Joe Dorward to Debbie Greene (SNH)

From: Joe Dorward
To: Debbie Greene
Sent: 2 July 2015
Subject: RSPB Scotland’s planting plans for Abernethy

Debbie,

Thanks for your reply of 25 June 2015.

While the following may appear patronising or condescending – no nastiness of any kind is intended.

I am not alone in asserting that the decision to allow RSPB Scotland to plant trees within the de facto Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy is a self-evident catastrophe for its authenticity and naturalness.

About 9,000 years ago, seedlings of the species we call Pinus sylvestris var. scotica began growing in the area that SNH designated Abernethy Forest SSSI. These seedlings grew to become part of (what, since ancient times, was known as) the Caledonian Forest. Various causes led to the fragmentation of that forest into primarily-deciduous and primarily-coniferous woodlands.

While Caledonian Pinewood may not be a statutory-designation, it must surely be a logical-designation, since it features in the title of the FC publication Caledonian Pinewood Inventory (1998) and since the Caledonian Forest is no-more, it makes sense to stop referring to it (except in a purely historical context) and – instead – refer to the remaining primarily-coniferous fragments as Caledonian Pinewoods.

There can be no doubt that the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy is authentic and natural and (to paraphrase the JNCC definition) it is relict Pinus sylvestris var. scotica, self-sown, naturally regenerating, genuinely native, local origin pinewood.

The existing trees of this pinewood are the latest links in an unbroken chain of natural evolution connecting them to the first seedlings to grow there 9,000 yeas ago. It is this Caledonianess that makes the pinewood scientifically valuable. It is this Caledonianess that makes Nature the only scientifically justifiable agent in the regeneration and expansion of the pinewood. It is neither the number of trees nor the extent of the pinewood that makes it scientifically valuable. Planting will increase the number of trees and extend the pinewood, but, by breaking the chain of natural evolution it will also diminish the authenticity and naturalness of it – it would become merely ‘Native’ rather than ‘Caledonian’ because ‘self-sown’ is an essential clause in its definition.

During their first decade at Abernethy, RSPB Scotland would have agreed with the foregoing. One need not be much of a researcher to find unequivocal, published statements by them referring to ‘purely natural regeneration’ and ‘no planting or fencing’. But sometime in the early 2000s they appear to have changed their mind – for whatever reason – they are prioritising increasing the number of trees and extent of the pinewood over authenticity and naturalness. Recently, as a direct result of RSPB Scotland’s own actions to reduce red deer numbers, both Stuart Housden and Jeremy Roberts have (rightly) boasted about how well the pinewood is regenerating while claiming full responsibility for 800 hectares of regeneration. Elsewhere, RSPB Scotland make contradictory ‘struggling to survive’ claims about the condition of the pinewood.

Looking on the SNH website – I note that ‘It is an offence for any person to intentionally or recklessly damage the protected natural features of an SSSI’ and on Sitelink – I note that for Abernethy Forest SSSI that the ‘Coniferous woodland’ is a ‘Notified feature’.

1. How can it be that the RSPB Scotland’s planting within the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy is not causing ‘intentional or reckless damage’ to this ‘notified feature’ when planting is contrary to the essential clauses defining it ?

2. If the scientific value of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy is its Caledonianess and not the number of trees nor the extent of the pinewood – then how can planting ‘benefit the statutory natural heritage designations’ when planting is contrary to the essential clauses defining it ?

In your answers please provide references to Policy and Procedure documentation that will enable me to understand the steps in the process by which SNH arrived at the decision that planting ‘will benefit the statutory natural heritage designations’ of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy.

For the avoidance of doubt – please avoid justifying or defending the SNH decision. I merely want to know how and why SNH came to approve the planting-plan rather than reject it because it involves planting. I would not have guessed that RSPB Scotland could ever be permitted to plant within the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy.

It appears self-evident that the approval of the planting-plan was an error, that was either (a) an error of judgement / interpretation etc. within SNH, or (b) an error of policy / process – that given the process SNH is required to follow, that SNH could only have given approval, or (c) subversion – that (in spite of knowing and understanding the foregoing) that the SNH policy / process (that would have led to the rejection of the planting-plan) was subverted with intent, to enable RSPB Scotland to do what they want within the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy. Either way – the decision process should be repeatable – you should be able to show me how (given knowledge of SNH policy / procedure) I would reach the same conclusion.

