Your letters – BBC Wildlife

Bear skins are a product of legal and licensed hunts

I was shocked to see the number of bearskins worn

WHILST WATCHING THE NEWS coverage of the preparations for the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II, I was shocked to see the huge number of bearskins worn by the Queen’s (now King’s) Guard.

How can we as a nation dictate to other countries not to kill their wildlife, for food or due to their threat to agriculture, if we are killing them for ceremonial reasons?

I am not an anti-royalist; rather I’m a man born the year that the Queen came to the throne who has much respect for the royal family and our armed services. However, it saddens me deeply to see how such majestic creatures are thought of as nothing more than an accessory! The black bear has always been revered by many Native Americans and First Nations peoples, it’s a pity we can’t do the same.

P. Lock, Bristol

AN MOD SPOKESPERSON REPLIES:

Bears are not hunted to order for the Ministry of Defence. Bear pelts used are a product of legal and licensed hunts, authorised by Canadian provincial and territorial governments for the management of wildlife populations. Bear pelts are sourced exclusively from the regulated Canadian market, in line with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Reductions in the number of bearskins procured by the MOD would not reduce bear hunting.

Pernicious pests

The article regarding savannah cats (The Trouble with Trophy Cats, June 2022) raises important issues. Australia rebuffed an attempt several years ago to introduce these pernicious pests. Our wildlife has suffered massively at the hands ( jaws) of introduced cats and foxes, considered to be the principal reason for several of our small mammal species becoming extinct.

Fortunately, our biosecurity has improved, but is still not perfect. We now have to work on removing several feral invasive species from Australia, including Tasmania – where feral fallow deer are a particular issue. Unfortunately, the hunting lobby is preventing appropriate action to remove these pests from our beautiful island.

Bob Holderness-Roddam, Tasmania, Australia

What’s in a name?

I enjoy reading JV Chamary’s Instant Expert articles, along with the rest of the magazine. However, in the article on photosynthesis (September 2022) I have to take issue with some terminology used.

While it is true that the term ‘dark reactions’ is generally understood and differentiates these from the ‘light reactions’, the preferred terminology is ‘light-dependent’ and ‘light-independent’ reactions. In fact, when I was at university (many years ago), my plants lecturer would be absolutely adamant that the term dark reactions should never be used because, as mentioned in the article, they do not have to occur in the dark. David Bissett, via email

JV CHAMARY REPLIES:

You’re right, the scientific terminology is indeed light-dependent/independent. And while I prefer to avoid jargon, in retrospect maybe I should have said “so-called ‘dark reactions’”. Avoiding popular terms is tough too. Many people (including me) don’t credit the other leading researchers who discovered that series of reactions, and still use the old-fashioned ‘Calvin cycle’.

New versus old trees

I think Dave Hamilton’s answer to “Can trees solve climate change?” is somewhat misleading (Q&A, September 2022). A study by Paine et al. (2011) found that the amount of carbon being taken up per annum by a 150-year-old tree is equal to that taken up by a four-year-old sapling, after which the sapling easily exceeds in carbon uptake.

This gives the green light to commercial forestry in this country, as the Forestry Commission insists on replanting whenever stands of trees are felled. Also, we need to plant as many new trees as possible whilst taking into account the need for growing our own food. Richard Warner, via email

DAVE HAMILTON REPLIES:

Apologies if my answer was misleading, it is always difficult to get across complex points with a limited word count. A recent study found that trees over 140 years old do slow down in their rate of carbon sequestration. However, the main thrust of my argument was that planting trees alone will not combat climate change. What really needs to happen is a change at the highest levels to lower emissions.

Rogue rhododendron

I thoroughly enjoyed the Portfolio (Rock Stars, July 2022) about the ibex situation improving in the Alps. One thing I noticed was the ibex in the middle of a rhododendron field, munching the flowers. Unfortunately, this plant is highly invasive and my understanding is that it is generally of no use to insects, birds or other animals and poses a major threat to the high mountain environment. There appears to be no effort to remove it – I do not know if it is is possible.

Bob Shiret, via email

ARCHIE THOMAS FROM PLANTLIFE REPLIES:

It looks like the species is Rhododendron ferrugineum, which is native to the Alps. But in the UK, the invasive, non-native R. ponticum can increasingly dominate habitats, including our temperate rainforest. A mature bush can produce a million seeds annually and, if left untreated, the cost of removing it has been estimated to double every 20 years. Controlling it effectively requires a long-term coordinated and landscape-scale commitment.

CORRECTIONS

October 2022 Party in the Park, p85 The coatis feature was incorrectly credited to Murray Cooper in the byline. The story and photos were in fact by Augusto Gomes. We would like to apologise to Augusto for this error.