Dec 032015
 

deershotfeat2With thanks to Suzanne Kelly.

Recent figures obtained under Freedom of Information show how a controversial, unpopular cull of deer on Tullos Hill has spread to city wide persecution of roe deer. Despite claiming the cull will reduce traffic accidents involving deer the City Council refused to provide data to back its claim that deer cause a road accident every week.

The information which has been released shows that since 2011 Aberdeen City Council has spent £28,930 on shooting deer.

The City initially started the cull on Tullos Hill, the former waste tip where the City is attempting to establish a large forest.

Government reports suggest that due to the poor soil matrix it is unlikely trees will thrive on Tullos Hill. Those that do reach any height may be blown over due to the lack of deep, firm soil to support tree roots.

Aberdeen City Council pressed ahead with this scheme ignoring the huge public outcry over the deer cull and despite losing £43,800 when a previous tree planting project on the Hill failed. Deer and weeds were blamed for that failure. Today weeds tower over many of the new saplings and the City has been given a list by the Forestry Commission of numerous ways the plantation is failing.

The deer cull was as unpopular as it was deemed unnecessary. The City refused to listen to free, expert advice on how to have trees as well as deer on the Hill. Instead hired marksmen were used. Astonishingly no signs were erected to warn that high powered rifles were being used. The City promised that signs warning of ‘forestry operations in progress‘ would be replaced by signs clearly warning recreational users of Tullos Hill that shooting was taking place.

Visitors to Tullos have seen no such signs erected during these past five years. A new FOI request will try to ascertain what, if any, warning signs were produced and where they were placed.

The Roe deer, which seldom live longer than 6 or 7 years in the wild, were a popular attraction for visitors to Tullos Hill.

The City recently told its Housing & Environment Committee that a deer a week was involved in a road accident in Aberdeen. Information obtained by campaigners did not support this figure. Repeated requests for their raw data have been ignored by the City and the Chief Executive.

Campaign spokesperson Suzanne Kelly addressed the Housing Committee’s last meeting and was given an assurance that there would be no further culling until both humane alternatives and a proper count of remaining deer took place. The last SNH count came up with about 20 animals.

Across the City huge scale building projects have removed habitat from deer and other animals. Campaigners expect that there would be a spike in fatalities, not least because the City is only now agreeing to put up signs. Peter Leonard, a City official who backs the cull and tree planting scheme told Kelly in an email that once land is sold for development the fate of the deer is no longer the City’s concern.

Kelly said:

“The cavalier attitude to wasting money on a doomed scheme and to killing animals needlessly has to change. The City’s policy has been to shoot and ignore non-lethal options since Liberal Democrat Aileen Malone first pushed this scheme through when she headed the Housing Committee. At the time she actually asked residents to raise over £200,000 for fencing – or the deer would be shot. 

“The small number of people who pushed this scheme seem to me to be motivated by many factors such as political point scoring and saving face – but none of the people insisting deer must be culled or Tullos must be a forest seem motivated by the wishes of taxpayers or the needs of the animals already here. The SNH guidelines they invoke are just that – this city got along just fine without needless culling. 

“I am glad that we have assurances that there will be proper scrutiny of this expensive, wasteful, cruel policy before any more damage is done. The city’s officers relied on figures about road accidents they are unwilling to share – could this be because of inaccuracies in the reporting? 

“If there were that many accidents, and the city erected no signs, no fences, no non-lethal deterrents to these accidents, then I consider them culpable in injuries to animals and culpable for the accidents as well.”

Further information – FOI request – https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_and_scope_of_deer_culling_f

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Feb 082013
 

Lynn Anderson was moved by the City Council’s action against Tullos Hill’s environment and animals, and by the City Council’s inaction when it came to providing sensible answers to her questions.

She has created a petition to demonstrate that the concern for Aberdeen’s environment and its wildlife has not gone away.

Lynn explains to Aberdeen Voice.

“After sending numerous letters and emails to Aberdeen City Council and being fobbed off with excuses, I decided to start a petition against the culling of deer on Tullos Hill. Like everyone else who has campaigned against this, I am appalled at the way in which ACC has gone about the Tree for Every Citizen Scheme.”

“They refuse to listen to our opinions and seem to think it is a small minority of people who are against the scheme and the deer cull. I hope to collect thousands of signatures worldwide with this petition in the hope that they might sit up and listen.”

The petition can be found here: https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/aberdeen-city-council-stop-culling-deer-2

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Jun 272012
 

34 Deer – possibly 35 – were killed from March to early May 2012.  This newly emerged fact contrasts with the City’s earlier claims that 22 – then 23 animals were destroyed for the controversial ‘tree for every citizen’ scheme. Suzanne Kelly updates Voice readers.

The public’s frustration over the unwanted deer cull is past the tipping point, as contradictory information and propaganda mount up.  A full impartial investigation is a necessity to ensure that no further culls happen and that those responsible for a catalogue of failures are brought to book.

What are the recent developments?  What are some of the issues the cull’s proponents need to be held accountable for?

1.  Thirty Four or Thirty Five Deer Were Shot

Last week the Press & Journal ran a story advising 23 deer had been killed.  The revelation had been made earlier in Aberdeen Voice that 22 deer were shot according to the City weeks ago.   The figure was increased by one due to a blunder.  But the real truth is shocking.

Further to a Freedom of Information request, Aberdeen Voice learnt late last week that either 34 or 35 animals were shot between mid-March and 9 May.  The city produced a notebook (the first page of which was 2/3 redacted) showing scrawled, incomplete notes for the destruction of 35 animals.

However, a typed list also supplied with this Freedom of Information request lists 34 deer killed.

From the weights of some of the does, it may be they were pregnant.  The approximate age of the animals was not covered in these notes (only the sex), yet the City had claimed on one instance that the weights indicated the animals may have been malnourished.

Some of the notebook entries indicate that some deer were ‘clean kills’. Other entries make no such claim, yet the City’s FOI officers represented that all the kills were clean.

Is this definitely the case – the notes do not support this conclusion.  It is also not clear how many rounds were used for the cull; it is also stated in the newly-released documents that 33 rounds were used to kill either 34 or 35 animals – which would have been quite a  miraculous feat.

Times of shooting have also been contradicted – the city first claimed that some were shot in early morning hours.  After Animal Concern Advice Line’s John Robins issued a press release saying such times would have been outwith the law, the City has tried to backtrack.

Who exactly authorised such a massive cull?  Why are the notes so very sloppy and in places contradictory?  Were shots taken outwith the legal time slots as the city first said?  Should the deer have legally been shot at all (the Scottish SPCA has doubts, as will be shown later)?

The original cull plan, per a report written by ‘CJ Piper & Co’ jointly with Aberdeen City Council (presented to back the tree scheme to the Forestry Commission) said they would kill 22 deer in the first year of the tree scheme alone.

A single night-time count indicated 29 deer were on the hill at the time, and the City decided with Piper that 75% of the population would be exterminated that year to protect the non-existent trees.

What is this report?  Who actually wrote it, and who on the Council rubber-stamped it as truth?

