Weeds Archives - Aberdeen Voice

Tullos Hill And St Fitticks: A Photo-essay

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

Apr 062012

Suzanne Kelly with rubbish at the entrance and dangerous industrial waste from the gorse clearance mid March 2012.

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.

Trees on tullos hill. The few that have grown are being left to be strangled in their tubes by weeds.

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.

Skull and spine of a young or small roe deer on Tullos Hill. It wasn't there before the season to hunt started

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.

Inside a fully intact tube is nothing but grass

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.

Well maintained tree planting area at St Fitticks 1st April 2012.

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

Tree for Every Citizen Scheme: Not So Cost Neutral After All

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

Jan 072012

Aberdeen’s contentious Tullos Hill deer cull / tree-planting scheme takes a particularly strong blow as a Freedom of Information request shows that the financial picture is not as ‘cost-neutral’ as its (few) supporters would have us think. Suzanne Kelly examines the newly-released figures for Phase 1 of the planting and questions the logic of proceeding with Phase 2.

Aileen Malone, Aberdeen City Councillor and Convener of the Housing & Environment Committee has been silent on the subject of her pet project and Liberal Democrat election manifesto pledge lately; she’s not answered emails on the subject, nor has she appeared in the media to defend the scheme.
The Liberal Democrat party headquarters likewise have not replied to any emails on the matter of the deer cull to date.

Malone is the de facto figurehead for the plan to cull the roe deer (which have happily lived in the area for decades without the need for a cull) in order to plant a staggering 89,000 trees on Tullos Hill.

When full details broke as to what this Phase 2 planting entails emerged, individuals, community councils and animal welfare charities expressed dismay and disbelief.

One of the main arguments offered by its proponents is that planting the trees and shooting the deer is ‘cost-neutral’, or in the words of Councillor Neil Fletcher in an email concerning the cull:-

“… this project is at practically no cost to the tax-payer”.

But is the scheme as cost-neutral as its City Council proponents claim? The answer is most definitely NO.

The attached spread sheet excerpt was obtained in mid-December following months of requests (note that a line has been added to show a refund the City had to make – this was somehow omitted). Aileen Malone wrote in early October to advise an officer would get back on the matter shortly. When no information was forthcoming , a Freedom of Information request was lodged (and answered slightly later than was meant to be the deadline).

The City’s (incomplete) spread sheet

The spread sheet from the city shows incoming money as negative and outgoings as positive figures.

There is an outgoing sum of £3,000 at Line 18 with no explanatory text. There is likewise a line for £142 – this may relate to an advertising supplement extolling the virtues of the scheme, but this is not certain. The city also forgot to take off the £43,800 it had to return for the failure of phase 1 on Tullos. Combining all of the figures together, I get an indication that Aberdeen may be £20,600 in the red at this point – and yet may look to go ahead with a bigger plantation.

See: Tree-for-every-citizen-finances/

Dames Violets At Tullos. Will They Be History If The Trees Are Planted?

Looking at the list of money going in and out of the account, it seems that the scheme was not the simple, cheap, well thought-out plan promised. When the finances are considered in conjunction with a soil report issued by the Forestry Commission, it is possible to conclude the plan is deeply flawed and expensive.

The the soil report indicates that Tullos Hill’s soil quality means the trees would be subject to ‘wind throw.’ This means that winds (such as the extremely strong winds frequently experienced this winter) will more than likely topple trees growing on the hill.

The report also points to the possibility that trees simply will not thrive on Tullos for a variety of reasons– but what is the financial impact of failure?

The costly Phase 1 failure- £43,800 in grant money repaid

The City was forced to repay £43,800 of grant money (after months of being chased for payment, it should be noted) to the Forestry Commission. Presumably this money was generated from the taxpayer in the first place – therefore the taxpayer may well have wound up paying both for the trees to be planted as well as for their failure to thrive.

While the City has chosen largely to put the blame for the failure on some 29 roe deer in Loirston County Park, the failure belongs in no small part to those who selected the site, who decided to buy smaller tree guards than had been recommended, who ignored the historic wind, weather and soil data, and who did little about weeds. Perhaps an investigation is called for into the selection of Tullos in the first place, and into any possible negligence on the part of those involved.

Will Aberdeen be taking another grant from the Forestry Commission – which arguably we were led to believe was already arranged?

If so – why? What are the implications of a failure of 89,000 trees financially speaking? Unfortunately, according to the Freedom of Information response, thereares as yet no financial plans, budgets or projections available.

Considering the proponents originally gave a deadline of May 2011 for private individuals to stump up £225,000 to save the deer (a figure which exceeds the £200,000 Phase 1 grant!), it is highly worrying that projections for the future phase 2 scheme cannot be supplied as ‘the information is not held’. Had the scheme’s supporters come clean in these respects months ago, this scheme may not have gone so far down the road as it has been allowed to.

