Storks soar over Devon again after '600 years'
Storks have made a "phenomenal" return to Devon after centuries of being extinct in the UK.The white storks have been released from a privately owned farm in north Devon as a result of a long-term rewilding and species recovery project. Dorette Engi, who owns the farm, said those watching "all had their breath taken away" when the 10 storks flew free for the first time.Storks stopped breeding in Britain 600 years ago due to hunting and habitat loss.
'Extraordinary'
Mrs Engi and her children have spent several years rewilding her land, which now includes recreated wetlands, mixed grasslands and restored woodlands.The storks were raised in two large aviaries at the site, which forms part of a growing network of satellite locations developed by the Keep It Wild organisation.The storks released in north Devon are not tracked with GPS, but early signs suggest they are staying close, building their strength and confidence before migrating abroad."It's extraordinary. These birds haven't lived freely here in over 600 years, yet as soon as they were given the choice, they stepped out into the landscape like it had always been theirs," she said.The storks are expected to leave in August and fly through France to Spain. The hope is they will stay in Europe until they pair up and will then return to Devon where they were born, as long as there is a colony to come back to. In order to achieve this Mrs Engi is planning to get two breeding pairs of flightless storks as an anchor to create a colony and attract them back in. She said: "It's a dangerous journey but I hope they have a good time and enjoy their Spanish holiday."
"I'm Swiss - there are storks everywhere - so for me they are a little bit part of the landscape," she said."We all look up and stop whatever we're doing. They're beautiful."She said the release was "phenomenal" and "it was completely unexpected how nerve-wracking" it was.Nick Viney, director at Keep It Wild, said: "My hope is that more and more landowners will see these magnificent birds and be able to reimagine the land in their stewardship, into one where we can all thrive."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
I like Aussies but there is one huge issue with your culture I just can't get past: 'Sorry if you're offended'
A Swedish-born former Australian resident in his 20s has made an observation about Aussie attitudes that has sparked a heated online discussion. The young man, who 'partially grew up' living and attending school in Queensland before moving back to Europe, shared his observation about the apparent lack of value Australians place on education and intellectual pursuits. Taking to Reddit, he shared his views in an 'Ask An Aussie' subreddit post titled: 'What is the cause of Australian anti-intellectualism?' 'I would like to begin by saying that I like Australia and Australians, and I hope I don't come across as offensive. This is just one aspect of Australian society,' he began. 'In my experience, people in Australia tend to not value education so much. 'When they do, it's usually because it leads to a higher-paying job. Knowledge for the sake of knowing is not really valued, the dominating idea being that education only matters if it can be capitalised on.' The lengthy post saw the man explain that he came to this conclusion after leaving Australia and moving back to Sweden, and later France. During his time attending school Down Under, the self-declared 'bookish' man said he 'often felt estranged from other students' on account of his thirst for learning. He added that he struggled to find like-minded 'people who were interested in literature, poetry and even politics'. 'Very few read books in their free time,' he added. The post concluded by asking Aussies to weigh in on this perceived anti-intellectual attitude and offer some explanations. The recent post quickly lit up with over 1,500 responses. Perhaps surprisingly, many were from Aussies who agreed with aspects of the original poster's sentiment. The reply that received the most upvotes surmised the issue as stemming from a broader Australian social attitude of wanting to fit in. The short but popular comment explained: 'In high school, it doesn't pay to be scholastic or otherwise different or you get mocked. Sad really, and this often carries forward into everyday life.' 'Too well spoken? Pronounce your words correctly? You might get bullied,' one replied. A different but related explanation was also suggested in regard to the value Australian culture places on sporting achievements. Many commenters highlighted that while academic prowess could sometimes be a source of ridicule during schooling years, Australian students were, however, encouraged to proudly excel at sports. One commenter said they were 'made fun of' at school for being 'studious and bad at sports'. Another raised the idea more broadly, writing in part that Australia 'prizes physical pursuits over intellectual ones'. However, many were at pains to explain that Australians do indeed hold value in the pursuit of education. The difference, however, is that many Australians are conscious not to show off for being 'too 'clue-y' or 'booksmart' because it projects an air of being 'an arrogant a***hole who is far too "up themselves"'. '[T]here's absolutely people around in Australia who enjoy intellectual pursuits, but keep low key about it,' read one reply. 'We have high rates of education, but we hate class distinction,' explained another response. 'If people feel like you are using jargon or bigger words than you need to, they will call you on it because they will assume you are putting on airs.' This also led to commentary about the pervasiveness of 'tall poppy syndrome' in Australian society, and how it discouraged those who were intellectually inclined from outwardly expressing these interests. 'I think a lot of Australian identity is shaped by the tall poppy syndrome and rebellion against elitism, which many Australians tie to intellectualism,' read part of one longer post. A financial argument also offered an interesting explanation for the perceived lack of value Australians place on a generalised pursuit of knowledge. 'Until recently you could get an extremely well-paying job in Australia with minimal, if any, education, mostly through mining. This led to a lot of people dismissing education as pointless, useless and expensive,' explained one commenter. Another agreed, writing: 'I've got mates without degrees or school-completion certificates who earn filthy money for mining companies, oil refineries etc.' 'The ability to earn money – lots of it – is valued much, much more highly than intelligence,' read part of another reply. But many commenters felt this attribute was actually something to 'love' about Australia, because it meant that 'unskilled workers can make good money and have a good life'. 'I think Australia tends to be fairly egalitarian,' one wrote. 'So in the same way we don't look up to intellectual jobs, we don't look down on trades or manual labour jobs.' To this point, even the original poster agreed that this was true of Australian society. Others pointed to the fact that while higher education was free in Sweden, in Australia university attracts huge fees, which has financial implications. 'Education is much cheaper in Europe. To get it here, you go into debt for a very long time. That means you need to get your money's worth,' one explained. 'Knowledge, for the sake of knowing, doesn't put food on the table or a roof over your head,' added another. Ultimately, many responders surmised that this perceived anti-intellectual attitude held by Australians was probably a result of a combination of the aforementioned factors. One response reflected: 'Intellectualism is considered 'navel-gazing' - sort of a self-indulgent waste of time. Others have mentioned tall-poppy syndrome, and I think that's partially true.' They concluded that this had created a feeling that 'non-productive' or 'non-capitalisable' styles of educational inquiry were 'frivolous'.