2.  Report Riddled with Error and Bias Sealed Deer’s Fate

The report, co-written by ‘CJ Piper & Co.’ and Aberdeen City Council is misleading before the reader even opens it.  This document, called ‘The Granite City Forest ‘Tree for Every Citizen’ Programme Tullos Hill Community Woodland’ dated December 2011, is a highly-biased document which ignores important issues (soil matrix, causes and cost of the previous failure).

Even its cover is of dubious veracity – it shows an unrecognisable Tullos Hill – one that is inexplicably beige and barren looking.  Anyone assuming that was what the hill looked like could have been forgiven for thinking the tree scheme had some merit.  When was this photo taken?  Was it photo-shopped?

This 70 page report will be the subject of a separate article shortly.  However, the three community councils and thousands of protestors against the cull, and the Scottish SPCA, Animal Concern Advice Line, and other recognised animal welfare organisations opposed to the cull will be interested to know that they constitute a ‘vociferous  minority’ , and that objections have basically died out.

There was indeed a lull in protests – as no one knew there was a cull in progress, and we had been told the report to the Forestry Commission was in a draft stage.  Unaware that action was urgently needed to counter the scheme, none was taken.  However, those who wrote and who received this report could not have easily ignored the considerable media coverage.

One thing this report does do is acknowledge that the deer move around, and visit St Fitticks.  This migration from Tullos, coupled with the migration to/from Kincorth, indicate that the deer were able to move around and graze at different locations over a very large area – thus the claim they could not be supported in their numbers on Tullos Hill – which they had been for decades – certainly looks like more propaganda.

The City’s claims that the law forced them to shoot deer because of the size of the acreage are discredited. If the SNH ever issued an enforcement order on Aberdeen City to shoot the deer, it has never been produced.

 The trees are thought by some experts to be highly unlikely to grow in this area

Readers will be less than pleased to know ‘deer control measures’ are planned for St Fitticks.  Aberdeen Voice writers and the public have photographs of the tree tubes at St Fitticks.  They are virtually all intact  – except where clearly vandalised by people (unless deer have taken to drinking cans of lager and smoking).

Most of the tubes on this often flooded plain adjacent to the North Sea and subject to its strong winds and salt sprays are choked with weeds.  None of these trees has flourished.  Photographs also show some tubes, wholly undamaged, to be completely empty.  The trees are thought by some experts to be highly unlikely to grow in this area, possibly even less so than on Tullos.

How someone within the City co-wrote such an inaccurate report and submitted it to support the tree scheme without it being approved by elected officials (many of whom clearly would have objected to much of the contents) is a mystery in need of investigation.

However, how CJ Piper & Co., already paid at least £44,000 for furthering the tree scheme and  which will make money from the scheme is allowed to create such a biased piece in his financial favour is potentially a matter for Audit Scotland.  So much for robust internal reporting.

What have we seen in the mainstream press lately about the cull and the tree scheme?  Two cases in point come to mind which will shortly be considered.

One concerns a press release from Animal Concern Advice Line, advising 23 deer were shot dead, and pointing out that the officially reported shooting times, supplied by the council, indicated that shooting took place during hours when using rifles on the hill would have been illegal.

The Press & Journal however reported that 23 deer had been shot, and the cull was necessary because of new legislation (this is still quite debatable, however often the City repeats this line).  This story also dismissed one important issue in a single line, claiming there was ‘no legal requirement’ for the council to put up warning signs over the shooting going on during the evenings on Tullos Hill.  Does that seem right to anyone?

3.  The Shooting:  Aberdeen  Ignored its own Risk Register despite Lethal Risks

City officials (perhaps Pete Leonard, perhaps Ranger Ian Tallboys included) created a risk register for the cull and tree planting.  Three separate issues admitted, quite obviously, that to have people shooting on the hill created a lethal risk to ‘non-target species’ (ie you and I) as well as a variety of animals.  This register said warning signs were to be placed at each and every entrance to the hill to let people know there was a lethal risk.

In the end, what was the text of the signs – signs which virtually no one claims to have seen at the entrance points? A Freedom of Information Request reply insists there were warning signs on all the entrance points which read:  “Warning – Forestry Operations in Progress.” 

 would you take your family on a hill where a person or persons were shooting powerful rifles at animals?

All the legal and animal experts are in agreement that such signs have nothing whatsoever to do with telling the public there is risk of getting shot.  Regular hill visitors  are compiling lists of times and dates they were on the hill – for many protestors were specifically looking for the warning signs which normally would be up in such a situation.  There is photographic evidence indicating no such signs were up at entrances.

However, the point is the text used warning signs  (wherever they may have been posted) were wholly inadequate, and it is only by luck some young motor-biker, pet, or other person wasn’t injured.

You might happily take your spouse and children on a hill if a man was working a digger or if people were digging holes and planting trees:  but would you take your family on a hill where a person or persons were shooting powerful rifles at animals?  This disregard for public safety and non-compliance with a risk register  calls for an independent investigation.

How such a blatant lack of proper procedures was allowed must be examined – and all the evidence points to the cull backers wanting the public to be kept in ignorance for political reasons – even with a life-threatening risk.  One missed shot, one startled hunter, one sudden movement of a startled deer and we could have had a shot off target – with a bullet travelling a quarter of a mile a distinct possibility.  Someone must be brought to book, and legal action considered.

So the mainstream press went with the line that ‘warning signs were not a legal requirement’.  The smallest bit of common sense dictated that they were.  But this was not the only instance of the press favouring the Council’s position.  In an earlier, less serious situation, Aileen Malone was quoted in the Press & Journal as claiming ‘only about one’ person in Aberdeen wrote to her objecting to the cull.

Aberdeen Voice soon documented a minimum of half a dozen people contacting her by email and including their Aberdeen postal addresses as well.  Malone apologised for ‘accidentally deleting’ one such email.  However, when supplied evidence contradicting their earlier story, the P&J declined to print a correction.

Here is more on a recent story its sister paper, the Evening Express, printed.

4.  How and Why did a letter from the Scottish SPCA about 2 dead deer in 2010 become a 2012 story?

An Evening Express headline of  16 April 2012 read,

“Deer found dead ahead of Aberdeen’s controversial cull Animals ‘starved to death’ on tree-planting site.” 

The electronic story summary online led people to believe that deer were starving at the present date, and therefore it was OK to kill the deer.   And when exactly did these two deer die?  2010.  Indeed, that is ‘ahead’ of the cull.

How did the letter quoted in the article between the City and the Scottish SPCA come to be released during a time it transpired the cull was covertly taking place?  Who contacted the Evening Express?  Why was such an old story turned into a new story, and how did the original electronic version happen to omit any reference to this story being old?

For that matter, the reason for the deer’s deaths was not actually investigated at the time according to sources.

This attempt to manipulate the press and therefore manipulate public opinion should never have happened

The City is now meant to supply the letters between themselves and the Scottish SPCA under a new FOI request.

The City is also asked to identify which person contacted the press with this letter, for it certainly was not supplied to the news by the Scottish SPCA.