I have not seen a letter by you to Adam Watson dated 14 July 2014 and would very much appreciate seeing it, but if you mean the one dated 17 July 2014 – I have seen that. I referred to it and quoted from it in my first email to you.

Joe Dorward
Bracknell

Joe Dorward to Debbie Greene (SNH)

From: Joe Dorward
To: Debbie Greene
Sent: 4 May 2015
Subject: RSPB Scotland’s planting plans for Abernethy

I am very concerned about the impact that RSPB Scotland’s planting plans for Abernethy will have on the authenticity and naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood there. By (1) requiring RSPB Scotland to conduct an EIA, and (2) subsequently granting consent – FCS and SNH implicitly acknowledged their authority to withhold that consent.

The case for planting is weak, relying on RSPB Scotland’s misrepresentations about the condition of the Caledonian Pinewood – which FCS and SNH appear to have accepted at face-value. Both Stuart Housden and Jeremy Roberts have (rightly) boasted about how well the pinewood is regenerating while claiming full responsibility for 800 hectares of regeneration. And, in my superficial survey of 2013 I saw that Birch, Willow, Rowan, Juniper, and Scots Pine seedlings of all ages are well represented across the consent area.

In your letter to Adam Watson of 17 July 2014 (as it appears on the Caledonian Foresters website) you wrote :

Our advice to FCS on this case reflected our assessment that the plan will benefit the Caledonian Pinewood qualifying interest of the Cairngorms SAC, the native pinewood notified interest of the SSSI, and delivery of the SSSI management objectives

Can you explain (1) how the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy ‘will benefit’ from planting – when by definition – planting will reduce the designation of the pinewood from Caledonian to merely Native ?

I assume that you are aware of the ‘precautionary principle’ – the following is a direct quote from the SNH website :

SNH interprets the precautionary principle to mean that where there is uncertainty over the consequences of an activity ‘full scientific proof of a possible environmental impact is not required before action is taken to prevent that impact’.

SNH’s view is that where there is a risk that proposed activities might have a significant and irreversible impact on important natural heritage resources, a precautionary approach should be applied.

Can you explain (2) how you overcame the presumption of the ‘precautionary principle’ to ‘prevent the impact’ that RSPB Scotland’s planting plans for Abernethy will have on the authenticity and naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood there ?

Joe Dorward
Bracknell

Concern over RSPB’s planting agenda

I am very concerned about the impact that RSPB Scotland’s planting agenda for Abernethy will have on the authenticity and naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood there.

The case for planting is weak, relying on RSPB Scotland’s misrepresentations about the condition of the Caledonian Pinewood – while the case against planting is strong, relying on the fact that planting is self-evidently unnecessary.

The Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) decisions (1) to require RSPB Scotland to conduct an EIA, and (2) to subsequently grant consent – implicitly acknowledges the authority of FCS to withhold that consent. I very much wanted to understand, in spite of an unassailable case against planting, the process by which FCS arrived at the decision to grant consent.

My first two attempts to learn more about the process were rebuffed by Keir Smith with such (obviously) intentionally vague, patronising, evasions that it was clear that no one at FCS had the slightest intention of explaining their actions to me – so that in my third attempt I resorted to a Freedom of Information (FOI) Request.

Of course, FCS also obstructed this attempt too by (1) delaying their response to the end of the 21 working-day period within which they are required to respond, and (2) by censoring key-parts of the emails they sent me – for example – the names of both the sender and recipient.

Their attempt to justify the censoring is Kafkaesque. FCS accept the assertion that we have the right to ask FCS officials to account for their actions, but reject the assertion that we have the right to know who these FCS officials are.

Their attempted justification is all the more Kafkaesque because the names of the key-players in this farce (at RSPB Scotland) Stuart Housden, George Campbell, Jeremy Roberts, Andy Amphlet (at FCS) Bob MacIntosh, Malcolm Morrison, John Risby, Keir Smith, Graham MacBryer (at SNH) Debbie Greene, Keith Duncan, George Hogg are already publicly known ; already ‘outed’ by their own organisations in various publications and on their own websites.
They are a long-way from being the low-level paper pushers who might reasonably expect to have their identity protected.

