of the above plans and processes were in place.
See: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/Consultations/ArchiveConsultations/cst_tree_every_citizen.asp

There is no mention of the vandalism – only of the success of Phase 1. The word ‘deer’ does not get so much as a single use – yet it is now clear that a cull was in the cards. The trees are meant to start ‘making money’ in three years’ time – if there is a plan to turn Tullos into a timber yard, we haven’t been told.

A mix of private and public money is paying for this. Public money is your money and mine – this makes it doubly scandalous that the City chose to deliberately hide mention of the deer cull. We missed our chance to object to the consultation because of this omission – and as the petitions circulating attest – there are thousands of people who would have liked to have had the choice.

Questions for the Council

It is up to the Council – In particular, Aileen Malone, The Housing and Environment Committee, and whoever else was involved in the details of the Tree Planting scheme – to supply answers to a few questions arising:-

Who made the decision to leave any deer cull out of the public consultation?
Who took the decision that non-lethal measures would be discounted and then communicated to SNH?
Who precisely decided to plant the trees on Tullos Hill, and why wasn’t the deer population immediately identified as a reason to find another location?
Who decided tree guards’ visual impact was preferable to a deer cull?
Whose aesthetic judgment decided the tree guards were unattractive?
How many trees were vandalised in Phase 1?
How much public money was spent in Phase 1, and how much is planned to be spent in Phase 2?
Was a consultation with Torry Community Council taken, and if so, were the deer discussed?
How many deer were counted by SNH, and how many are to be culled?

Rays of hope

Thankfully animal activists, citizens of Aberdeen and people around the globe have become involved in campaigns and petition creating to stop this senseless slaughter. Concerned people should contact their local Community Council members, the Housing and Environment Committee, Committee convener Aileen Malone, and other elected representatives to ask for answers to these questions, and to demand an inquiry into the consultation’s management, and to request a new, honest one.

A civilised government would want to put any cull on indefinite hold until this affair is cleared up. Deer should not be slaughtered because people in government don’t want to spend money – and given the involved Councillors’ amazing ultimatum: raise funds for fencing, or we shoot animals – is it time for some changes in their number?

– Letter from James Scott ( SNH ) to Richard Nicholson ( ACC ).

– Further reading: Critical Society quarterly e-journal.

Clock Ticking For Triple Kirks And The Peregrines

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion Comments Off

Mar 252011

In January 2011, Richard Pelling posted a blog entitled ‘Triple Kirks Nonsultation?’ about what was going on at The Triple Kirks site. At this stage, the plans for the site had already been subject to intense local criticism, inspired a poem and had even received a bit of a national mauling in Private Eye (Eye 1279, page 16). Richard now brings us up to date.

In February, Stewart Milne Group (SMG) submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening option request to determine if they would need to carry out an EIA prior to submitting plans – to which we of course made comment.

It turns out that given that the site is less than 0.5 hectares in size and “does not fall within a sensitive area”, no EIA is required.

So, the presence of the Schedule 1 listed Peregrine Falcons on site apparently does not merit any special attention and no study of the potential impact on them is required. Sad.

While on the subject of the majestic Peregrine, it is worth pointing out that the registered address of SMG is, ironically, Peregrine House in Westhill. Want more irony? Of course you do! One of the items cited in the Corporate Social Responsibility section of the SMG website is Protecting our Native Birds.

With the pesky matter of the requirement for an EIA out of the way, the plans for the proposed development were duly submitted to Aberdeen City Council in March.

Now on the aforementioned Corporate Social Responsibility section of the SMG website, I was pleased to read the following :

“Protecting our Heritage – Historic buildings are a vital part of this nation’s heritage, and one particularly close to our heart”.

So in line with this statement, would the final plans represent a volt face, meaning that Archibald Simpson’s Triple Kirks site would be treated in a sympathetic manner? Would the soaring A-listed spire now be afforded the respect it deserves? Nae chance. Perusal of the application on-line – P110303 – reveals that they look remarkably similar to those being peddled during the nonsultation exercise – quelle surprise.

Surely the site deserves more than the bland and insipid glazed shed that that some would say desecrates the Triple Kirks site and detracts from the surrounding historic streetscape? Why bother to give a building A-listed status if it can be treated with such disregard? Please check out the plans and then make your comments on the application – you have until 31st March 2011 to do this.

Remember that if you commented in the initial nonsultation exercise or in response to planning application P110056, you need to do it all over again for this one – P110303 – in order to make your views known.

If you have concerns on the impact on the spire, it would also be worth contacting Historic Scotland directly – I’m sure they will have something to say in response to seeing the plans anyway – but it’s good to let them know that you care about the fate of the Triple Kirks spire (Historic Building No. 19940).

As for the fate of the Peregrines, if you are worried about how this development may impact them it is certainly worth contacting Scottish Natural Heritage to express your concerns. The SMG website shows that they have apparently been funding some RSPB projects in Scotland, so could this mean that the RSPB may be reluctant to stand up for the Triple Kirks falcons? If you are an RSPB member perhaps you might consider dropping them an e-mail to ask them to fight for the falcons.

Anyway, whatever you feel like doing, please do it … the clock is ticking on Triple Kirks! So as the saying goes, act now or forever hold your peace.

As a footnote, it was nice to see the Rosemount Review report that :

‘ Rosemount Community Council rejected new plans to develop the derelict Triple Kirks site last night. The community council concluded that the new designs were “not in keeping with the area”. ‘

Older Entries Newer Entries