SNH Archives - Page 3 of 3

Old Susannah’s Journal No. 33

Articles, Community, Environment, Information, Opinion, Satire and Humour No Responses »

Apr 292011

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

It was yet another event-packed week in Aberdeen. Some of us hunted for Easter eggs while the SNP, Greens and Labour were outside Marks & Spencers on Union Street Saturday, hunting for votes.

The public square outside of M&S served as an ‘exciting, vibrant hub in the heart of the City’ where people could come together – and it didn’t even cost £140 million to create. Not quite enough concrete there, though.

Anyway, the Friends of UTG and the anti-deer cull lobby spoke to the assembled politicians and passers-by and generated a great deal of interest.

On the other hand, the (not very) Liberal (not really) Democrats were conspicuous by their total absence on the day. Whatever party you can from, whatever cause you support – everyone was in agreement that Councillor West of the SNP was the life and soul of the party. Who could forget his warm smile, beard, black suit and friendly banter as he offered all comers a bright yellow SNP balloon?

The SNP balloon is filled with hot air, and is likely to burst sometime in the near future, probably on 5 May. Perhaps the LibDems were right to stay away – their popularity might have caused a riot. However, at the time of writing on Monday 25th April, there is no sign in the Press & Journal that such lively debate, lobbying and protesting ever took place concerning UTG and the deer.

The night before I stayed up all night to watch the skies for a meteor shower (not much joy really,- just wound up very tired Saturday), caused by Comet Thatcher. If I understand the science correctly, the frozen, lifeless Thatcher left a massive trail of debris which we will all still experience for generations to come. I’m sure there is some kind of metaphor in this somewhere but I can’t think what it might be.

Just one last thing – I owe a sincere apology to XXXXXXXXXXXX about my having XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX. I am truly sorry; it was very very much out of character, honestly don’t know what possessed me, and I obviously promise never to XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX again. I have taken out a super injunction against myself, and will never mention XXXXXXXXXXXXXX again. Mea maxima culpa. I will have one fewer BrewDog this coming weekend than last. Well, maybe not – it’s down to London to see some old friends; apparently there is some big wedding on as well.

Now that that is all cleared up, onwards with a few more terms to define.

Innocent:

(adj – Great Britain) freedom from guilt or blame, not culpable.
(adj – USA) – suspicious, dangerous; a state of being which deserves incarceration without trial, redress, or contact with the outside world – which would normally be guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

I mean, without Guantanamo, how else would we have found all of those Weapons of Mass Destruction?

After over seven years of detention in Guantanamo Bay for hundreds, it seems the United States, land of the free and home of the brave, might just have to admit to keeping innocent people locked up in Guantanamo. Files have surfaced which seem to show that about 220 of the enemy combatants’ (or ‘people’ to you and me) were classed as dangerous terrorists but some 150 were innocent.

The rest of the world recognised this from day one of the camp’s creation and the American refusal to allow legal representtaives in but the US was deaf to international pleas for mercy, basic human rights and the rule of law to prevail.

Dear George ‘Dubya’ Bush was largely behind the camp’s existence and he and his aides came up with the strategy of calling the Guantanamo captives ‘enemy combatants;’ this was unique for two reasons: Firstly, such a preposterous legal concept had never before been used. Secondly, no one thought Bush could manage a phrase with that many syllables.

Old Susannah might have tried to define a few tricky terms in the past but I’m not touching ‘enemy combatant’ with a bargepole. I don’t have a bargepole.

Guantanamo did manage to release some of the blatantly blame-free over the years and with their emergence emerged tales of degradation, abuse, suicide attempts, physical and mental torture. But if you’re innocent, you’ve got to accept this kind of thing. Most of the inmates were guilty of being in Afghanistan or Pakistan at some time or other, so there you go.

Let us not forget: if you want to preserve Democracy and Freedom, you’ve got to lock up a few ‘folk’ and torture them now and then. I mean, without Guantanamo, how else would we have found all of those Weapons of Mass Destruction? Remember, it’s not torture when the ‘good guys’ are doing it – it’s ‘persuasion’. Of course, it could never happen here (we just let the US use our airspace when moving these people around on the way to be ‘persuaded’).

Bats:

(noun) protected species of rodent with flight capabilities; habitats of which are under threat.
(adj) slang for slightly crazy or unbalanced.

Scottish Natural Heritage sent me a letter ages ago, when plans for building in Union Terrace Gardens were first brought up, mentioning the presence of important birds and bats.

these guards sadly have ‘visual impact’ per our city experts, who apparently prefer the visual impact of a suffering or dead animal

I understand from ‘moles’ in Union Terrace Gardens that the bats have been seen on recent evenings within the park. It would be an awful shame if the presence of an EU-protected species of animal put any brakes on plans to build (another) shopping area in Aberdeen. Still, bats haven’t managed to stall plans for Loirston becoming home to a giant, glowing football stadium.

Other old bats can be found hanging around other city-centre buildings, particularly around the Marischal and St Nicholas areas. Many of these are of the blood-sucking variety, and should be avoided at all costs. Some are undoubtedly rabid.

‘Humane Cull’:

(noun) a way of killing something – such as a deer – whereby you need not feel too badly about it, particularly when the killing is wholly avoidable; the use of ‘experts’ to remove life in a sharing, caring, ‘humane’ kind of way. The feel-good factor in destruction.