Times
5 hours ago
- Times
Surrogacy rules are outdated and heartless
Before the Scottish philosopher Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, he authored another book that's far less well known. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith argues that we humans have a natural gift for putting ourselves in other people's shoes and that this hardwired empathy helps shape our ethics. That idea feels right to me so, if I may, I'd like to tap into your sympathy by asking you to picture yourself in the following situation. Imagine you're a man whose wife was diagnosed with ovarian cancer a few years ago. Doctors were able to save her life by removing her womb and blasting her with radiation, but that treatment means she'll never carry a child. Before the gruelling medical interventions began, your wife's eggs were frozen — so now the disease is in remission, you have the chance to have the family you've dreamt of, but you'll have to go down the surrogacy route where someone else compassionately carries your baby for you. • Ms Rachel, the 'human Teletubby' driving British parents mad It takes a long time but you eventually find a surrogate via Facebook — a 33-year-old mum of four. An IVF clinic mixes your sperm with your partner's egg and implants the embryo into the surrogate's womb. After an agonising wait, you get a positive result on the pregnancy test. You're with your surrogate when you discover you're going to be a father for the first time, and you're at her side during the ultrasound scans as you see your baby growing. Finally the delivery date arrives and, when your daughter is born, you cradle her in your arms, convinced you'll never love anything, or anyone, this much again. But within hours of the birth — out of the blue — the surrogate tells you she has changed her mind and wants to keep your infant. Soon after, she leaves the hospital with your child and, eight agonising months later, your case is finally heard by a judge who rules that the surrogate is allowed to keep your baby. For ever. Can you imagine the devastation you'd feel if this happened to you? Shockingly, this nightmarish scenario — a surrogate being allowed to keep a child that is 100 per cent genetically yours — can happen in the UK because of a statutory framework rushed in by Margaret Thatcher's government in 1985. That year, a mother named Kim Cotton had carried an embryo for a couple who couldn't have a baby themselves. Surrogacy was a novel concept at the time, so this was big news. Cotton explained to the press that she was happy to be able to help people in need — it was an act of compassion. • NHS to offer whole genome sequencing to every newborn baby Reactionaries in Thatcher's Britain saw things differently and legislation was hastily passed that made surrogacy between consenting adults extraordinarily difficult. According to these antiquated rules, in Britain the surrogate is always the legal parent and the biological parents have to go through a long and uncertain judicial process to effectively 'adopt' their own offspring. If the newborn ends up in intensive care after birth or needs clinical treatment of any kind, the genetic parents have no formal say about what should happen. Our country's leading surrogacy lawyer Natalie Gamble aptly describes this as 'the final indignity'. As she puts it: 'After struggling so hard to have a much-loved child, the parents are then legal strangers to their baby at birth.' • Ministers put surrogacy reforms on back burner The negative consequences don't stop there. Under our outmoded regulations the views of surrogates are disregarded; they're not allowed to decide that the intended parents should be the lawful guardians; only the courts can make that call. This also creates complications for the surrogate's spouse, who is forced to assume legal parenthood and financial responsibility for a child that isn't theirs. Sadly, youngsters suffer as well. In Gamble's words, babies born via a gestational carrier are 'born into a legal black hole because UK law treats them as the children of the wrong person'. Small wonder that the majority of Brits who have to go down this route end up going overseas, in particular to progressive American states such as California. There, modern regulations mean surrogates have to pass rigorous medical, psychological and financial screening tests. And critically, in these US states, the courts decide at the start of the surrogacy journey who will be named as the parents, which minimises the risk of confusion or complications later down the line. This certainty is good for everyone and ensures that genetic parents can be treated as the rightful guardians from day one. This means they don't have to go through a stressful adoption-type application after the birth or worry that they won't be able to make hospital decisions on behalf of their son or daughter. We need a similarly commonsense approach here and, luckily, in recent years we've seen thoughtful and practical reform proposals put forward by the Law Commission of England and Wales, as well as the all-party parliamentary group on surrogacy. It would be a credit to Keir Starmer's government to follow these recommendations and overhaul our regressive laws, after successive Tory administrations timidly failed to do so. Of course, surrogacy only affects a tiny number (about 600 British babies are born via surrogacy a year), so a cynical political strategist might call this a 'third-term priority', which is Westminster-speak for 'no bloody way'. But basic fairness demands action is taken. As Adam Smith would say, we should trust that human sympathy means that the British public will be supportive, even if they're lucky enough never to have fertility issues themselves. Here's hoping our prime minister feels the same way.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Sudoku 6,941 easy
Click here to access the print version. Fill the grid so that every row, every column and every 3x3 box contains the numbers 1 to 9. To see the completed puzzle, buy the next issue of the Guardian (for puzzles published Monday to Thursday). Solutions to Friday and Saturday puzzles are given in either Saturday's or Monday's edition.
