|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Uffington White Horse Forum | Start a topic | Search |
24 messages | Select a forum: |
| Thank you for your recent reply regarding my concerns about the involvement of Channel 4 at Uffington. Whilst I appreciate all you say I still have certain misgivings, the substance of which was not addressed in your reply. I should like to put them to you since I gather from your official speeches that a strategic decision has been made to explore innovative new ways to generate income from Trust properties. Whilst in no way criticizing this laudable aim, may I put forward two caveats relating to the specific mechanics of the policy? Firstly, there is a class of properties – ancient sites and hill figures spring to mind – where “atmosphere” and aesthetics comprise the predominant value for most visitors. Therefore, any interference, even on a temporary basis, does indeed involve “destruction” of the essence of the site for the period of the change. This opinion might be dismissed as irrelevant on the grounds of the temporary nature of the change, were it not for the fact that all visits to these places are themselves “temporary” and in those cases where the two coincide the destruction is absolute. Oversees visitors, and indeed British people, may be deprived of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to experience the site at it’s optimum. To my mind, if the Trust brings about such situations it is acting in a way which is sharply at odds with it’s overall role as guardian of heritage. Therefore, it would seem sensible to me if a guideline was formulated under which any future commercial proposals should be refused if there is a likelihood that “atmosphere” will be destroyed, even temporarily. Secondly, I am very concerned regarding the practise of applying any sort of marking agent to grassland in ecologically sensitive areas. I note that you are satisfied with regard to the non-toxicity of the substance used at Uffington, and indeed at first sight it might be assumed that you are correct. And indeed at second sight, when you carried out your testing. However, I have to say I think you are mistaken. I have some knowledge of entomology and have carried out my own investigations, applying very light dustings of chalk to the food plants of several larvae found in downland environments. The results were as I had anticipated, and indeed were as anyone with similar experience would have confidently predicted. There was a cessation of feeding, lasting for at least a day. This in itself might seem to be of little consequence, but the reverse is true. The growth patterns are such that any short interruption invariably proves fatal even if feeding subsequently recommences. I have to say, therefore, that I am not confident that you have received sufficiently detailed advice in order to make the claim of non-toxicity, and you should consider withdrawing the phrase. My certainty is reinforced by the timing of your actions, which were at the peak moment of the year when the larvae were feeding and the flora was growing most strongly. Any testing, by it’s nature, would presumably have been at an early period when the ecology was more dormant. I cannot claim to know any more about downland species than I have indicated above. However, you will appreciate my concern that if I find that your claim of non-toxicity is wrong in this one instance then it could be wrong in many other instances. It would seem sensible to me if you took further, comprehensive advice over a much longer period before repeating your actions. Perhaps the advice should also encompass a study of how the substance disperses. At first sight it might be assumed that a chalk paste, once hosed with water, would percolate through the ground to the chalk substrate. Indeed, this may have been your own assumption or advice, since you have reported that it has now disappeared. However, a pilot friend reported that he could see a mass moving down off the hill. If this is correct then we can assume it will gather in hollows at the foot of the hill, with unknown consequences. I hope you will take the above as it is meant to be, a non-rancorous and constructive contribution. Reply | with quote |  8th May 2003ce 10:54 |
Messages in this topic: |
|
Top of page