Paying for Experts

Animal charities offered the services of other forestry experts to the City free of charge with a view to finding a way to plant trees without killing the deer – something which is quite possible to do. Deer will apparently be culled for several years (there are thought to be 29 deer in the area which roam from site to site; these creatures usually live 6-7 years, and in some instances are fed by local people).

The city denigrated the experts, and advised it already has an expert.

The identity of the City’s expert has never been made known. At one stage it was suggested that they were being paid for their services in connection with ‘A Tree for Every Citizen.’

Looking at the companies listed on the spread sheet involved and the people who serve on these companies, a number of forestry experts seem to be involved as paid consultants. As such, these people might be seen to have a vested interest in a Phase 2 planting going ahead; it would be human nature to protect one’s source of income.

One of the people whose names crops up in a list of company directors has many directorships to their credit – including charcoal and sawmill director/company officer roles. Some of the twenty or so companies on this person’s list of directorships have been dissolved, including a boomerang company or two.

Further research into the companies and individuals mentioned on the Council’s spread sheet is under way.

Aberdeen officials have issued conflicting statements on the nature of the forest to be created – some say it will bring in revenue which will help pay for the scheme; others say no such plans are in place. If a sawmill plant, lumber jacking or charcoal works (and these types of business interests are reflected in the company activities of people involved with the scheme per the spread sheet) are envisaged for Tullos, then the public should be told.

If one or more persons with vested interests in making profit from lumber are refusing the advice / peer review from animal welfare experts with forestry experience, then the entire scheme should be examined in a public, transparent forum and reviewed by a number of recognised experts.

Surely an impartial, scientific professional would normally welcome experienced, free advice even if they chose not to heed it. The claims of expert advice seem hollow when in one document tree guards are discarded as deer control devices because they have ‘visual impact.’

Can complete impartiality of someone who may stand to gain from the Phase 2 planting going ahead be guaranteed? How can there be an objection to wider scrutiny?

Sponsors and ‘Educational’ use of children to plant trees: I wouldn’t count on it

Companies which donated to the first phase of the ‘Tree for Every Citizen’ scheme are understandably reluctant to use their budgets for controversial Phase 2.

weed protection of some sort will be required which may impact other wildlife, and yet the wind may make it all in vain.

Two major companies have indicated that they will not sponsor this next phase. Will any business want to put their brand’s value at risk by association with an unpopular scheme and deer cull? It is highly unlikely, but some in the council seem to think sponsors will be found. Again, there seems to be nothing budgeted, just nebulous talk of seeking business sponsors.

Schoolchildren are being relied on to make the plan look more affordable; they will be asked to help plant the trees on Tullos.

It seems doubtful that local parents will willingly give consent; thousands have signed a petition against the scheme, and over three thousand people are on a Facebook group opposing the scheme. Clearly if the scheme will have to pay for planting all 89,000 trees when it had hoped to use children in part, then the scheme becomes even less financially sound.

The educational benefits of planting saplings should also be delivered alongside the fact a cull is being implemented not for animal welfare reasons (the Scottish SPCA condemns this particular scheme) as it is (allegedly) the cheapest way to protect the trees, that weed protection of some sort will be required which may impact other wildlife, and yet the wind may make it all in vain.

Other costs; environmental costs

Weeds were largely to blame according to a Forestry report for the Phase 1 failure.

The Aberdeen taxpayer will be paying for several years of ‘weed control’ for Phase 2 – this may mean spraying pesticides which will damage other plants, insects, birds and other wildlife. Using pesticides in an area near factories, homes and schools will also lead to further citizen protests. Aberdeen paid £7,125 for Bryan Massie specifically for weed control in Phase 1 (as well as another £22,800). If the weed control was inadequate then, then how much more will we spend annually?

It is important to remember that Tullos already has its own wildlife and is a thriving ecosystem in its own right. Gorse clearance is also recommended, although many environmentalists state that gorse is a food and habitat haven for much wildlife. How much money will the taxpayer spend ripping up gorse?

The winners

According to the City’s information, the following companies have made money on the scheme:

CJ Piper & Co £42,000

Bryan Massie £30,000

Dulnain Bridge £77,800

Scottish Woodlands £11,700

TM Forestry £44,400

(unspecified) £ 3,000

TOTAL: £208,900

(Note – while over the months there have been different figures mentioned and unofficially given, it is assumed that the most accurate set of figures is the one supplied by the Freedom of Information request received mid December which is used in this article).

The future: No tangible financial projections – and no funding application lodged

The Freedom of Information request seems to be admitting that no budget for the future phase is held by the City.