The City Council’s information officers are saying there is such a volume of  correspondence concerning Tullos Hill and the Deer cull with the Scottish SPCA that they cannot possibly dig out all the letters for me.  The Scottish SPCA’s spokesperson has assured Aberdeen Voice this claim of a large volume of correspondence on the subject is without foundation.

This attempt to manipulate the press and therefore manipulate public opinion should never have happened.  If it was done with the knowledge or involvement of a paid City employee or an elected City Councillor, then appropriate disciplinary procedures should be invoked.

Whoever at the City or with access to the City’s correspondence with the Scottish SPCA should be identified, an investigation held, and the person or persons dealt with appropriately for this ham-fisted propaganda.

5.  The Scottish SPCA Told Pete Leonard Why The Cull Was Wrong (and possibly illegal)

One Scottish SPCA letter, this time not from two years ago like the letter leaked to the Evening Express, sums up some of the key points against the cull quite nicely.

A letter of 28 March 2012 (when sadly about  one dozen deer were already killed) informs the city that Scotland’s Animal welfare charity, the Scottish SPCA, is still very much against the cull ‘unless there are genuine animal welfare or public safety concerns which justify such action.  We do not believe that such concerns exist in this case.’  The letter also said:-

“We are sure you are aware that the licence to shoot deer out of season can only be granted under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996… to prevent serious damage to unenclosed woodland.  As no woodland currently exists, we would not expect the  Council to be in a position to legally conduct such a cull at present.” 

At the alarmed animal welfare groups’ advice, this blatant blackmail was rejected

The city says again and again it is obliged to shoot the deer for population reasons due to new legislation – even though it is fully understood by both sides the deer are moving across at least three areas – therefore making the city’s claim that Tullos  Hill isn’t big enough to support the deer a nonsense.

The fact the deer have lived on the hill – sorry HAD lived on the hill for some 70 years without massive population explosion issues.  The bottom line is this Scottish SPCA letter says

“…we are not aware of any existing welfare concerns for the current herd of approximately thirty roe deer that inhabit Tullos Hill and have done so for many years.”

Those who have followed this sorry saga for the past year will recall the city’s blackmail bid to get the public to come up with £225,000 in order to save the deer.  At the alarmed animal welfare groups’ advice, this blatant blackmail was rejected.  (What kind of precedent would have been set?)

The city again changed tack, and said even if the public did pay, they would still shoot deer for the nonexistent trees (which as per earlier reports will somehow grow in poor soil on one of the windiest spots in the city – where they have failed to grow before).

Why was the public meant to come up with the arbitrary sum of £225,000 in less than two months?  It was to be used for fencing  and other deer-proofing measures. However, the use of tree guards was discounted by an ACC person named ‘Richard’ and the SNH – because tree guards have ‘visual impact’.

We were supposed to surrender a quarter of a million pounds to save our deer so the  scheme to plant ‘a tree for every citizen’ could remain the ‘cost neutral’ scheme that Councillor Aileen Malone and others maintained it was.  The main selling feature of the tree scheme was that it would not cost us a penny.  In fact, a FOI request asking about why the scheme had to be adhered to earned the reply:

“Creating these woodlands close to urban areas will deliver on all these points, with the additional benefit of being created at no cost to the City Council due to the levels of external funding being obtained to deliver the project.  This demonstrates that the Tree for Every Citizen is not taking resources from other services within the City.”

The fact of the matter is this scheme has cost you and I a great deal so far…

6.  £167,000 Cost of Killing Deer and Planting Trees – Minimum Cost to Date

The FOI assurance that the scheme will not cost any money and that corporate sponsors will fund it in part has not exactly proved to be accurate.  Firstly, and for obvious reasons, few businesses could be found to pay for the killing of a beloved herd of nearly tame deer.

Magically, the fences which the public were initially asked to pay for to save the deer  have been erected, both permanent and temporary ones (indeed, the only ‘forestry operations’ sign the author ever saw was on a temporary enclosure deep within the hill – which would have been of little warning to anyone getting that deep into the land).  Also, the tree guards suddenly lost their ‘visual impact’ and can be seen on the few trees planted to date.

Much of the gorse which homed and fed a variety of creatures has been cleared, and the hill today now resembles the barren photograph taken months earlier.  Leaving aside the pollution, waste and soil matrix of this cleared area, we the taxpayer have paid £480 per week to clear this land.

 As the bookkeepers managed to ignore the £43,800 – what else has been omitted?

The city won’t tell you who or which company did this work – even though the contractor was paid with public funds.  The city says they should not be identified.

The information Commissioner may well have different ideas.

Subtracting the £43,800 which the city had to return for the phase one planting failure, then we have spent a minimum of £167,000 to date.   However, it is not clear that all the cost are recorded on the sheet.  As the bookkeepers managed to ignore the £43,800 – what else has been omitted?

One glaring omission is one of the few items showing funds coming in:  many of the dead deer carcasses were sold to a ‘licensed game dealer’.  The city will be asked to disclose how much revenue it received for destroying these 34 or 35 deer.

Readers might like to know that ‘CJ Piper & Co’ is not a company listed with Companies House.  There is however well-known forestry agent Chris Piper.  The city claim not to have any details for CJ  Piper & Co – despite naming this entity as a payee for c. £44,000 on the spreadsheet of expenses and income for the scheme, and despite writing a paper jointly with it.

Finally, we do not yet know what type of herbicides the scheme’s supporters plan to spray over the hill for the next few years or what the cost will be.  There seems to be no budget provision for this, and it is unclear that local residents, school authorities and industry have been asked for their consent.

7.  Enough is Enough:  Recommendations

This catalogue of bad decisions, fiscal irresponsibility, constantly changing stories, withheld information, expense, and not least destruction of a deer herd while risking peoples’ lives has gone far enough.  There must be no cull again.  The tree scheme should be investigated from inception to current day by wholly independent soil and tree experts (we know the soil is extremely poor for a variety of reasons).  The finances and the empty promise of a ‘cost neutral’ scheme likewise need to be gone over by independent experts.

It is very easy to identify the drivers of this scheme; they are Aileen Malone (former convener of the Housing & Environment Committee), Pete Leonard, Director of Housing, and Ranger Ian Tallboys.  In order to further this scheme, the public has been misled over finances, fed propaganda on deer welfare, blackmailed for funds, and had their safety compromised over several months while shooting was in progress.

The Information  Commissioner will be asked to look into some of the FOI discrepancies

Audit Scotland should be asked to examine the finances, the manner in which consultants and contractors were selected, and whether CJ Piper should or should not have been involved in co-authoring a report when there was a clear financial interest for them in the report’s contents.

The Information  Commissioner will be asked to look into some of the FOI discrepancies.  This the author will see to shortly.  To those in positions of power – and to citizens who can contact their elected representatives I would suggest calling for the following:-

The relevant internal and external audit/risk bodies should launch investigations.   Audit Scotland should look at the finances, and ACC’s Risk / Audit Committee should have an enquiry.

We are talking about an unnecessary risk to public safety, and those responsible should now resign their posts and apologise to the public without further delay.

