Is this wildlife trust damaging a nature reserve?

When doing the regular research for this blog it is often necessary to dig a bit after finding the initial information. One of the problems you discover is that the hysteria over ragwort has even infected conservation organisations who should know better and you find them saying things that are incorrect. This causes more damage to biodiversity because people believe what they hear and act accordingly. It becomes a vicious circle, breaking which is one of the aims of this blog.

This was the case with a Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust blog which says

"I have been planning how to tackle the ragwort growth, it is not going to be easy as it is further ahead than usual and so many areas cannot be done as there are still nesting birds. Of course there are those that say it should be left as a nectar source and it is true that is it a valuable nectar plant. However it is toxic to stock when dry, although they avoid it when growing as a rule. We have to try and stop it spreading onto our neighbours land and it can also become very dominant on the dry disturbed soils around the old gravel pits, which is undesirable for other reasons."

Now much of this sounds reasonable, but the seasoned expert will notice this line
"We have to try and stop it spreading onto our neighbours (sic) land"

It is difficult to be sure but that sounds like a repeat of the old chestnut of a falsehood that the law on ragwort requires you to prevent the spread of ragwort. Even if it wasn't intended, this loose use of language would only serve to reinforce this common misconception. This then encourages loss of biodiversity on other sites, as people believe they need to comply with non-existent legislation. Like this example.

The thing that is really bad about it though, is that it encourages people to think that ragwort spreads easily. It most certainly does not. The research is very very clear. Most of the seeds fall at the base of the plants and the remainder in all practical terms only go a few yards. See ragwort- how far do the seeds disperse?

The digging around for information only confirms the fear that this Wildlife trust may be being mislead into damaging its own nature reserve. It turns out that they are carrying out ragwort control in a number of places on this massive 500 acre site. It may be necessary and reasonable but what is unnecessary is to harm other people's conservation work by suggesting falsely that ragwort spreads easily.

Perhaps if you are a member of the trust and are reading this you would like to raise it with them? Chapter and verse debunking the myths and providing the science is available on the Ragwort Facts site.

An example of misinformation countered

A few weeks ago a story appeared in a local newspaper

A NEW menace has sprung up at Apex Park in Highbridge - ragwort.

The Friends of Apex Park have taken action against the growth, which has affected the wild flower meadow.

A sub-group, under the leadership of Patrick Stokes, has been using organic sprays on the ragwort, which can be dangerous to horses and cattle.


This is a nature reserve and the matter was mentioned on an on-line discussion group.
One of the members contacted the local council who it turned out misunderstood the law on ragwort and the guidance ( which is pretty badly done anyway) and they realised that they did not need to control the ragwort. Unfortunately before this information was countered more people would have been mislead by the article in the newspaper. It is the constant stream of poor stories in the press, often put there by vested interests, and the repeating of this on websites that leads to more unnecessary damage to biodiversity.

Welsh Assembly did do it

This story was covered in a previous posting It turns out that the Welsh Assembly Government has been putting out false information on the law on ragwort.. They claimed that there is a statutory responsibility on landowners to control ragwort . This is simply untrue.

The story appeared in the Western Mail and prompted this letter on ragwort in response.

A worrying story from Cornwall.

The errors are coming in thick and fast over the last few days.

David Breer's interesting blog The scientific study of plants


Also, I have a message from a gentlemen in Cornwall who has
found a poster in his post office to the effect that five species of
weeds must be destroyed if you have them on your land.

and he continues,

My Cornish correspondent is concerned because already the local churchyard has been sprayed, to the detriment of other species.

And the comments on the blog are even more worrying they are full of people who misunderstand the law on ragwort and who believe that it is far more dangerous than it should be.

Seriously worrying is the fact that now other plants which, like, thistles are valuable nectar sources. The Weeds Act 1959, which is really an anachronism that was never enforced until the campaigners generated hysteria, doesn't make controlling these plants automatic and compulsory. I cannot see how many churchyards would require controlling even under the poorly thought out guidance created by DEFRA.

