Reinstate funding for Skomer Island's Guillemot monitoring

Choose a State

Our seas and their wildlife are understudyed and recorded, and declining. The reasons need to be understood so successful conservation can be put into practice. Please continue funding the research.

Wirral

It is shortsighted to end such a long-running series of data, and sea-bird numbers are falling, due to storms, poisons washed out of ships, and over fishing. Particularly irritating that £7.5 thousand was spent on a new logo, what a misjudged waste of resources.

S Lanarkstire

Please fund this important study! We have a need to know what is happening to our sea bird populations especially in the face of overfishing and other threats to our wildlife.

Please continue to support this important longitudinal study

It seems unnecessary to cut such a modest cost from the NRW budget, when seabirds are no longer thriving the way they once were. Please re-fund the guillemot monitoring study on Skomer

Surely you can find the relatively small amount required for this important work.

[email protected]

Tiny sum of money, huge importance. reinstate funding now for goodness sake.

Skomar is an internationally important site for breeding seabirds and the tourism it attracts does great work for the welsh economy. The Seabrids are the reason that people visit Skomar and this study will help contribute to long term breeding success and also help sustain pembrokeshire tourism

Seems to petty to be cutting funding for such a vital project that will help give answers to what is happening to our declining seabirds

Orkney

Come on this one of the reasons we visit Wales! Natural heritage needs looking after

Don't cut the funding!

East Ayrshire

I am truly dissapointed that NRW have decided to remove funding for monitoring

I suspect that many of us could examine the Welsh Government's operation in one form or another and suggest savings that would far exceed the amount of money required on this occasion. As Professor Slate says ,"long term studies are more valuable than smaller piecemeal studies". There should be pride taken in the previous foresight which led to the establishment and continuation of the study, and the contribution the resultant data make to wide ranging debates, not in the idiotic "saving" of £12k. Yet again conservation and environment bears the brunt of economies instituted by people with either no empathy or interest in the subjects or utterly ignorant of the needs and value such monitoring makes!

Yorks