The Standards Commission and the City’s Audit & Risk Committee should likewise examine the scheme from start to the current date to evaluate the conduct of those who were involved in supporting the scheme.

All further culls should be called off.  Plans to spray herbicides for years need to be halted or at the least scrutinised and presented to the public who live and work in the area.

If there is a case to be made for prosecutions over these issues (not least the risk register being ignored), then the legal authorities should be made to investigate.

If the trees can grow without further culls, fine. If trees cannot (and remember the main culprits were weeds and soil for the previous failure – there is far more evidence of these factors than for deer browsing), then it is time for Councillor  Cooney’s proposal for Tullos to be a meadowland (gently enhanced rather than having its ecosystem further eradicated) should be resurrected. It mysteriously was shot down in part due to Pete Leonard’s  position on the meadowland scheme.

Crucially,  we must allow this herd to grow again – if it can.

Finally, lessons must be learnt. the Scottish SPCA and other animal welfare entities, Community Councils and the public must never receive such shoddy treatment ever again.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Apr 062012
 

By Suzanne Kelly.

By now you probably heard of the environmental carnage on Tullos Hill. It seems likely deer have been killed – despite the public’s wishes, the improbability of trees growing, and the bad science behind the cull. Gorse removal seems to have happened until the last week in March – the cost to insect life, birds and mammals is incalculable.

On my first visit the day after the bulldozers (or whatever trucks were used) cleared a vast swathe of the hill; I was shocked at the quantity of wildflowers, particularly foxgloves which had been ripped apart or thrown aside. I saw several caterpillars dead and dying. I saw a heck of a lot of domestic and industrial debris – and even more rock.

There seemed to be new patches of gorse missing on every visit I made, despite laws meant to protect our dwindling bird population.

I certainly heard far fewer birds than ever before in the years I’d visited the hill – no surprise though, as their gorse habitat was gone. Few deer have been seen since the hunting season opened.

Two men with shotguns were seen in the St Fittick’s area on foot on the night of the 31st March, and one of the hill’s keen observers saw a silver Range Rover several times driving to areas where there were deer.

Sadly, with the help of an acquaintance I made on the hill last week, I was shown this skeleton and nearby fresh deer fur of what would have been a young deer. It reminded me how comparatively small these gentle creatures are.

I for one doubt very much this poor thing starved; it was in woodland and could have eaten leaves and plants.

Was it killed by hungry foxes? Not impossible.

The tree scheme supporters will say that ‘deer have no natural predators’ – an environmentalist will tell you that foxes are known to take the young or infirm (the roe deer usually live 6 or 7 years maximum).

I just hope against hope that this fairly fresh skeleton was not from a deer which had been wounded. This happens all the time. Deer are shot, and depending on where they’ve taken the hit, they can run away to slowly, painfully, bleed out and die, trauma and shock making the suffering worse. Deer are by no means always quickly destroyed.

Shooting, we are told, is far more preferable than tranquilising and moving them, because up to 50% might die. (I however imagine it would be far more preferable to be put to sleep than injured and die of pain, shock and blood loss – or while wounded be eaten alive by a fox).

If indeed the law we now has says it is illegal to tranquilise and move the creatures, the law is in need of change.

It begs the question: is this law and the new laws about the number of deer an area can support creations of a pro-hunting mentality?

The answer can only be yes. I remembered that the reason for the cull was it was the cheapest way to protect the trees – at least Aileen Malone, Pete Leonard and Ian Tallboys said so. Cheaper still would have been to stop this scheme or put the trees elsewhere.

The taxpayer is picking up the tab, no one is saying it is ‘cost neutral’ any longer, and the city had to repay £43,800 for the previous failure on Tullos Hill. This state of affairs is unacceptable. There are trees on Tullos remaining from the pathetic first planting. However, the saplings which are there are totally neglected.

Plenty of tree guards are totally intact. I saw an intact tree guard, and carefully rolled it open – the tree inside was choked by weeds. I left it as I found it. No deer was responsible for this and the many similar failures. Just human negligence

I note that the more robust tubes were used at the St Fittick’s site – this undoubtedly because anyone with common sense could tell the salt spray and the powerful winds from the North Sea would stop any trees from growing (could this be why there isn’t already a forest on St Fitticks?).

Virtually all of the tubes at St Fitticks are still standing and are undamaged by deer. Anyone who says differently should show me where there has been any deer browsing at St Fitticks.

Mr Tallboys, the ranger, had put together a presentation which shows a picture of deer standing amid the St Fitticks tubes.

Deer do move in that area. However, there is plenty of evidence for there being vandalism – and for the city and its rangers totally neglecting to protect and care for the trees it did plant.

I looked into many of the St Fitticks tree guards, all of which were undamaged. There are quite a number of tiny oak trees which had never even made it one third of the way up the tube. There were some tubes which were completely, utterly empty of any tree.

The entire site is choked by weeds and rocky soil is again an issue (although not as bad as on Tullos). The deer simply did not, could not damage the St Fitticks trees: the evidence suggests that the killer was neglect and ignorance as well as weeds and weather.

There will probably be deer deaths on the road – about a third of the gorse they would have sheltered in on the hill is gone.

It is not too late to bring this thing to a halt, investigate those involved in forcing this scheme on an unwilling local population, and it’s not too late to undo the damage.

Halt the scheme, save taxpayer money, and continue to support the meadowlands scheme.

The trees did not grow before. They are not going to grow now.

Coming soon – an article on the new tree scheme / deer cull developments

Apr 062012
 

Suzanne Kelly, Independent candidate for Torry/Ferryhill in Aberdeen City’s Council elections, speaks out against the Green Party for its apathy over the controversial Tullos Hill roe deer cull, in light of the Greens fielding a candidate in Torry/Ferryhill.

When I was with the Green Party, I explained clearly on several occasions what was wrong with this cull and Aberdeen City’s ‘tree for every citizen’ scheme.

However, the Greens decided that the party was not going to take a stand on this, one of the most controversial environmental and democratic issues in the city.

Some of the longer-serving Green party members sympathised with me, but there were newer members who didn’t see what the big deal was with the city shooting these deer.

I couldn’t believe it, as I’d previously explained and written in detail that the trees are unlikely to grow and the cull is flawed. People wrote to the Greens to ask for their stance on the matter, but still the party didn’t want to stand up against this cull.

I have been campaigning actively to stop this specific roe deer cull for over a year. The Scottish SPCA branded the Tullos cull ‘abhorrent and absurd’ for killing deer to protect trees which don’t even exist yet. Many other animal welfare groups oppose this cull, and thousands of people have signed petitions against it.

Three community councils condemned the consultation and cull last year, and more recently these councils sent an open letter to the city, asking for the scheme to be halted. I don’t believe the trees will grow, as the hill’s soil is very scant and the ground cleared for the planting is extremely rocky, and is covered in industrial and domestic waste (there is a soil report by government officials which confirms this).