Postscript:

After writing this blog entry I find that the blog I am quoting doesn't belong to David Breer at all. On attempting to dig out the author and follow up on the poster story I found that it is a site that very cleverly takes information from on-line discussions and converts them to look like blogs. In this case the discussion, although marked as recent, is in fact a discussion from a few years ago. The text I quote is quite genuine it just isn't recent.

Scarborough Council unfair to ragwort and biodiversity

Are you going to Scarborough Fair? So go the words to a famous song.
Well perhaps there is no fair selling things there now but the local council
is certainly not being fair to the biodiversity supported by ragwort.One of their documents on-line contains the following piece of claptrap.


It is one of 5 species listed as a Noxious Weed in the 1949 Weeds Act and it is an offence to allow the plant to proliferate on your land and spread to adjacent property. The Ragwort Control Bill (2003) has recently been passed to strengthen this.


It is hard to know where to start with a statement like this. It is so full of inaccuracies. So I will take them in the order in which they occur.

First of all the term used in the Weeds Act is "injurious weeds". It means in this context weeds that are harmful to the interests of agriculture. Follow the link to find a proper explanation of the derivation from Latin of the word "injurious".

Then it is the Weeds Act 1959 not 1949. It is most definitely not an offence
under the weeds act to allow the plant to proliferate on your land!

Finally all the Ragwort Control Act ( Act is the correct word for bills that have passed!) only tells the government that it can produce some guidance.

There is an earlier blog entry explaining the law on ragwort.

It even crosses the Atlantic now

This is an entry from the blog Dog-Apparel which is from Florida

"The most poisonous plant in Britain to horses is Ragwort. Don’t know if this helps, it is now a "notifyable" (sic) plant and if you see it you are supposed to pull it up."

Ragwort is not a notifiable weed in the UK. There is no such thing in UK law. It is also questionable if it is the most poisonous plant. There are certainly plants that are far far more deadly.

Also you should not pull up ragwort where ever you see it, as this is a criminal offence under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act, unless you have the
owner or occupier of the land's consent. See ragwort is sometimes protected for more details.

There is a common problem with people thinking they are doing good by pulling up ragwort. Living ragwort is ignored by livestock. Dead ragwort is a different matter. By pulling it up an leaving it you may be endangering animals. There is also the problem with other plants which are not ragwort, being misidentified

Ragwort is an ecologically important plant and there are cases where habitats on
nature reserves have been damaged by its removal by well-intentioned but
ignorant individuals, who, like the writer of the Dog-Apparel blog have read something incorrect somewhere and who have just repeated it.

This blog Eco Holidays and Adventures puts the whole thing very succinctly in regards to ragwort with the comment:

So, when you are out exploring the countryside – think of their trees as you would of your garden fence; their plants as you would of your rosebush; their gates as your own front door.

Would you want someone to leave your front door open, break down your fence and snap your rosebush in half?

I didn’t think so…….

Even vets can be wrong

"There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it."
So wrote William James the famed philosopher who is often regarded as the father of modern psychology.

This is an entry from the blog of vet Paul Proctor MRCVS

"Ragwort is a common weed that grows throughout the British Isles, and has always been a problem but recently it has become apparent that the weed may be getting out of control and potentially posing a real threat to the horse population."

The article is good in other respects and Mr Proctor seems to be a perfectly fine vet. However, on the basis of the FACTS, I have to disagree with that statement.

There is no evidence that Ragwort is "getting out of control". There is no evidence
that it is increasing. If anything the evidence from the government's
UK Countryside Survey is that Ragwort is decreasing. At least he has the good sense to use the words "may" and "potentially".

What there is a lot of evidence of, and the reason for this blog, is a concerted campaign of misinformation and falsehoods. These are often promoted quite innocently by people who just do not know the facts and who are unnecessarily frightened. Sometimes they are promoted by commercial companies with a product to promote. Sometimes by organisations who need to raise their profile, and who do so by putting scary stories into the media.

The story that ragwort is increasing is, in the face of the facts, absurd, but as William James said it is been repeated often enough that people will believe it.

The problem with vets believing that ragwort poisoning is common, rather than what the literature indicates, that it is rare, is that it manifests itself like any other type of liver damage that is from other causes.

There is a risk, if vets believe that ragwort poisoning is more likely than it is, that animals will suffer as a result of misdiagnoses.

.