If, as we learned today, letters by the Prince of Wales to government officials are to be made public, can FCS seriously expect that emails to and from their officials should be other than fully and freely disclosed?

Since we already know the names of the people involved, the only possible reason for the FCS censorship is obstructive obfuscation.

If I don’t know who wrote what to whom, I cannot ask follow-up questions. If I cannot ask follow-up questions FCS will have (1) perverted the purpose of the FOI legislation, (2) thwarted my attempts to learn which FCS officials did-what or decided-what, and (3) which of them (if any did) failed to follow existing FCS policies.

By bungling their responses to me, FCS have shown an awareness that they have bungled their handling of the whole of RSPB Scotland’s application to plant trees in the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy and (it appears) a guilty knowledge that they have more to hide than the usual bureaucratic incompetence.

FCS officials must know (or should know) that planting any tree species anywhere near the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy is unnecessary – it is a self-evident fact – but rather than point that out to RSPB Scotland and refuse consent, FCS officials have connived with RSPB Staff to ensure the smoothest possible ride for RSPB Scotland’s planting agenda, while doing their utmost to keep us from knowing the breadth of their misdoings and the depths of their connivance.

Joe Dorward
Bracknell

Decision on RSPB Appeal Page ‘Defies Logic’

You reported (‘Strathy’, July 31, 2014) that a ‘complaint over the RSPB Scotland’s appeal to fund controversial plans to extend an important Strathspey woodland has been thrown out by the regulators’ and that ‘concerns were raised after the complainant, who is not named in the report, read an article in a national newspaper’.

As the unnamed complainant, I must emphasis that my complaint has only ever been about RSPB Scotland’s online appeal page. When I raised my complaint with Alistair McLean of the Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB) I wrote: ‘After twice raising a complaint with the RSPB over their ‘Help us keep Abernethy special’ appeal page (http://www.rspb.org.uk/supporting/campaigns/abernethy/) and twice receiving brief, patronising and dismissive responses, I wish to raise a complaint with you against the RSPB in relation to the false and exaggerated claims they make on that appeal page’.

In spite of my several attempts to keep the attention of the FRSB on the online appeal page, (evidently) RSPB Scotland have been more successful in misdirecting the attention of the FRSB away from it.

In your report, you refer to the FRSB Board being reassured by knowing that ‘the RSPB’s approach to Abernethy Forest had been subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment, public consultation, and comprehensive scrutiny’.

My mind boggles – how can it be that concerns of the fundraising watchdog are reassured by the conclusions of the environmental watchdog?

Meanwhile, RSPB Scotland make contradictory claims.

In their online appeal page they make a ‘struggling to survive’ claim about its condition while (recently) both Stuart Housden and Jeremy Roberts (rightly) boast about how well the woodland is regenerating.

It cannot be both ; their ‘struggling to survive’ claim cannot be anything other than false and misleading and cannot be justified by the FRSB Board’s ‘call to action – fundraising language’ catchphrase.

The decision of the FRSB Board defies logic; the claims on the RSPB Scotland ‘Help us keep Abernethy special’ appeal page are self-evidently misleading, clearly likely to mislead, inaccurate, ambiguous, exaggerated, and omissive.
Joe Dorward
Bracknell

UNDER FIRE: the RSPB’s claim that Abernethy Forest is struggling to survive has been branded as ‘misleading’

Joe Dorward to John Risby (FCS)

From: Joe Dorward
To: John Risby (FCS)
Sent: 17 July 2014
Subject: RSPB Scotland planting plans for Abernethy

On 24 September 2013 I visited the southern fringe of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy from Glenmore. I conducted a superficial survey by following the track east from Ryvoan to Bynack Stables (site of) and up Strath Nethy a short distance. I then turned and followed the Nethy north about half-a-mile then went cross-country back to Ryvoan.