An earlier FOI request shows that despite everything the proponents have said and done, there is as yet no formalised application lodged for a second phase. This means that for nearly a year the claims of proponents such as Malone that the scheme was going to go ahead and was going to be cost neutral were inaccurate. It is possible that some of the members of the Housing Committee voted in favour of this plan based on its being cost neutral; if so, the matter should be examined by that Committee and the relevant Audit Committee.

It is safe to assume that not every single grant application gets approved. We seem to have a situation for Phase 2 where there was no final, formal application for funds lodged, no approved funding in place, and no budget in place.

When the £43,800 repayment is subtracted from the accounts it certainly looks as if some £22,000 more than was granted was spent on Phase 1, leaving a budget deficit for Phase 2 before it even starts.

In the absence of information to the contrary the evidence speaks for itself.

Conclusion

Parents of school-age children might wish to check with their schools as to any planting plans involving their children.

Voters might want to ask their City Councillors how they stand on the issue now, and if they were in a position to vote on the matter in May 2011, did they then believe the scheme was cost-neutral. Private sector companies might wish to think twice before entering any sponsorship/funding deals for Phase 2 as well – it does not look like a public relations win any longer.

The whole point of the cull was to make the tree planting possible, yet some council officers and elected officials want to backtrack on that point now. They now claim it is for animal welfare reasons and not the trees. However, the entire unfolding history of the City’s claims are a matter of record.

What may have started out as a great-sounding greenwash election plank has irrevocably turned into an unpopular, controversial, seemingly disorganised non-starter. It is time to leave Tullos alone for now – or to consider enhancing its status as meadowland. Anything else just does not add up.

Tullos Hill Report Issued By Meadow Campaigner

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

Dec 152011

Aberdeen City’s ‘Tree for Every Citizen’ scheme, the proposed deer cull, and the case for meadowland preservation are examined in an extensive report issued by campaigner Suzanne Kelly.

This report examines a controversial plan by Aberdeen City Council to attempt a second plantation of 89,000 trees on Tullos Hill.

The first attempt largely failed due to poor soil, weeds, and other factors, including arson, weather, and deer browsing – according to a Forestry soil report. This first attempt cost the City £43,800.

The issues of how the City launched its public consultation (which omitted a 2-3 year weed control requirement and a deer cull) and how it has since responded to its Community Councils and citizens forms a large portion of this report. The report also focuses on the benefits of keeping the hill as it is – a grassland/meadowland, enjoyed by both people and a wide variety of wildlife.

The report and related documents can be found at http://suzannekelly.yolasite.com/

The City has previously stated that this scheme is ‘cost neutral’ – but as emerged last month, there is actually no funding in place, as only a draft application has to date been submitted. Proponent of the initial scheme, Cllr Aileen Malone, has left recent emails on the subject of the financing unanswered.

Meadows throughout the UK are being lost to development at an alarming rate. In the same area as Tullos Hill, a football stadium is set to be built in an Special Area of Conservation (SAC), with 2 species of EU protected animals known to be present. Also nearby, a housing development also spells loss of green space. With wildlife losing breeding and feeding grounds in this area of the city, campaigners including Kelly and Councillor Neil Cooney are calling for a re-think to the tree scheme.

A Soil Report from the Government indicates that a planting on Tullos Hill will not be successful.

Petitions collected thousands of signatures against the cull, and four Community Councils objected to the scheme and the cull. A Facebook community on this issue has some 3,000 members. A new petition to preserve or enhance Tullos Hill has over 400 signatories, and can be found at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/tullos-hill-meadowlands-deer-park.html

Animal organisations, including the Scottish SPCA, condemn the proposed deer cull, which was announced in March. Documents demonstrate that the cull was planned specifically for the tree planting, although the City’s officials are now saying it needs to cull part of the small herd (some 29) in general – the figure of 9 deer and a cull lasting a few years have been suggested. The deer roam across several sites.

Animal charities point out that many methods of planting trees with non-lethal measures exist, and that other deer would likely move into the area after a cull. Many experts question the wisdom of putting so many trees on a windswept hill on the North Sea where a previous attempt failed.

Kelly said:

“Many feel the deer cull should have been mentioned in the public consultation. The consultation mentioned rabbit fencing, so people assumed that if other animal issues existed, they would also have been brought to the public’s attention. Because the cull and the weed control (which may mean years of spraying toxins) were not included, no one raised timely objections.”

“The handling of this affair from start to finish goes against what the people in the area want. It goes against principles of transparent, open government, and it goes against logic. There is a report that says it is unlikely the trees will grow – why are we throwing good money after bad? Tullos Hill is a beautiful meadow with abundant wildlife, and its wildflowers attract visitors. When we are losing this type of habitat to development nearby, why should we try to turn one ecosystem into another?”

There is a mailing list for anyone wishing updates on this situation; contact tullosdeer@yahoo.com

Tullos Hill Meadowlands Initiative Launched

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

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.

Wildflowers And Stony Ground. Tullos Hill Oct 11

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