Rights Archives - Page 3 of 4

Deer Today, Gone Tomorrow? – The Battle of Tullos Hill Begins

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

May 112011

By Suzanne Kelly.

· Housing & Environment Committee refuse to hear Kelly and representative from Nigg Community Council

· Deer Cull to go ahead

Two Thousand And Four Hundred area residents signed a petition asking for the Tullos Hill Roe Deer cull to be scrapped. Two Thousand people from around the world likewise signed petitions.
Torry Community Council were kept in the dark about a cull; Nigg Community Council wished to speak on the subject today. The initial consultation for the public to comment on said nothing about a cull.

In the 21st century in an allegedly democratic society, the above facts should have ensured that the proposed deer cull – designed to allow 40,000 trees to be planted – would have been debated and properly examined. You might even think that local people would have had a say in the destruction of a generations-old population of perfectly harmless deer.

You might even have thought that those pushing for a cull would stop for a moment and wonder if they were possibly making a mistake. And if you were really really an optimist, you might think that these same people bent on the destruction of the deer would have allowed people to talk about it – maybe even let Councillors have a vote on the matter.

You would be wrong.

I first got involved after Jeanette Wiseman wrote an article for the Aberdeen Voice. In writing my follow-up, I was struck by how secretive the deer cull had been kept by those in power, seemingly favouring trees over deer (see ‘Shhh! – Don’t Mention the Pre-planned Deer Cull, Aberdeen Voice). I was happy to help the animal organisations such as Animal Concern and Aberdeen Animal Action with further publicity and research. I did my best as a spokesperson.

This Monday a small delegation presented Aileen Malone with a paper petition signed by 2,400 people – mostly people who live within Aberdeen. Lush – who have been outstanding in their support and energy towards stopping the cull – came along, as did Jeanette, and Fred Wilkinson of the Voice. We met the Press, presented the signatures, and hoped this would have some impact on Malone.

Yesterday, Tuesday 10th May I might have had a chance to address the Housing & Environment Committee. Not only had Malone sent me an email saying they would vote on the cull, but the extraordinary lack of consultation with Torry Community Council had – or rather should have – been grounds for speaking.

Anne Begg is on record as saying ‘I see this (demand for money) as an appalling attempt to fudge their responsibility.’

If as has been shown, the Community and the people had been kept in the dark about the cull – then how could the Committee continue as if nothing wrong had been done? Surely all of the elected members would want to know how extremely badly the pro-cull Councillors and City officials had acted.

If the Nigg Community Council (which probably should have been consulted, too) had seen fit to send a delegate to this Committee meeting, surely the Councillors would want to know what the people of Nigg wanted to say? Certainly not.

First, Malone addressed the Nigg Delegate as being from ‘Nigg Community Centre’. “Nigg Community Council” several people shouted. She corrected herself. Tut, tut: Nigg had MISSED THE DEADLINE TO ASK TO SPEAK. Malone made a move to have his deputation request rejected. Someone else suggested that my request and the Nigg request should be jointly put to a vote.

( See Suzanne Kelly’s intended Speech – https://aberdeenvoice.com/2011/05/a-plea-for-the-deer-a-speech-unspoken/ )

It was on an incredible technicality that Aileen Malone suggested we should not be allowed to speak. No physical, paper report had been attached to todays Housing & Environment Committee Meeting’s papers. The previous meeting’s minutes reported that ‘a report would be made’ concerning the deer cull.

Some of the Councillors – Neil Cooney and Yvonne Allan – said that a report should have been attached, and that the deputations should be allowed. Malone decreed that the report was always going to have been a verbal one, and our requests for deputations were not valid.

A vote was held which went against us speaking. I wrote down the names of those who were trying to save the deer by allowing the speeches, and can report that they included; Neil Cooney, Jim Hunter, Norman Collie, Yvonne Allan, Muriel Jaffrey, and Jackie Dunbar. The Convener Aileen Malone, Vice Convener, and Councillors Yuill, Noble, Cormie and Robertson were among those who voted to kill our deer.

They had seemingly deliberately made a mockery of the public’s not stumping up the ransom money – they had one Mr Reilly, ( derisively I thought) announce that a total of 2 donors pledged a total of £51.00 for fencing. As every Councillor knew – the animal groups were not going to submit to the demand for £225,000 for deer protection.

I hope every anti-cull person out there will contact all of their elected representatives and the Housing & Environment Committee

The word blackmail was used by many individuals and groups to sum up how they felt about the Council’s demand for the money. Anne Begg is on record as saying ‘I see this (demand for money) as an appalling attempt to fudge their responsibility.’