Being aware of the claims made by RSPB Scotland about the condition of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy I was surprise by how far from the truth those claims were. On reaching the southern edge of the reserve at Ryvoan I saw several (apparently) naturally seeded Scots pines beside the reserve sign. In spite of RSPB Scotland claims about the inability of pines and broadleaved species to seed themselves in Abernethy south, on both sides of the track, I saw much pine, birch, rowan, willow, and juniper – all evidently old enough that they could not have been planted by RSPB Scotland unless they have been planting secretly for many years.

The two hundred photographs I took showing the actual condition of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy are here :
  https://www.flickr.com/photos/joedorward/sets/72157635871777246/

I am very concerned about the impact that RSPB Scotland’s planting plans for Abernethy will have on the authenticity and naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood there. The case for planting appears weak, relying on the misrepresentations of RSPB Scotland about the condition of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy. The case against planting is strong and undeniable. The Caledonian Pinewood is self-evidently regenerating and expanding without intervention (other than to control red-deer numbers). Fundamentally, planting will change the genotype of a naturally evolved woodland and should not have been considered for this reason alone.

I had presumed that the naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy was protected (in its own right) as well as from being partly or wholly within NNR, SPA, SAC, or SSSI designated sites. An integral part of that protection is that protection is that planting would only be considered in the case that no regeneration had occurred in decades, but both Jeremy Roberts (RSPB) and Stuart Housden (RSPB) have rightly boasted how well the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy is regenerating. RSPB Scotland can’t have it both ways – they can’t boast about regeneration while claiming the pinewood will cease to be unless they plant.

I struggle to understand how, in spite of the evident regeneration in the ‘consent area’ at Abernethy that you granted consent to RSPB Scotland to plant there. I would like to understand the process that led you to the decision to grant consent.

My own survey was superficial, yet I was convinced that the regeneration has taken strong enough hold across the ‘consent area’ that planting was unnecessary – so :

1. How much time did you spend surveying the ‘consent area’ at Abernethy ?

2. How many times did you visit the ‘consent area’ at Abernethy between 22 March 2006 and 24 August 2011 ?

3. How would you characterise or describe the regeneration state of the ‘consent area’ at Abernethy ?

In The Management of Semi-natural Woodlands : 7. Native Pinewoods I read “that planting should be the last resort” – so :

4. Did you conclude that the ‘last resort’ situation had been reached ?

5. If so, how did you determine that the ‘last resort’ situation had been reached ?

My survey convinced me that planting was unnecessary and your survey appears to have convinced you that it was necessary, so :

6. How different would the ‘consent area’ at Abernethy have to be for you to have concluded that planting was unnecessary and for you to have refused consent ?

6.1. Would there be more pine saplings ? If so, how many more ?
6.2. Would there be taller pine saplings ? If so, how tall ?
6.3. Would there be more broadleaved saplings ? If so, how many more ?
6.4. Would there be taller broadleaved saplings ? If so, how tall ?

I understood that the provisions of the EC Habitats Directive protected the authenticity and naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy, so :

7. In what sense is the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy protected if RSPB Scotland can reduce its authenticity and naturalness by planting within it ?

Joe Dorward to Pete Meacham (FRSB)

From: Joe Dorward
To: Pete Meacham
Sent: 28 May 2014
Subject: RSPB ‘Help us keep Abernethy special’ Complaint

Pete,

Thanks for this, I have a couple of issues.

In 1.2 you write :

The complainant felt that the online fundraising page was falsely claiming that the RSPB was carrying out conservation work when they were in fact carrying out “large scale landscape gardening”.

Here you are again casting my complaint as being about the actions of the RSPB rather than being about the claims the RSPB make about their actions. May I suggest the following instead :

The complainant felt that, on their online fundraising page, the RSPB make false claims about the condition of the forest and their actions within it

My complaint to FRSB has only ever been about the claims the RSPB make on their online fundraising page.

In 2.5 you write :

Following several further email exchanges during which disparaging tweets about the RSPB allegedly posted by the complainant were debated …

I am concerned that you feel the need to describe my tweets as ‘disparaging’. This assertion is less-than objective and misrepresents how I have conducted myself. I note that George Campbell used the word ‘dispiriting’, but that says something about how he responds to criticism and nothing about what I wrote.

It is also less-than objective to characterise the exchange as you have. It misrepresents the exchange and can only serve to cast me in an unfavourable light – this, while omitting to mention that George, without any justification, flatly refused to answer any more of my questions.