Three community councils object to the cull and the city’s so-called ‘consultation’ on the tree scheme. The consultation did not mention deer at all (but it did cover rabbits and rabbit fencing). The consultation also failed to say that a massive 89,000 trees would be put on the hill. No one in the area wants it – and even though the city has started, the opposition will continue.

I’d been writing about this issue for some time, and The Green Party knew that the cull was specifically to plant trees and not for deer welfare issues. I am so very disappointed in the Green Party over this issue.

The Aberdeen Green Party is running a candidate against me in the May elections. I have a chain of emails between members of the Green Party and me from this time last year. Some of the Greens’ comments include:

“I don’t think the party as such should have a position. I certainly don’t want to get involved in this”

“I don’t understand why these 30 deer (or whatever number it actually is) are so different and attracting so much attention.”

“Also within a relatively few miles of Tullos are large numbers of cattle and sheep that will be killed so people can eat them. We do not have a policy of enforced vegetarianism.”

This last statement was particularly, amazingly patronising, and the remark is completely off the point of why these deer are to be killed.

There was no way I was going to stay in the Green Party after this. For a party calling itself ‘green’ to stand idly by while a meadow and its wildlife was destroyed was beyond the pale. How they can possibly stand for election in Torry and expect me to stay silent about their stance is something I can’t understand either.

I have previously explained to a local member and a national member that I would have to publicise how the Greens view Tullos Hill. I did give fair warning that I would go public about how they decided to look the other way concerning Tullos.

I’m happy to have competition in this election, but people need to know the Greens could have helped when it mattered – and didn’t. If I stay quiet, some people will simply think the Greens must care about the hill and the deer – I have to let them know the truth.

The elections are to be held on 3rd May. Torry and Ferryhill will be represented by four city councillors.

I served on the Torry Community Council for three years, and I have always been involved in helping people in my area and further afield whether it be fighting school closures, charity work, or helping some of our older people. One of the newer local Green Party ‘higher-ups’ apparently said ‘Suzanne doesn’t stand a chance of winning.’ Well, I am determined to prove them wrong.

Mar 222012
 

With no sign of regret or compromise, let alone acknowledgement of a huge problem, Aberdeen City is literally ploughing ahead with its unpopular tree planting on the rocky soil of Tullos Hill, which sits on the North Sea. This tree planting as we now know involves a deer cull – which as documents show was deliberately withheld from the consultation. Local resident Alan Robertson gives his point of view.

Anyone who has watched the Tullos Hill deer cull debate unfold over the last eighteen months cannot help but be astonished by how this has been conducted by Officials and Councillors at Aberdeen City Council.

In the latest twist to this sorry tale, the Council have started the deliberate destruction of areas of the deer’s natural habitat by removing large quantities of gorse from the Tullos Hill area.

These are areas where the deer used to shelter and graze. Along with the gorse in these areas, the plants and grasses that the deer eat have also been cleared.

The Tullos Hill meadowland has been ruined by the Council actions and the biodiversity of plant life and creatures who depended on it destroyed.

The Council released the following statement to the Media a few days ago:

“The roe deer population on Tullos Hill is currently much higher than the land can support. There is very little variety of vegetation growing and deer suffer as a result.”

Yes, the deer will ‘suffer as a result’ of the deliberate destruction of their habitat by the Council who have removed the gorse where the deer shelter. The clearance of these areas by the Council has ensured that there ‘is very little variety of vegetation growing’. As far as overpopulation goes, I walk across Tullos Hill regularly, and I have not seen any deer there for many weeks and suspect that most of the deer have migrated to Kincorth Hill or other areas nearby because their habitat on Tullos Hill has been destroyed by the Council.

There was no mention of the Council’s intention to cull the deer when the public consultation was released and now they have resorted to destroying the deer’s habitat to eradicate the deer from the area. In addition, the Council say that the culling of the deer will still go ahead. The result of Council action is that the deer are being attacked on two fronts; first by the destruction of their habitat and then by culling.

  the Council should be aware that Tullos Hill isn’t suitable for their tree planting scheme.

It is obvious to anyone who has followed the Council’s plans for Tullos Hill unfold via their Committee Reports, Media releases also and from emails I have received from Officials at the Council, that they are prepared to do and say anything to continue with their ridiculous tree planting scheme on Tullos Hill.

The Council proposal that Tullos Hill will become a commercially viable forest is unrealistic. The soil at Tullos Hill is unsuitable for tree planting let alone being capable of sustaining a large forested area.

In addition, consider this: have you ever seen a forested area on a North East Scotland coastline? There are very good reasons for this and the Council should be aware that Tullos Hill isn’t suitable for their tree planting scheme.

Aberdeen City Council is determined to go ahead with the tree planting scheme despite the obvious inherent disadvantages of the Tullos Hill environment. They have recently erected three perimeter fences to ensure that deer and rabbits are kept out of the main areas where trees will be planted. The combination of gorse removal and these wide ranging fenced off areas leaves the few remaining local deer on Tullos Hill with far less of their natural habitat available.

To proceed to cull the few remaining deer on the hill would be barbaric considering what the animals have already been put through by Aberdeen City Council in the last few months.

I urge local people to speak out against the proposed deer cull and contact their local Councillors regarding this issue.

Nov 142011
 

Controversial plans to plant 89,000 trees on Tullos Hill backed by Aberdeen City Council are under fire from the public, community councils, animal charities and experts. A new initiative to preserve this crucial wildlife habitat as meadowland was launched today by Councillor Neil Cooney and campaigner Suzanne Kelly.

The Tullos Hill Roe Deer, approximately 30 in number, have survived on the Hill for over 30 years but will face years of culling if the tree scheme goes ahead.  The deer normally live for 6 to 7 years.

This cull would cost the taxpayer approximately £8,000 over 2010-11, £14,000 over the following 4 years, according to Aberdeen City Council.

The scheme has already seen the City hand back £43,800 of grant money, as the previous planting failed for a number of reasons.

Reports show that the wrong size tree guards were used (120cm size had been recommended; 90cm had been used instead) and that soil issues and weeds were to blame in part for the failure.  The deer were not the only factor in the tree failure, but the council stresses the need to use the ‘most economical’ means to plant the trees. 

Vandalism has hit planting sites as well.

Some members of the Council now claim that  culling is a normal part of land management and is required – this claim had not been made prior to the tree planting scheme as far as any research can demonstrate.  The deer are not starving or suffering, and with 30 deer on the hill and 89,000 saplings proposed, humane methods of having tree and deer are possible, according to experts.

The council omitted mention of the deer cull from its public consultation which closed in January 2011, although this document went into detail about managing rabbits by means of fences.  The council also omitted to say the planting would require 2-3 years of weed killer being sprayed on the hill.

The cost of this spraying, the effects on the existing wildflowers, animals and the public (housing, a school and factories are nearby) has never been fully explained.  Tullos Hill also has soil issues  and there are dozens of small archaeological remains which would be threatened or could even be destroyed by the tree planting.

After the cull plan was discovered and made public, the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals branded the move ‘abhorrent and absurd’, although the Society recognises the needs for deer culls for reasons of animal welfare.

