Is livestock grazing damaging our reserves ?

[Dorts]

Many species of butterflies have declined due to loss of habitat. Generally speaking, to provide such suitable habitat would be benificial to many other species as well.
Butterflies will rarely be the sole consideration, but where they exist in isolated colonies with no other suitable habitat nearby to colonise, they will need protection, and the management of the reserve will have to reflect this.

It makes no difference what animal species it is, whether it's Duke of Burgundy Fritillary on an isolated piece of downland, a colony of Natterjack Toads is some shallow pools, or a colony of Wild Cats in a ancient Scottish forest, all such scarce animals must have extra protection if they are to survive, let alone prosper.

It is often such creatures that brings a particular reserve to the publics attention, and often with that comes extra funding which is always so important. Even grazing animals can be seen as an important draw for raising the profile of a reserve, such as Highland Cattle or Exmoor Ponies which are often now being used due to their particular kind of selective grazing.
Dorts.

[Urban nature]

Very true Dorts. We have Grayling on site which were in decline recently.Numbers seem to be down again. Shetland cattle graze our site.

[Matt Smith]

Might be worth a read:

Offer, D., Edwards, M. & Edgar, P. (2003) Grazing heathland: A guide to impact assessment for insects and reptiles. English Nature Research Report Number 497.

As usual the Natural England website is inscruteable as ever, so I can't find a link to it on their site. I have a PDF here - its about 2.5mb in size - which I can mail to people if interested if they PM me an e-mail address.

[King Edward]

Originally Posted by Dorts

Many species of butterflies have declined due to loss of habitat. Generally speaking, to provide such suitable habitat would be benificial to many other species as well.

Obviously, species that like the same kind of habitat will benefit from management aimed towards butterflies. But at the same time, many other species will be disadvantaged. Arboreal lichens and bryophytes, for instance, are unlikely to appreciate their habitat being destroyed on a regular basis. Just about any management you care to think of will benefit some species, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. It's not that I have anything against butterflies, but the disproportionate attention given to them is largely to do with their aesthetic appeal, which is not a good basis for deciding on conservation priorities.

Why is it that the Forestry Commission has an Open Habitats Policy, but not a Closed Habitats Policy? Not temporarily closed, as in the few decades between fellings in a plantation, but permanently.

Edit: This is worth reading: Biodiversity Conservation in Britain: Science Replacing Tradition

[Dorts]

Arboreal lichens are just as important as say downland butterflies, and I think it is most unlikely that a reserve that has both will need the lichens removed, (by felling their trees), in order to save the butterflies.
If the site has become so overgrown with mature trees, that it supports a good range of lichen species, the downland butterflies would have been long gone and it is most unlikely that it would be thought practical or possible to bring them back without doing harm to other important species that have since moved in.

The brown Hairstreak for example requires Blackthorn, ideally plenty of it with long, young shoots. Large thickets of Blackthorn are not to everyones taste on a nature reserve, but with a bit of education and common sense, it can usually be accommodated, along with regular maintenance.

Likewise the Duke of Burgandy requires Cowslip plants with leaves large enough to safely survive a winter. A very special requirement, not so easy to provide, but as it happens, such plants are more likely to exist in the semi-shade of large trees. So again both can exist with limited management.

The problem with butterflies is they love many well managed reserves where they can find a secure home. They are generally a very good indicator of good management practice. Plus, like it or not, people love to see them, probably because of their 'aesthetic appeal' .
Besides, many nature reserves themselves have aesthetic appeal, and there is nothing wrong with that.

As with any reserve and subsequent management plan, there will be regular lengthy discussions as to which species of plants and animals are of most importance.

Many reserves are managed soley for a general habitat, be it mixed or of a singular nature, and in these cases whatever species happens to inhabit such places will find a relatively secure home. The problem arises when something rare moves in. Do you just look at it as part of the general flora or fauna, or do you start to 'tweak' the management so that it can thrive?

There will be some species, perhaps due to their rarity, that have to take priority. Many reserves are managed for a single species, often meaning that other species must be deterred or removed.

There is no 'one plan fits all' and trying to play God will never work for every species, or please everyone's tastes, views, concerns or requirements.

For many years I was secretary and natural history advisor for a National Trust Management Committee. Most of my time was spent dealing with the public and their wants and needs of certain open spaces. The most common of their correspondence request's was "What are you going to do about the mud?" Rarely was there a mention of the needs of the local plants and animals!
Such are the problems of habitat management.
Dorts.