I waited a few minutes before I left.

Even though I was not surprised by the decision, the concept that the absence of a written report was sufficient to derail any debate was a bit of a shock.

When I did leave, I was quickly followed by virtually all of the Media present – BBC, STV, P&J, Northsound, Evening Express.

I gave a fairly lengthy, comprehensive account of past and present developments and issues. And then I raced home to brief the legal team ( yes, legal avenues to save our deer are being actively pursued ) – and to thrash out this swift article. I will also publish my rough draft speech notes. Who knows? Someone on the Committee might actually want to read these.

I have to say that some of the Councillors – Cooney and Allan in particular – did all they could today. The rest seem to have either been sleepwalking – or voting the LibDem line. I hope they realise this is a beginning and not an end to the story.

What now?

If the feelings of the thousands of people and dozens of animal organisations can be swept away, our willingness to take action cannot be so easily stopped. Many groups are planning to ‘take to the hills’ to stop the slaughter. I hope every anti-cull person out there will contact all of their elected representatives and the Housing & Environment Committee (feel free to copy to me) to demand a full enquiry into the tree initiative be held before the £2,500 (yes that’s a correct figure) is spent on the first round of deer slaughter.

You can certainly send in some Freedom of Information Requests to Aberdeen City Council; the email address is: foienquiries@aberdeencity.gov.uk

why not ask the Council:

– who wrote the phase 2 consultation?

– who decided to leave the deer cull out of the consultation?

– does the city already owe £44K or so for previous failed tree planting?

– who decided not to tell Torry Community Council about the cull?

– who decided to tell SNH that the non-lethal options would not work – and that ‘tree guards have visual impact?’

And tell them we demand warning in advance of any cull.

Aberdeen Voice will do its best to publish updates relevant to this story. Personally, nothing would make me happier than having the opportunity to write that this whole sorry cull has been stopped.

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.

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.

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.

Scottish Retailer Fights Against Aberdeen Deer Slaughter

Aberdeen City, Articles, Environment, Featured, News No Responses »

Apr 192011

With thanks to Alan Brown of Lush, Edinburgh

Four members of staff from Lush Cosmetics in Edinburgh embarked on Monday upon a three-day cycle from their Princes Street shop to the Lush shop in Aberdeen.
They will be wearing t-shirts bearing an image of one of the roe deer inhabiting Tullos Hill and emblazoned with the campaign’s slogan, Too Deer A Price To Pay.

They will be travelling with letters opposing the slaughter, which they will hand deliver to Aberdeen City Council.

This cycle marks Lush Edinburgh’s protest against the proposed slaughter of the roe deer that inhabit Tullos Hill in Aberdeen. Aberdeen City Council are proposing to plant trees on Tullos Hill as part of their Tree For Every Citizen scheme, but in order to protect the trees, they plan to slaughter the roe deer who have lived on the hill for generations. This is not only cruel and unnecessary, but would be ineffective as a method of tree protection.

Aberdeen City Council have responded to the numerous communications from the public opposing this cruel slaughter with an ultimatum – if the public cannot donate £225,000 to pay for tree sleeves and fencing to protect the saplings by 10th May 2011, then the slaughter will go ahead and the deer will die.

Lush Edinburgh refuse to play victim to this threat and simply wish to say to the council that they should put the Tree For Every Citizen scheme on hold until they have the means necessary to put tree protection implements into place. While they believe that planting trees is positive action, killing these animals in order to do so is completely senseless and the planting should not even be considered until humane tree protection can be put in place, so that both the trees and deer can exist.

Alan Brown, from Lush Edinburgh said:

“We applaud the council for wanting to plant trees in our community, but surely this can be done without slaughtering a herd of innocent animals. We feel that as the plans currently stand, it’s too dear a price to pay”.

From Monday 18th April until Wednesday 20th April, Lush Edinburgh and Lush Aberdeen will be donating all proceeds (minus VAT) from their popular hand and body lotion, Charity Pot, to the animal rights groups in Aberdeen.

These groups have been working incredibly hard to protest against this cull and using their own funds to pay for publicity materials for their campaign. This is applicable to both the full-size and sample-size version of the product.

Date: 20th April 2011, with cyclists arriving in Aberdeen at 1 pm.
Location: Lush Aberdeen, 81 Union St, Aberdeen

Please come along and welcome the cyclists on their arrival, and show your support for the campaign.