However, the idea to kill deer for this scheme was strongly condemned by the Scottish SPCA and other animal welfare organisations including Animal Concern.

A move was made to ask the public for money to avoid the cull by the City’s Housing & Environment Committee.
This move was called ‘blackmail’ by citizens and animal charities.  Dame Anne Begg, MP, wrote at the time of the move saying that to ask the public for £225,000 to avoid the cull was “an appalling attempt to fudge their (the Housing Committee cull proponents’) responsibility.”

Suzanne Kelly, campaigner against the tree planting and the cull said,

“We have a beautiful meadow filled with plants and animals – it is a biodiversity haven.  Nearby meadowlands at Cove are being given over for housing and development, and lands at Loirston which are grass and meadow will be turned into a football stadium. Aberdeen stands to lose a huge portion of its meadows south of the city centre, and yet wants to turn this meadow ecosystem into a forest. 

“Thousands of concerned residents objected to the tree scheme by letter and petition once the cull was made public – and that was before we knew about the returned grant money and the weed killer.  Four community councils are on record as opposing the scheme representing thousands more people.  (Torry Community Council voted unanimously to condemn the cull and the scheme – but their letter somehow never reached the City). 

“Yet the City refuses to listen.  The City has been saying the scheme is ‘cost neutral.’  It now emerges that the application is not even finalised, and £43,800 in grant money had to be paid back for a previous failed planting on Tullos.  This is hardly ‘cost neutral’ – in fact, calling this scheme ‘cost neutral’ seems positively misleading 

“We hope this alternative – a meadowland – will capture the public’s imagination. In fact, the idea has come up again and again from the many people getting in touch – it is really a public initiative.   The hill can be left as it is or perhaps enhanced with more wildflowers and the future of the deer and other animals can be ensured. 

“The deer are most certainly not starving as some in the City would claim.  In fact, some nearby residents tell me the deer are nearly tame.  Meddling in the Hill’s ecology has not worked in the past, and our cash-strapped Council should just end their planting scheme forthwith.”

Councillor Neil Cooney asked crucial questions and presented facts previously omitted at the most recent Aberdeen City Housing & Environment Committee meeting held this month.  Councillor Cooney said :

“Tullos Hill offers some of the finest views over the city. You don’t block out viewpoints by planting trees to hide the view. Nature created Tullos Hill. It is an area rich in wildlife, it is an important archaeological site and there are 4 important cairns there that were designed to be seen from each other and to dominate the landscape.

“It would make a lovely meadowland. Meadows are our most threatened habitats. Tullos Hill already supports fragile wild flower species, the Dames Violets are particularly spectacular when in bloom. Meadows also play a key role in carbon capture. We have a precious natural asset at Tullos Hill, if we destroy in now we can never reclaim it again. We have a duty to the next generation to preserve for them the environmental treasures that we enjoyed.

We can save money, save the deer, preserve the viewpoint, leave the archaeology open to enjoyment, and enhance Tullos Hill. This is far preferable to a dodgy tree planting project stained in blood.”

The value of this meadowlands scheme is supported by Saving our Magnificent Meadows, a campaign backed by Natural England, Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage, and Northern Ireland Environment Agency, and by Plantlife, as project host.

Ms Susan Kerry Bedell of Saving Our Magnificent Meadows had this to say:

“Wildflower meadows are the UK’s most threatened habitat. Since the 1930s, we have lost 98% (over three million hectares) of them across England and Wales and intense pressures continue to impact on remaining sites. There has been a similar scale of loss across the Scottish lowlands.

“These beautiful meadows are central to our national heritage. They are rich in wildlife, including many rare and threatened species, landscape character, folklore and archaeology, and they offer a range of ‘services’ to society, such as reducing flood risk. They are seen as vital to the long-term survival of bees, through whose pollination of crops much of our food production depends.

“Unless we act now to build a greater appreciation of remaining sites and promote sympathetic management, these ‘magnificent meadows’ and the rare plants and animals associated with them, will be lost forever”.

The Tullos Hill Meadowlands petition will launch online and by paper copy early the week commencing 14 November 2011.  Suzanne Kelly is confident that the tree planting scheme would be put aside for the more economical, beneficial meadowlands scheme.

“There is pressure on Government budgets right now, and throwing good money after bad – particularly on such an unpopular and destructive scheme – is simply illogical. 

“I await detailed budget information from the City, and a further press release will go into detail about how the City has handled this affair from start to finish.  With an election looming, I would urge those councillors who have supported this scheme to ask themselves if they really are doing the right thing by Tullos Hill and the electorate.”

Petition can be accessed here: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/tullos-hill-meadowlands-deer-park.html 

Further information on Saving Our Magnificent Meadows can be found at:
http://www.plantlife.org.uk/campaigns/saving_our_magnificent_meadows/ 

Further information and updates on Tullos Hill can be obtained by writing to:
tullosdeer@yahoo.co.uk

Contact Suzanne Kelly:
Email sgvk27@aol.com
Tel. 07752 356 455

Nov 042011
 

Voice’s Suzanne Kelly explores the functions of wild meadows in Britain, looks at some of the existing meadows in Aberdeen and what the authorities have planned for those areas. 

‘We must have a tree for every citizen” is the battle cry of Aileen Malone, a ranger or two (who also think we will make money from the trees), one or two people who are involved with the forestry industry and some political pundits.

They are willing to kill the Tullos Hill Roe deer, discard our bronze age (and later) archaeology, displace birds and insects, remove gorse and wildflowers from Tullos Hill, and spray weed-killer for 2-3 years.

Never mind that they have previously failed.

Forget that Mother Nature has left this windswept, exposed hill as a grassy meadow:  these experts will try a second time with our tax money to impose a new biosystem over the biosystem which exists on Tullos.

They consulted experts, so Valerie Watts, Peter Leonard and Aileen Malone keep insisting, and no other experts’ opinions (however valid, whether freely offered or not) are wanted.  This refusal to entertain other advice or to compromise whatsoever calls into question their claim to scientific superiority.  Additional flaws and omissions from initial submissions leak out constantly, but the tree and cull proponents will not budge.  Not willingly anyway.

But what other options are there for Tullos Hill and for Aberdeen?

There is a new breed of expert and new school of thought, backed by virtually every environmental agency in the UK and by Europe.  This wave of expert opinion says that our meadows and grasslands are absolutely vital.

So before we allow politicians and career-builders decide the fate of Tullos Hill, its flora, fauna and archaeology, let’s just for a moment or two entertain a different vision for Tullos:  a meadow and deer park, enhanced with more wildflowers and plants, and with protection from arsonists increased.

It is not impossible; it certainly would not be as expensive as imposing 89,000 trees.

By the way, the deer cull is not enough.  Weed killers – we don’t know what kind or how toxic – are recommended by one arm of experts for two to three years.  Cost:  unknown.  Toxicity:  unknown.  Effectiveness:  unknown.

Who are these people claiming meadows and grasslands are not only desirable but definitely essential?

Since the 1930s, we have lost 98% (over three million hectares) of wildflower meadows across England and Wales

Plantlife (www.plantlife.org.uk ) is the UK’s leading charity working to protect wild plants and their habitats.

