FOULA HERITAGE

Foula - The Edge of the World

Protection of The Great Skua

From The Scotsman 04/01/1933

Penkaet Castle, Pencaitland, Edinburgh, December 31, 1932

SIR, - May I deal briefly with the three chief arguments for the abolition of the protection of the great skua?

First, the great skua is supposed to attack young lambs and other domestic animals. Despite this assertion, very careful inquiries in Foula, which, owing to its inaccessibility, is not generally known to be their chief breeding-place, have discovered only one doubtful case during this century. This was a domestic duckling which strayed to a loch in the centre of the island and disappeared. Nothing pointed to the guiltiness of the bonxie, though he might have been the cause of its death. Two clumsy statements were also made by persons who were known to be stealing eggs, but with rather less foundation. The habits of the same species often vary considerably with the locality. But it seems very odd that there should be no authentic case in their chief haunt.

Secondly, they heartlessly attack gulls in order to obtain their food. But it is a queer sort of kindness on the part of humanity to suggest killing the bonxies because they bully the gulls to make them give up the fish they have caught. One might just as well suggest killing all the gulls in order to protect the poor fish.

Thirdly, the threatened extinction of the whimbrel is due to the bonxies. This bird is plentiful in the Arctic regions, but there are only a dozen or so left in Shetland. The undoubted evidence is that a bonxie once attacked a whimbrel’s nest. But in this case there seems to be no reason why protection should not be abolished locally, for it is certainly ridiculous to abolish it all over the British Isles. In Foula, for instance, there are no whimbrels to protect. If this suggestion were adopted, a Government or other official should collect the eggs for our museums. Long before the Wild Birds’ Protection Acts, the bonxie was protected with infinite trouble and expense by the Edmonstons of Unst, and, to a lesser extent, by us in Foula. The bird would otherwise have become extinct. It is to be hoped that it will still be preserved in Unst and Foula, even if it is not wanted in Roxburghshire.

The real reason, however, why some people clamour for the removal of the protection is that, in spite of it, many eggs are sold to collectors and fetch about 9s. per dozen. These clamorous voices would like to abolish protection so that they may take the eggs without infringement of the law and hurt to their consciences. – I am, &c. IAN STOUGHTON HOLBOURN OF FOULA.

“The Protection of the Great Skua”

From The Scotsman 25/04/1933

25 Gloucester Street, Wangannui, New Zealand, March 6, 1933

SIR, - Under the above heading I see a reprint from your issue of 11^th January appearing in the Shetland Times of the 21^st of the same month, and as I had quite a friendly feeling towards this bird, I would like to make a few remarks on the protection extended to it. Had Mr Holbourn included our names in the letter stating that but for the Edmonston’s Trust and “us,” the bonxie, to give it the local name, would have become extinct, this letter would never have been written, but although we are so far away, and to a certain extent almost as extinct as the bird, I consider that I am in duty bound to my late father’s memory to relate the facts. Briefly, they are these. My father, the late Dr. Scott, R.N., became proprietor of the Island of Foula in 1850, from which date onwards until his death in 1875, he in connection with Mr Thomas Edmonston did his best to protect these birds. There were at this time four pairs at “Hermaness,” Unst, and sixteen pairs in Foula, which seems to have been their original home. On my father’s death the protection was continued, and in 1891 the Zoological Society of London presented to Mr L. Edmonston (a nephew of Mr Thomas Edmonston) the large silver medal of the Society, round which was inscribed (in my case), “For many years’ protection of the Great Skua in Foula, by Robert T. C. Scott, 1891.” While not wanting to detract any credit from Mr Holborn for his assistance in protecting the bird, I heartily endorse all he states on its behalf, and may add that I have always heard it remarked that neither “raven,” “crow,” nor even “sea eagle,” could find a resting-place where the “bonxie” had made his home. It would thus appear that the protection was fully appreciated long before Mr Holbourn was ever heard of, and must be my excuse for writing this letter giving the credit to the gentlemen both long deceased, who originated the attempt to preserve the Great Skua from extinction. – I am, &c. R. T. C. SCOTT, late of Melby, Shetland.