You can keep up to date with the cycle and the great work that they are doing to help this campaign here:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lush-Edinburgh/116815671689234

Lush Cosmetics, established 15 years ago, has been driven by innovation and its ethics. Creators of pioneering beauty products such as the fizzing bath ballistic, shower jellies and butter creams and solid shampoo bars, Lush places emphasis on fresh ingredients like organic fruits and vegetables.

Lush operates a strict policy against animal testing and supports Fair Trade and Community Trade initiatives. Lush leads the cosmetics industry in combating over-packaging by running public awareness campaigns and developing products that can be sold ‘naked’ to the consumer without any packaging. Lush has been awarded the RSPCA Good Business Award for 2006 and 2007 and the PETA Trailblazer Award for Animal Welfare.

More info – www.lush.co.uk

Too Deer A Price – Lush Campaign Against Tullos Cull

Aberdeen City, Articles, Charity, Community, Events, Information, News No Responses »

Apr 142011

By Deborah Cowan.

Lush stores in both Edinburgh and Aberdeen are hoping to raise awareness for the ‘Save the Tullos Deer’ campaign by having an Edinburgh to Aberdeen cycle ride.
Team members from Lush Edinburgh are giving up part of their annual leave, to cycle to Aberdeen beginning on Monday 18th of April with an estimated arrival in Aberdeen on the morning of Wednesday 20th April.

They will be wearing T-Shirts with the logo ‘TOO DEER A PRICE TO PAY’ and hope to raise awareness of the campaign along the way.

The Aberdeen City Council intend to plant saplings on Tullos Hill as part of the ‘Tree for Every Citizen’ project. It is feared that the deer that currently residing on the hill, will eat these saplings, and so a cull of the deer is planned go ahead on the 10th of May 2011, unless the citizens of Aberdeenshire can raise £225,000 by this date to prevent the cull. This money would go towards deer proof fencing, tree guards and other deer proofing measures that the council is unwilling to provide and instead have chosen to go with the cheaper alternative of culling the deer.

However, Lush and other concerned citizens feel the onus should not fall on the public to raise the cash or that if the public are to fundraise to save the deer, then the time frame provided for this is too short and unrealistic.

Opponents of the deer cull are not saying that the ‘Tree for Every Citizen’ project is not a creditable initiative and many applaud the scheme for planting more trees around Aberdeen. However Lush feel the culling of the deer is unnecessary and cannot support the needless destruction of wildlife when there are better alternatives that could provide a deer proof environment for the new saplings and an improved habitat for the deer, who are some of the primary inhabitants of Tullos Hill.

Lush also points out that culling the deer in the Tullos Hill area will not prevent other deer from moving in and grazing on the unprotected saplings anyway, with a net result of destruction of the saplings and the needless loss of a unique local deer population.

Lush are encouraging all concerned members of the public to show their support by signing the in-store petition at Lush Aberdeen on 81 Union Street.

Also, all proceeds made from purchases of Lush Charity Pot (hand and body lotion) on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of the ‘Save the Tullos Deer Big Cycle’ will go towards helping the local Aberdeen groups campaigning against the deer cull and pressuring the Aberdeen Council into looking at the viable alternatives to wholesale wanton destruction of local wildlife.

Diageo Deer Cull – Lessons To Learn?

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

Apr 082011

Chris Gough, of Kennoway in Fife was moved to comment on the recent Aberdeen Voice article about the proposed deer cull on Tullos Hill and the revelation that the cull had been planned in advance of the public consultation regarding Phase 2 of the ‘Tree for every citizen scheme’.

What an excellently presented article by Suzanne Kelly. She has hit the nail on the head so many times and it has sad echoes of our fight to save the deer at the Diageo plant in Fife a year ago.

These deer had been part of the local wildlife scene for more than twenty years and were loved equally by the general public and the staff at the Diageo plant.

Indeed they were fed by members of the staff of DCL (an earlier occupier of the site) for many years and the company had a vet carry out visual checks on the condition of the deer. Photographs of the deer were even displayed on the boardroom wall.

All this came to nothing when the present company, Diageo, decided to extend their plant. The Deer Commission for Scotland ( DCS) was consulted and came up with the “only humane solution” of a cull to remove the deer that had now become an embarrassment.

Untruths about the health and condition of the deer were published through the local media to justify the decision for a cull on “animal welfare” grounds. Advice and assertions that there were alternatives to a cull were rejected, so sadly our beloved Diageo deer were not saved in spite of valiant efforts by so many agencies.

At least the Tullos deer are still with us and so they should remain. The SNH hide their true colours behind their name- Scottish Natural Heritage – which implies to the general public that they CARE for all things natural when in truth they are in league (indeed they are now merged under one flag) with the Deer Commission for Scotland.