They identify and conserve sites of exceptional importance, rescue wild plants from the brink of extinction, and ensure that common plants do not become rare in the wild.

Here is what they have to say on the importance of meadows and grasslands – like Tullos Hill:

“These are arguably the UK’s most threatened habitats. They are rich in wildlife, landscape character, folklore and archaeology, and they offer a range of ‘services’ to society and the environment. Despite this, our wildflower meadows have suffered catastrophic declines over the past century and intense pressures continue to threaten those that remain.

“Since the 1930s, we have lost 98% (over three million hectares) of wildflower meadows across England and Wales. Wildflower meadows now comprise less than 1% of the UK’s total land area.

“Despite some good work being carried out to restore wildflower meadows, the trend continues to be an overall decline in extent and condition of these habitats. The Countryside Survey 2000 showed a decrease of a further 280,000 hectares of wildflower meadows in the UK between 1990 and 1998. The survey also showed a continuing decline in the species diversity of these habitats.

“Once lost, our species-rich meadows and grasslands cannot easily be restored.

Susan Kerry Bedell, Funding Manager for Saving Our Magnificent Meadows, has corresponded with me about the need for protecting our remaining meadow lands.  She has sent me a summary document which can be found at

[http://www.plantlife.org.uk/campaigns/saving_our_magnificent_meadows/ (NB The summary will be put up in the next couple of weeks).  The summary paper stems from a three-year project funded by Natural England, Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage, Northern Ireland Environment Agency and Plantlife.  Some of its key messages are:-

  •  Wildflower-rich grasslands are arguably the UK’s most threatened habitat. They are recognised as precious and important ecosystems, supporting a rich diversity of wild plants and animals, including many rare and declining species.
  • These habitats are increasingly seen as contributing to the overall well-being of our society, and to the ‘services’ that healthy ecosystems provide, such as carbon sequestration (capture), amelioration of flooding and a more efficient cycle of nutrients which improves soil health and productivity.
  • Wildflower-rich grasslands also offer a wide-range of public health benefits and are part of our cultural heritage, helping to provide a ‘sense of place’. They are seen as vital to the long-term survival of bees, through whose pollination of crops much of our food production depends.

Despite their high nature conservation value, our wildflower-rich grasslands are in decline, both in extent and in quality. Many of our meadows in the UK were lost during the last century.

Intense pressure, particularly from changes in farming practices, as well as development and neglect, continue to impact on the remaining areas. Between 1930s and 1980s, 98% (three million hectares) of wildflower-rich grasslands in England and Wales were lost.

Despite conservation legislation, including an EU Habitats Directive (which incorporates six BAP priority grassland types in Annex 1), planning legislation and two decades of agri-environment schemes, wildflower-rich grasslands continue to disappear or decline in condition. 

Once lost, these species-rich meadows cannot easily be recreated.

  • These declines meant that the UK was unable to meet its national and international commitments to halt the loss of grassland habitat and species biodiversity by 2010.

What can you do to help reverse this decline in meadowlands and grasslands?

Forests are wonderful.  And so are Meadows.  We need both, and not just one or the other.

Finally, I am launching a petition to keep Tullos Hill the wildlife-supporting meadow it is, stop the tree planting scheme, and to stop any cull.  If you would like to sign, or get a copy of the petition to collect signatures on, please contact me via Aberdeen Voice ( Link )

Oct 012011
 

Three Cheers for Aberdeen City Council!  The Cull is on Hold!  Or so you might think if you glanced at a headline in tonight’s Evening Express. Voice’s Suzanne Kelly writes.

Several people on the anti-cull e-mailing lists have seen these headlines and written to say how happy they are the deer are safe.
‘Thank goodness, we can all forget about the cull and get back to business as usual’.

But what is the truth behind this and other media stories, and what is the truth? Conflicting information is  leaking out of Marischal College like a particularly leaky sieve.

There has been Council and anti-cull advertising.  There have been stories in the Press & Journal and the Evening Express, quoting experts and animal organisations.

The City has unnamed officers making statements, and city rangers apparently say that community councils are now OK with the cull.  It is time to look behind the headlines, read between the lines of the propaganda, and challenge what the city and rangers are saying.

First, let’s look at the last few weeks’ worth of media advertising.

In terms of advertising, you may have seen the anti-cull ads which were paid for by Animal Concern; these ran in the Evening Express and the Aberdeen Citizen. These quarter-page colour ads spelled out the logical reasons for opposing the cull.

Aberdeen City meanwhile took out a four-page, full colour supplement in the Aberdeen Citizen on 7 September. This for the average person would have cost at least a thousand pounds; it would be of interest to find out what the City spends on this and similar advertising in these service-cutting, low budget days.  This pull-out was to tell you how green and ecologically-minded the City is.

A portion of this supplement (approximately a third of a page in size) concerned the deer cull. Or as the City prefers to call it, the ‘City Woodlands.’ The ad says nothing about a deer cull, but calls on schools and small businesses to help plant the trees. The reader is directed to contact Ian Tallboys for further information. Businesses are told that the scheme can help:

“as part of their overall carbon management work. This will reduce the impact of their greenhouse gas emissions.”

The ad also says:

“The tree planting work will start in early 2012, ground and weather conditions permitting.”

And apparently:

 “planning of the second phase of tree for every citizen planting is almost complete, with funding applications in place.”

This is being tied to the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, and the woodland sites are selected:

 “to provide a living, breathing legacy and tribute to her Majesty the Queen”

There is a very good reason I have bored my readers with these details. Firstly – we already have a ‘living, breathing legacy’ on Tullos Hill. We have a diverse ecosystem supporting a vast variety of flora and fauna. We are going to kill our existing living, breathing legacy because some politicians (Cllr Malone for one) decided to do so.

If you read this ad, you would know nothing about the proposed deer cull. You might also conclude that some substantial carbon offsetting benefits had been expected in order that the City felt comfortable telling businesses the scheme would benefit them in this regard. The calculations I have previously reported, the information from animal charities, and common sense tell us that the benefits are negligible.

For one thing, we are apparently having a 21,000 seat, glow-in-the-dark football stadium built fairly close to the south of Tullos Hill with houses, offices and 1400 parking spaces. I challenge anyone to tell me that the Tullos tree scheme will offset this stadium to any meaningful degree.

It seems straightforward:  planting will go ahead, as funding applications are in place and the City’s own advertising says that planting starts in early 2012.  However, up crops some issues with what I must loosely call ‘journalism’ appearing in the Press & Journal and Evening Express.

Going back to the earlier part of his week, P&J articles advised that protestors were going to stand in front of guns.  You will have seen quotes apparently from the British Deer Society and Chris Packham saying deer culls are necessary.  These experts and their support of culls appear alongside direct quotes from my asking that:

“the city must come up with a better plan and halt this senseless cull.”

If you read these articles quickly or casually, you could easily come to the conclusion that Chris Packham and the British Deer Society support this specific Tullos cull.  At the time of writing, I have made initial contact with Packham’s agent and the Deer Society:  neither were able to confirm they had been contacted on the specific Tullos case.