I would also like you to include this recent tweet (below) by Stuart Housden in which he is clearly and rightly proud of the natural regeneration at Abernethy in spite of the claims the RSPB continue to make about the condition of the forest on their online appeal page.

Joe Dorward
Bracknell

Basil Dunlop to George Campbell (RSPB)

From: Basil Dunlop
To: George Campbell
Sent: 9 March 2014
Subject: Abernethy South planting

George,

Thank you for your response to my email and attachment. While I mentioned the SoC was outdated, that does not mean invalidated. It is over 8 months old, and concentrates on the previously agreed policies. Now the emphasis is on the responsibilities of the statutory authorities to safeguard the naturally regenerated boreal forest remnants, taking account of subsequent discussions with RSPB.

As for your promised comments on the Statement of Concern, yes, we would still like them, if only to understand the reported statement to the Sunday Herald by Stuart Housden that “the report is wildly inaccurate and makes many unsubstantiated claims in the absence of facts”, but no examples were given. Also your own “assumption and speculation”. Considering the SoC was based on and quoted official policy documents and published reports, we would like to know what RSPB considers wildly inaccurate and unsubstantiated.

In paragraph 2 you claim that the other authors and RS had no insight into what you were planning to do. On the contrary, I sent them copies of EIA maps J32 “PROPOSED LOCATIONS of PLANTING POLYGONS for ENRICHMENT PLANTING and J33 PROPOSED LOCATIONS of PLANTING POLYGONS for PIONEER PLANTING, and explained the basic concept. They felt that ANY planting was unjustified as it compromised the integrity of this hitherto naturally regenerated part of the Forest, and was contrary to all the previously stated and agreed principles and policies of the Caledonian pinewood remnants. The context of RSPB thinking was immaterial. Incidentally the Pioneer Planting of cells of pine to act as future seed sources mirrors the recommendations I made in my 1988 report* to the RSPB on the way to expand the forest, except that I advocated the protection of cells of existing natural regeneration, in view of the unnaturally heavy browsing of deer and sheep in the area at that time.

As to making contact with you, in 2011 the three statutory authorities were well aware of my concerns from my letters, before approving the EIA, but seemingly dismissed them. They did not even inform me when they had unexpectedly approved the EIA, despite knowing that I was a well known and respected authority on native pinewood issues and knowing that I was likely to react in an adverse way to their decision. Such secrecy of decision taking in the use of public funds is unacceptable.

I am pleased to note in para. 3 that natural regeneration remains your principal policy objective at Abernethy, but non-adherence now and again cannot be justified in any circumstance in such a rare and fragile part of our natural heritage, except perhaps in a last resort, which does not apply to the disputed area in Abernethy. It is the failure of the agencies to adhere to their own stated policies which is the issue. We accept that they are not able to rescind their approval, which is why we will continue in our efforts to persuade the RSPB to voluntarily refrain from implementation of the most contentious elements.

Your position as stated in para. 4 is difficult to understand, when you say you “do not recognise” OCP as a designation, or “what that actually means”. Paragraph 1 of the introduction in our paper clearly defines it. We assume you accept designations under the Caledonian Pinewood Inventory and many other FCS and other documents, so it must be the word “Old” which causes a problem. This is merely a descriptive adjective to emphasise its age, to avoid confusing it with “new” planted pinewoods. (It was used in my 1988 report* to the RSPB). We do not accept that you can claim it is in favourable condition when you seek to plant in it, and the domestic and European objectives indicate planting should only be a last resort, i.e. when there is no alternative. We are concerned for other remnants, but no other ancient pinewood site is as important as South Abernethy and its neighbours on the foothills of the Cairngorms.

In paragraph 5 you dismiss our case as opinion, but it is based on fully quoted facts, so interpretation would be a more appropriate description. We note you do not disagree with their advocacy for natural regeneration. As to your comments under Para. 7, you take this completely out of context. It is made abundantly clear in all our statements, especially the introduction to the paper under discussion, that the subject is confined to the enrichment and pioneer planting proposals in the most natural extremity of Abernethy South (i.e Ryvoan and Strath Nethy), and the anomalies in existing legislation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of Abernethy or its management and maintenance. Indeed, I am on record as praising RSPB in this respect.