They in turn are in league with the land owners who want their land “managed” to suit their own purposes e.g. grouse moors, deer forests etc.

The SNH seem obsessed with the idea that there are far too many deer in Scotland and that for their own good they must be culled. As someone who has holidayed in rural Highland Scotland for the past 35 years I ask one question – Where are all the deer?

the deer should be left to come and go and the trees protected with biodegradable tubing as happens in many places around us in Fife

I regard myself as lucky and privileged if I see more than half a dozen wild deer – Red or Roe in a summer.

The SNH would have us believe that every rural community is over run by deer and heaven forbid they are now invading city centre parks as well.

The very fact that they use behind closed door meetings to discuss their strategies is an indication of how aware they must be that their actions are at odds with the public’s perception of what should be happening. Aberdeen City Council clearly must also be aware of this in their complicity. ACC are now going to take the line that they have taken advice from the ‘experts’ and have made their decisions on the basis of this information.

The easiest, although not an ecologically sound solution, is without doubt a deer cull but this will not be a “one off”, but a repeated exercise over the next three to five years to allow the trees to become established. I also concede that deer are determined creatures of habit and will not be easily kept out of what has become a customary feeding ground. Roe deer are particularly good at lifting fences to gain access, so fencing the area is probably not a viable option. Unless the cull could then be justified on the grounds that the deer are causing damage to the fencing as well as eating the trees!

The truth of the matter is that the deer should be left to come and go and the trees protected with biodegradable tubing as happens in many places around us in Fife.

Biodegradable means no litter problem. The tubes just disintegrate and disappear. As for the damage by vandalism I think this is a very large red herring.

In my experience vandals have much more entertaining targets than some trees planted on a hillside in Aberdeenshire.

As long as the Tullos Deer are alive there is hope. The one point which ACC would take well to note is the irreparable damage the destruction of these deer will cause to their (apparently) already tarnished reputation.

The public will not easily forget – just ask Diageo!
The world is watching.

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.

Local Group Launch Campaign Against Tullos Deer Cull

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

Mar 292011

By David Insurrection.

On Saturday April 2nd from 12.30pm onwards on St. Nicholas Street, Aberdeen Animal Rights will be protesting Aberdeen City Council’s plans to proceed with a deer cull on Tullos Hill – despite growing opposition amongst the public to any such plan.

The cull, should it go ahead, is the city’s answer to the problem of Roe Deer feeding on trees planted as part of the city sponsored Tree For Every Citizen project which involves the planting of some 210,000 trees in several city locations including Tullos Hill.

Aberdeen Animal Rights will be distributing leaflets and collecting signatures on a petition, which will then be handed in to the council in the hope that they will see sense and change their mind on the matter.

City councillors had met on March 1st and decided on the advice from both Scottish Natural Heritage and the Forestry Commission, that a cull was not only necessary, but the only option, ruling out non-lethal alternatives without proper investigation and without consulting those bodies whose findings and research conflict with SNH and the FC.

More confusing still was the city’s declaration that if £225,000 could be raised by animal charities opposed to the cull, then it would stay the cull, using said funds to erect deer-proof fencing. A rather odd decision and one that contradicts SNH’s advice upon which their decision March 1st was based.

City councillors have also shown a shocking disregard for local democracy and local opinion, with one councillor even giving a false account to the Press and Journal of the number of comments received from local people.

See: https://aberdeenvoice.com/2011/03/deer-councillor-i-cant-believe-its-not-utter/

Far from being the best solution, a cull could indeed have little or no effect on local deer numbers, with shifting populations rendering any cull ineffective. A sensible solution however would be to erect deer-proof fencing and/or fit tree guards to those trees most at risk. If the city could not properly undertake a tree-planting scheme of this size, with the use of measures preventing any damage to these trees, bearing in mind the costs involved, then it should not have undertaken it at all, or perhaps have waited until it had the means to do so.

Aberdeen Animal Rights is a local group made up of individuals of various backgrounds and experiences who have come together to campaign against all aspects of animal abuse. We use a variety of entirely peaceful means such as pickets, letter writing, petitioning, info stalls, and more, to campaign against the use of animals for food, entertainment, sport, clothing, or for purposes of vivisection. For more information visit http://aberdeenanimalrights.org.uk

If people would like to become involved in protesting against the planned cull of deer on Tullos Hill, either come along on Saturday to sign the petition, or alternatively contact us at: mail@aberdeenanimalrights.org.uk

Older Entries Newer Entries