In fact, both parties were interested to hear what I had to say about the history of this whole scheme.  When they get back to me, I will update everyone.

I had also given the P&J a detailed press release spelling out the major flaws in the public consultation, the opinion of the Scottish SPCA, and so on.  Not a word of this side of the story appears in print.

So – when is the cull?

The police are not saying.  The City is however saying something different to everyone who asks.  Today, 1 October, the Press & Journal have asserted the cull may be delayed by two weeks for financial reasons.,  In the 29 September Press & Journal article:

“a [City Council] spokeswoman said that Saturday was the earliest date in the hunting season that deer management can take place.  However, any such activity would be subject to weather conditions and the availability of staff, she added.”

By the way, the City have said they don’t need to give anyone any notice and can put gunmen on the hill at will.  People who understand arms, guns and hunting tell me bullets can travel very considerable distances (this is not to mention the damage and sheer agony they cause to anything that is shot).  So, we will either be suddenly excluded from the hill for the gunman/men to get killing, or they will shoot with us present.

Neighbouring residents in homes and trailer parks were appalled  and worried when I spoke to them earlier this week.  Two men told me they feed the deer in winter, and the deer are veritably tame.  Another man told me a similar story over the phone; he is distraught that the deer he has watched and fed for decades are to be shot for non-existent trees.  No one I contacted has been warned of shooters coming to the hill at the time of writing.

But I digress.  Now we come to the glaring Evening Express headline of Friday 30 September:

DEER CULL OFF… FOR NOW”

The story on Page 5 has a headline fragment ‘move to protect trees’  which makes it seem as if this is the only way to protect trees.  We all by now know this is not the case.

Unfortunately, whoever the City’s ‘spokeswoman’ was on Thursday has been contradicted by a ‘city council spokesman’.  I guess it is true:  ’24 hours IS a long time in politics.’  The spokesman said:

“It takes time for money to filter through.  The long-term plan for tree-planting and the deer population haven’t changed.’  According to the Reporter, D Ewen, the spokesman added ‘..it could be months before the cull started.”

You might think an accurate headline would  have been ‘Deer Cull could be months away’ – not ‘Deer Cull Off – For Now’

If you are not yet sufficiently confused as to if/when a cull will take place and whether or not the tree scheme has the funding and business community support, someone else at the City has further muddied the waters.

A councillor has been told by yet another anonymous person that no cull will start until after the trees are planted, and that won’t happen for months.  Of all the oddball anonymous City leaks, this one takes some beating.  This calls for a brief diversion as to what we are actually looking at in terms of deer per tree sapling.

First, the Forestry Commission letter – sent by me to both the Press & Journal months ago, says the previous planting which cost the taxpayer £43,800 failed due to deer browing and weeds.  Yes, and weeds.  Somehow, the city and the P&J only mention the deer as being the cause of failure.  Weeding 89,000 trees sounds like quite a job to me – I do hope they have it all planned out.

The Evening Express do write:

“And the council had to hand over £43,831 paid out by Forestry commission Scotland after it failed to protect the trees in Tullos”

But other news reports seem to pin the entire failure of the previous planting on the deer alone.

The press inaccuracies go on and on.  For instance, ‘hundreds’ signed petitions according to the Evening Express.  The figure I supplied and can document is 2,400+, (not counting community councils which represent thousands more).

Speaking of community councils, one of our city rangers has put it about that the community councils are favouring the planting and the cull.  He surely must know this is inaccurate.  I will be seeking an immediate explanation and if necessary a retraction from him and an explanation – that’s if some of the community councils don’t beat me to it.  I have read many of the community council letters of protest to the city:  the community councils are not happy.

The press make little mention of how the deer cull was planned in November but left out of the phase 2 consultation (which in its mention of rabbit management made everyone I’ve spoken with assume rabbits were the only obstacle.  Why on earth mention rabbit fencing when you are planning to shoot deer – if not to get your consultation to sail past the public?).

If the City and the mainstream press wonder why people do not trust them to deliver facts about the cull now, they need look no further than this first initial manipulation.

The new maths

I pointed out the absurdity of the City’s need to cull the deer many times, including the initial plan for 40,000 trees.  This would have had the 29 deer all chomping some 1,379 tree saplings.  But the tree figure suddenly grew (no pun intended) to Ms Watt’s claim of some 89,000 trees.

This makes our tiny deer (which live 6-7 years on average) eating 3,068 trees each.  But the Council plan to kill some 9 deer this season (unless they have changed their collective mind again) – and continue killing for years to come.  Look at the figures again:  20 deer eating 40,000 trees is 2,000 trees per deer.  Those must be hungry deer, but they are as nothing compared to 20 deer eating 89,000 trees:  this calculates to a stag-gering (pun intended) 4,450 trees per deer on Tullos Hill.  Now this is food for thought.

But the press / city leaks don’t’ stop coming.

For some reason, most of the people telling us not to worry about any cull at present are anonymous. When the tree scheme was first announced, politicians and council officials were all very keen to get their names in the news – Aileen Malone said how great everything would be for one example.

If no funding is in place, then the council wasted some serious money on its full colour advertising in the Aberdeen Citizen earlier this month. It was saying how great the tree scheme was. The ad encouraged local schools to help plant trees, and told local businesses to help, implying that the C02 offsetting benefits could help with their C02 targets.

Why would they place this ad and ask for help and sponsorship if they didn’t have funding?

The hunting – or legal hunting – season is not a very long one; this further makes me question assertions that nothing will happen for months.  The initial SNH letter of November 2010 recommends careful ‘handling’ of the public’.  Do you have the feeling we’re being handled – and possibly mis-handled?

Who is telling the truth – the city spokeswoman who said the earliest the killing can start is Saturday 1 October, the City spokesman who indicated there is no funding in place and a cull won’t start soon, the claim that the cull is delayed by two weeks because of lack of funding, or the third anonymous city person who said the killing won’t start until the trees are planted?

I would dearly love to tell you the truth about the financials (have we hired a hunter?  What is the cost of the scheme from start to finish?  Why do some documents say there will be income from trees but other officials deny the same assertion?).  The fact is I asked for this information months ago – only for Valerie Watts to write back asking me to explain what I meant by ‘financials’. (in an email that mysteriously never got to me until I chased it about a month later).  I have looked for the truth and feel as if I have been deliberately misled.

When she finally answers me, I will update the position.

In any event, I would recommend everyone who cares about this issue to start spending as much time walking Tullos Hill as they can – wearing bright clothing obviously.  If you see a hunter, be safe and get away – but please then get in touch with the Aberdeen Voice straight away.

Please read news stories and listen to rumour with care. And please if you have time ask your community council and elected officials exactly what is going on.  I for one would absolutely love to know.

Sep 232011
 

Dave Watt asks Voice readers the question …..

Which one would you let watch your pet deer while you were on holiday?

 

a)   Adolf Hitler – Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Above)

b)   Aileen Malone – Liberal Democrat (Opposite)