I can't tweet all of this so once again I'm using the blog as an addition to social media.
Conservationists are unhappy with them. I'll use a couple of analogies. Imagine they said Climate Change was a hoax. Climate campaigners wouldn't be happy. Imagine if they said the Covid pandemic was a hoax, the medical profession would be condemning them. Well, this blog is an expert in an area of science also telling them not to spread nonsensical myths.
Bracknell Forest Council have put a piece on line with myths about ragwort.
The first thing to remember that Bracknell Forest Council has a legal responsibility to promote biodiversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
The second thing to say is that they have no general legal responsibilities to control ragwort CONTRARY to what they are saying.
The third thing is that it isn't about the cinnabar moth. It is about all the other widlife affected.
"They don't seem to be very well informed because they say:-
“While ragwort has some biodiversity benefits, there are many other wildflowers in our meadows, that provide food for insects."
Imagine an art gallery saying we can burn our Van Gogh because we have a lot of other paintings, this is rather analogous. Ragwort is one of the most ecologically important wildflowers, yes there are circumstances where it needs controling but they are damaging the environment by spreading myths about it.
This is what Friends of the Earth say about it in their briefing on the subject (Yes a major environmental organisation has a briefing on it. which exposes just some of the hystercal myths.)
Ragwort (was Senecio jacobaea now Jacobaea vulgaris) is an important wildflower for invertebrate wildlife:
- 35 insect species totally rely on Common ragwort for food including 7 moth and 7 beetle species;
- Another 83 species are recorded as using Common ragwort often as a significant food source, with a further estimated 50 species of parasite in turn feeding on those;
- In addition to these 133 species, Common ragwort is a significant source of nectar for others including bee species that specialise in feeding on yellow Asteraceae (daisies) and many species of butterfly.1
- Government research shows that of over 7,000 plant species in Britain Common ragwort is the 7thmost important nectar-producing plant.
Now they are breaching their NERC Act duty by spreading falsehoods about this ecologically important art of our natural heritage.
The first thing they get wrong is a matter of liguistic and environmental literacy.
They say:-
"Ragwort is classed as a harmful, or injurious weed under the Weeds Act 1959. This is because the plant can be poisonous to certain animals if eaten."
No this is not true. The word injurious doesn't mean it will poison something. The 1959 act wasn't debated in Parliament but as a Consolidation Act it repeated stuff originally pased in 1920. It is clear from Hansard at the time that the meaning is injurious to land not to animals. There are other plants listed, also ecologically valuable, and these are all listed in Richard Mabey's famous book Food for Free. You can eat them!
Then while talking about the law they say:-
"The occupier of land is responsible for clearing harmful weeds, such as ragwort, where they might spread onto land used for grazing livestock or growing crops.""
Regular readers will be hearing a claxon in their heads at this for this is like climate or Covid denial. It is a nonsensical falsehood.
This is all the law says that makes anyone do anything.
"Where the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (in this Act referred to as “the Minister”) is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Act applies growing upon any land he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him, within the time specified in the notice, to take such action as may be necessary to prevent the weeds from spreading."
So to be clear. You may be ordered to control the plant but in the absence of the law there is no need to do anything. There is no responsibility at all placed on anyeone by the law to control these plants where they might spread. None whatsoever!
Then they go on with this scary stuff as if ragwort is some kind of triffid.
"We dispose of the waste responsibly, to ensure there’s no risk of spread by seed dispersal. Each plant can produce thousands of seeds, which are dispersed by wind. The seeds can remain dormant in the soil for several years."
This makes it sound really dangerous now there are . as a result of the hysteria, rules about disposing ragwort, but it is really unethical for ecologists to make a big deal out of them, because it should be obvious to anyone who understands the plant that they are based on hysteria.
Guess how far the best study says seeds travel from the parent plant? It says that hardly any seeds travel more than 40 yards!
There is a simple bit of science that I would hope is still in GCSE physics. You can tell how far away the seeds would fall in general like this. Work out how long it takes a seed to fall to the ground and then work out how far a wind would blow the seed sideways in that time. It is a classical example of plotting motion separate the vertical and horizontal components and calculate. Do this and you'll find seeds don't usually move far. Having said that there are going to be exceptional events but given the plant is a native these not particularly significant.
This isn't big complicated science. It the stuff children do in exams at 16!
.Also there is the basic ecology! Why mention thousands of seeds? This is normal for so many plants and on average only one plant will grow from all of them. It it were not so than we'd quickly be buried under the weight of plants. It does however make the plant look scary.
They have been distributing frightening and false information which undermines conservation on-line to maybe thousands of people. This is not acceptable!
No comments:
Post a Comment