Reference the other comments numbered

7 We understand that the funding was awarded because RSPB stated regeneration would be by natural means. This could be regarded as a condition, though it is agreed no formal conditions were stipulated..

11 We have evidence of extant non-pine potential seed trees and regeneration in the Ryvoan and Strath Nethy areas. Your own surveys record there is ample natural Scots pine regeneration..

12 Our reference is to planting in the far South of the pinewood, and the map I produced and tabled included the parts you mention elsewhere, coloured yellow.

16 We accept that this was the former title which has now changed, and apologise for the error.

Regarding your penultimate paragraph, we believe that RSPB is in fact in a position to help persuade the statutory authorities, especially FCS, that changes in policy and processes are necessary, especially regarding grants, definitions and protection. This would also influence other OCP owners of the need to adopt natural systems, and avoid interventions such as planting except as a very last resort.

Obviously we believe this is the most important conservation campaign in Scotland right now.

Basil Dunlop
Grantown-on-Spey

* Reference: “Report on the Future Management of the Abernethy Forest Estate as a Nature Reserve” for RSPB by Forest Conservation Services, 1988.

Adam Watson to Clifton Bain (RSPB)

From: Adam Watson
To: Clifton Bain, Dave Morris, Dick Balharry, Basil Dunlop
Sent: 2 November 2013
Subject: Rights and wrongs of tree planting at Abernethy

Clifton

I received your letter of 23 October addressed to Dave Morris, Dick Balharry and me.

You say you have no wish to get into the argument about the rights and wrongs of tree planting at Abernethy. The issue of tree planting by the RSPB at Abernethy is certainly at the root of the disagreement between Basil Dunlop, Dick and me on one hand, and the RSPB on the other. As you well know, the time-honoured policy for Old Caledonian Pinewood (OCP) remnants, since the Cairngorms NNR was declared in the mid 1950s, was natural evolution with minimal human intervention. It was well understood that this minimal intervention would involve reducing unnaturally high densities of red deer. Steven and Carlisle reiterated the above principle for OCP woods across Scotland generally, and this was implied in your own 1987 survey and in the 1975 conference at Coylumbridge Hotel, published by ITE. I made the same point repeatedly in scientific papers, articles, and broadcasts on radio and TV.

The statements in your 2013 book are in line with this approach. I think therefore that you appear to be trying to sit on an impossible fence when you write what is in the first sentence of this paragraph. You really ought to write what you believe on this matter. Ducking it will not do!

The RSPB received some local criticism after purchasing Abernethy, and asked me, a northern Scot who knew many indigenous local folk in Speyside, to write an article in BIRDS, in their defence. I did so in an article published in 1991, where I praised their aims of expanding the old woodland by natural tree regeneration, cutting the unnaturally high deer numbers to allow this. When I heard in spring this year about the RSPB U-turn and ditching of the long-established policy in order to pursue planting of many thousands of trees, I was astounded. The RSPB had hastened to request my help 20 years ago, but had not bothered to consult me about the U-turn. This is why I told Rob Edwards of the Sunday Herald that I felt betrayed by turncoats. Moreover, the RSPB did not consult local acknowledged experts such as Basil Dunlop, Dick Balharry, and soil scientist Sandy Walker who had done more fieldwork on soils at Abernethy than everyone before combined.

You mention the use made of a photo in your book, and criticise such ‘tactics’ being used. I was the person who brought this up with Stuart Housden. I asked him whether planting of broadleaved trees was allowed in that site. He did not reply, and at that point none of us had seen the EIA. Stuart has now stated in a letter to me that the EIA is publicly available on the FCS website, and he is to send me a copy on CD. I still have not seen it. You will know whether such planting in that site is allowable or not. Perhaps you could tell me, and also say roughly the season and year when the photo was taken by Des Dugan.

It is correct for you to say that Abernethy is in favourable condition, and I am well aware of it and of the progress made by the RSPB to achieve it. This is unlike most OCP sites where deer numbers are still unnaturally high and prevent regeneration. You ask why we do not criticise the management at the other sites. We have done. For my own part, I have repeatedly called attention to this since the 1960s, calling it the greatest threat to the old pinewoods.