We are soon to have a cull (unless someone wants their political career to continue) of an unspecified number of the Tullos Hill Roe Deer, over an unspecified number of years. Cheaper than the tree guards which are successfully in use in Loirston Loch and Kincorth Hill – but these guards sadly have ‘visual impact’ per our city experts, who apparently prefer the visual impact of a suffering or dead animal.

But don’t lose any sleep, councillors – it is going to be a ‘humane cull.’ Ms Malone and others might want you to think some sharpshooters pull a trigger and an animal will die within seconds. I would hate to burst anyone’s balloon (except Malone’s and West’s), but this is what will happen to at least some of the deer…

I quote from a website called ‘bluestar hunting – www.bluestar-hunting.com/bloodinmotion.html
Sensitive souls may wish to look away now. Here are some quotes:-

* ” Pay attention to the reaction of the animal when it is shot… I have had many hunters tell me that they knocked the animal down, only to watch it suddenly jump up and run off, leaving lots of blood. This is the one that I hate to hear the most. First of all, body shots that do not impact the neck or spine rarely make an animal drop, and if the neck or spine is hit, the animal is usually disabled and cannot get up..”

* “The falling down likely means the leg was broken; lots of blood usually indicates a muscle hit. Muscle damage leaves lots of blood in the first 100 yards… if it was a lung hit, it can take time for the body cavity to fill and blood to be forced out. Animals may run in the beginning… this will cause blood trains to be harder to see… “

* “A liver shot is always fatal… but it will most likely take until the next day or later for the deer to die…. the double lung shot is the best percentage shot to take, as it will cause massive internal bleeding and drowning, causing death within about 150 yards… the pattern will start out with little blood, but it will increase as the animal starts blowing blood out the mouth and nose…”

And my personal favourite:

* “Give the animal time to bleed out before you start tracking…. I have found animals within 40 or 50 yards of the stand, where they died after having run 250 to 300 yards in a long arcing circle, trying to get back to the spot they were safe in before the shot.”

(This could be why I prefer taking pictures of wildlife rather than blasting it to a slow death).

All the while, the wounded animal is in total shock, indescribable pain,and complete and utter terror as it dies, either a fairly quick ‘humane’ death or the slow one. It is safe to assume that at least some of the deer – some of which are pregnant – will get this latter, long, terrifying, agonising death.

No wonder Scottish Natural Heritage wanted the city to manage the news of the cull carefully. Not everyone is down with this ‘humane cull’ reality. Someone send a copy of ‘Bambi’ to Ms Malone, thanks.

NB – the Deer now have about 11 days – and Councillor Malone has about 3 to call it off.

______________________________________________________________

PS – Strictly confidential:

Grate a strong smelling soap around your plant beds. Some people will also tie soap bars to trees and bushes to keep deer away from a specific plant.

Sprinkle a mixture of red and black pepper, garlic and curry powder on and around plants deer like to eat to keep them away from your garden. Since this mixture will disappear when it rains, be sure to spread it out again after rain storms or after heavy watering sessions.

Try mixing a beaten egg with water and spraying on plants and around flower beds to keep deer away from your garden. Again, this will have to be reapplied after rains or heavy watering.

Use a commercial deer-repellent such as Deer-Off or Deer-Away. You can also try drops of animal urine such as coyote in your gardening beds. Some people report that human urine can work as well.

Plant plants deer won’t eat such as Lady’s Mantle, Butterfly Weed, Foxglove, St. John’s Wort, Lavender, Daffodil, Poppy and most pungent herbs.

Sprinkle human hair around your planting beds. Ask your hairdresser or a barber to save you a large bag next time you go in for your haircut.

Put a fence around your property to keep deer out. Some people have luck with tying white plastic shopping bags on the fence every couple of feet. The noise and movement of the plastic bags seems to scare deer and keep them away. A variation on the fence is to try a deer protection net. These nets are less obvious than a fence and may be more aesthetically pleasing to your garden.

______________________________________________________________

Next week – more definitions, outcome of the deer situation, and previously-promised news on Freedom of Information

Torry Says No To Cull

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

Apr 292011

With thanks to Torry Community Council.

Torry Community Council unanimously blasted City council’s planned deer cull and blackmailing tactics.

At its meeting on 21 April, Torry Community Council condemned the planned Tullos Hill Roe Deer Cull. Suzanne Kelly asked for and was given a chance to speak for the deer at the meeting, attended by 14 of the Community Councillors.

They all voted unanimously to send a letter to the City before the 10 May deadline (the date imposed by the City for animal lovers to raise £225K or the deer will be culled) immediately condemning the Cull.

There was anger that yet again the consultation process had bypassed the Torry Community and its Council.

Tree protectors were discussed, and as they are so widely used elsewhere in the City, people could not believe that someone, somewhere in the City organisation had briefed SNH that they were unsuitable as they had ‘visual impact,’

The vandalism which marred previous tree planting was also discussed. Two members of the Council said the City’s demand for £225,000 was ‘blackmail.’

Kelly claimed this as a victory against the senseless cull, and indicated that locals had signed a petition, and would soon be handing in another 1100 signatures of people wanting the deer saved.

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.

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

Newer Entries