Let me remind you, however, that by planting at Abernethy the RSPB is closing off other non-planting options for all time. At the other, admittedly poor woods, there is still a possibility of restoring them by natural regeneration if deer numbers are reduced. Abernethy would then no longer be the golden jewel, because the RSPB would have squandered its naturalness for all time. I shall therefore continue resolutely to oppose the RSPB’s misguided and unwise planting proposals at Abernethy, privately and publicly. If they end the proposals, I will strongly commend them.

On the question of a second pinewood book, stressing personalities, it surprises me that you omit Basil Dunlop and indeed that Basil was not among the few of us to whom you sent your 23 October letter. He has been a stalwart for natural regeneration of the OCP remnants, whereas Finlay Macrae for all his efforts in the Forestry Commission land at Glen Affric promoted felling in small areas and planting, as well as natural regeneration. According to Professor Jim Hunter, who told me at the site and showed me the oaks, Finlay ring-barked old oaks in Argyll to plant Sitka spruce underneath, and I personally along with others at ITE Blackhall were astonished to hear him and a FC local forester at Glen More that they had shot cock capercaillies in spring with .22 rifles through the windows of a FC van at Glen More. Hence I would not have thought he was ideal material for your book! You mention some of the contemporary forest managers, and I would be interested to know who they are.

Adam Watson
Crathes

George Campbell (RSPB) to Joe Dorward

From: George Campbell
To: Joe Dorward
Sent: 1 November 2013
Subject: Fund Raising Standards Board (Abernethy Forest – Complaint)

Dear Mr Dorward

I refer to your e-mail of 1st November to Stuart Housden regarding the above. Your original complaint was about fundraising techniques, and referenced the Fundraising Standards Board, and so your e-mail was reviewed by our compliance team in the light of the relevant codes: the words and phrases which were highlighted are all within the scope of the codes.

George Campbell
Inverness

Joe Dorward to George Campbell (RSPB)

From: Joe Dorward
Sent: 26 October 2013
To: George Campbell
Subject: Abernethy Forest Regeneration

George,

Thank you for your reply of the 25th.

I am glad to hear that there are no reasons for the RSPB not to share the EIA – other than the annexes about sensitive bird breeding sites – and I look forward to reading it. If the resulting PDF is not too large, can you have it emailed to me ? It would mean less-effort for you and allow me to see it sooner. If it is too large for email you can post the disk to me.

I do realise that the RSPB would like to consider this matter closed and that the EIA dates to 2011. That said, I only heard about the existence of the RSPB plan to plant at Abernethy this year and see no reason to accept it as a ‘done deal’ just because the RSPB have done everything required of them by the process.

Many years ago I took a college course about the logic of arguments, since then I have found it to be the most practically useful course I have ever taken. So, when you tell me that many people support your plans, I immediately see that for the fallacy it is. There was never any doubt in my mind that many people would support your plans and I suspect it probable that for many people the RSPB still has a ‘blank card’.

In any case – as you point out – I don’t have the facts about this issue, which is why I’m asking you these questions, but I would very much like to know the details of the RSPB planting plans for Abernethy Forest.

George – you DO have a curious way of NOT answering my questions about what broadleaves you have planted, where you have planted them, and where you intend planting Scots Pines. I ask my questions framed in positive terms and your answers are either vague or framed in negative terms. It would help me very much if you could tell me where you HAVE planted broadleaves (which species and how many of each) and where you DO INTEND planting Scots Pines (rather than telling me where you DON’T INTEND planting Scots Pines).

I suspect you to be an educated and intelligent person, that you’d not be where you are if you weren’t, and I would take some convincing that you’re NOT ‘cleverly’ avoiding answering. I realise that ‘near’ is a subjective term, but if I know where you do intend planting Scots Pines I can make my own mind up about whether they will be too-near the Old Caledonian Pines.

I found your history of the interaction between the RSPB and Ramblers Scotland interesting, but I am not an apologist for Ramblers Scotland and have no view about their behaviour. By reminding you that Stuart Housden got personal by publicly criticising someone else’s manners, I was merely making a point about me – that although Stuart Housden had got personal – that I had-not and would-not.

Joe Dorward
Bracknell