RSPB stunned by Defra plan to 'imprison' buzzards (RSPB) (3 Viewers)

[Robin Edwards]

. If someone esle got the exact same reply, then that is because the question they asked or the topic they raised was essentially identical. So what? I'd say it was an efficient use of our money to use up the time of the office printer rather than a busy civil servant writing a unique letter.

Alf, don't get be wrong, I wasn't expecting anything more than I got but I should say that my letter requested answers to lots of questions that the response did not even attempt to answer.

Such as, Does Mr Benyon believe that spending money to reverse the extinction of the Hen Harrier in England, would prove a better use of taxes than investigating how much money estates are losing as a result of real or perceived losses to pheasants from Buzzards? The response letter is quick to applaud the success of conservation over recent times - inferring that this has been their doing?

Also - what investigations are planned to determine the impact on native fauna and flora caused by excessive, over-release of pheasants?

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

All this came out of a Conservative MP asking for privileges from a governmental department in a coalition government and for a private business so political leanings aside,

I think that's extremely disingenuous, and borderline libel (to link in to a charge you levelled at someone on another thread). I have no particular affinity for Benyon, or anyone else, but I don't think it is right to come at this from a position of saying that he is corrupt (which you are intimating). I was under the impression that this had come about because of repeated requests from gamekeepers to Defra, and then the desk-based survey by Defra that concluded that more information was necessary, and the poll of keepers showing that three-quarters thought there was an issue. Just because Benyon owns a shooting estate, does that mean that he should ignore anything to do with shooting despite it being part of his job? Yes, there's a POTENTIAL conflict of interest there, but only if you assume that a man is dishonest and cannot keep his personal life separate from his job. There is no CLEAR or PROVEN conflict of interest, because it's actually his job to do this kind of thing and support rural business, including shooting. Maybe, just maybe, he is an honourable man, like most other people?

Evreryone has some sort of conflict of interest. Everyone who works at the RSPB, for example, is presumably there because they love birds over most other things. Does that then mean that we should assume that all of RSPB's research is biased and unreliable, because of course they'd want to present things that most suited their personal agendas? Is the RSPB 'corrupt' in favour of raptors, rather than being balanced? Should we automatically assume them to be dishonest on this issue, because they own nature reserves? No, of course not, so why accuse Benyon of being corrupt because he owns a shooting estate?

I'm all for throwing politicians to the wolves when they do screw up and get caught, but just like Hunt, it drags us all down into the mud if we automatically assume that the people elected by the public are inherent liars and cheats. We have to have some faith in the system or there's no point in having it, so until PROVEN otherwise, Benyon was doing the job we pay him for, which is to look after the interests of all countryside users, including those who earn a living there, not just the interests of people like us who go there at weekends.

 

[Alan Tilmouth]

I was under the impression that this had come about because of repeated requests from gamekeepers to Defra, and then the desk-based survey by Defra that concluded that more information was necessary, and the poll of keepers showing that three-quarters thought there was an issue.

As I understand it this came about from the repeated request of one estate/gamekeeper/landowner (whilst the word gamekeeper was used, part of the reason for the FoI request was to understand how the communication had taken place and with whom). The same estate(s) as that specified as the preferred site in the tender document.

Could you provide a reference to the 'desk-based survey' and its results as would like to see the details of this if it exists.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

Could you provide a reference to the 'desk-based survey' and its results as would like to see the details of this if it exists.

It was in a response to an email about the Buzzards issue, which was passed to Defra for a reply, which i think has been sent out to many people who wrote in. This the reply received by a friend:

"Thank you for your email of 1 June to Richard Benyon about the Defra
research proposals looking into the impact of buzzard predation on
pheasants. I have been asked to reply.

The success of conservation measures has seen large increases in the numbers of
buzzards and other birds of prey over the last two decades. The Minister for Wildlife
celebrates that and since 2010 we have championed many new measures to benefit
wildlife across England - set out in our England Biodiversity Strategy.

In January this year, Defra formed a working group that was charged with
gathering the best available evidence on the current impact of buzzard
predation on pheasant poults and other game species. The group included a
wide range of people from both the shooting and conservation sectors and was
formed because Defra was made aware that Natural England had received
several applications to lethally control buzzards where it was alleged that
damage caused by buzzards was having an unsustainable impact on rural
businesses.

As part of the work of the group, Defra commissioned the Food and
Environment Research Agency to undertake a desk study into the available
research regarding the impacts of buzzards on game birds and other
livestock. This study recommended that more research was required and that
field studies should be undertaken to gather more evidence about the impact
of buzzards on pheasant poults and to look at how non lethal methods could
be used to prevent the damage buzzards can sometimes cause.

This resulted in proposals for field research being drawn up and it is these
proposals that have caused a good deal of public concern. In light of these
concerns we have decided to look at developing new research proposals on
buzzards to understand better the whole relationship between raptors, game
birds and other livestock.

We will collaborate with all the organisations that have an interest in this
issue and will bring forward new proposals in the near future."

I don't think many people could seriously argue with the approach Defra took, as laid out there. They seem to have done their best to please everyone and take a balanced approach to it. If I recall correctly, BTO and RSPB were actually on the working group (BTO resigned when the publicity hit the fan; but RSPB?).

 

[Nightranger]

I think that's extremely disingenuous, and borderline libel (to link in to a charge you levelled at someone on another thread). I have no particular affinity for Benyon, or anyone else, but I don't think it is right to come at this from a position of saying that he is corrupt (which you are intimating). I was under the impression that this had come about because of repeated requests from gamekeepers to Defra, and then the desk-based survey by Defra that concluded that more information was necessary, and the poll of keepers showing that three-quarters thought there was an issue. Just because Benyon owns a shooting estate, does that mean that he should ignore anything to do with shooting despite it being part of his job? Yes, there's a POTENTIAL conflict of interest there, but only if you assume that a man is dishonest and cannot keep his personal life separate from his job. There is no CLEAR or PROVEN conflict of interest, because it's actually his job to do this kind of thing and support rural business, including shooting. Maybe, just maybe, he is an honourable man, like most other people?

With respect Alf you are twisting this round for the sake of your own argument and you have severely misrespresented what I said anyway. If you can prove I accused Richard Benyon of corruption then fair enough but you are being deliberately inflamatory by claiming I did and it is actually YOU who is committing libel. Allegedly, the figures for poult losses came from Richard Benyon's own gamekeeper and I only say allegedly because I did not actually hear or read him saying this. However, you are very wrong in what you say in the sentence I have highlighted because the answer is YES he should ignore it or pass it to one of his colleagues. It is not about dishonesty Alf but the fact that someone is using a privileged or particular position to influence a governmental body and use tax-payers money to do so when he has a vested interest in that area. Even if Richard Benyon is being honest about his support for rural business (and there have been a number of comments pointing out why this is wrong anyway) it is that he used figures derived from his own estate to do so. I don't think you are being very respectful by dodging around this issue, especially when I have already said I would accept the findings if buzzards were causing problems. However, I do not think the answer is to poke out nests or remove birds, the answer IS to establish whether the figures are correct.

Benyon is welcome to sue me, BTW but of course in doing so, he would have to admit where his figures have come from don't ya think.

 

[Nightranger]

I don't think many people could seriously argue with the approach Defra took, as laid out there. They seem to have done their best to please everyone and take a balanced approach to it. If I recall correctly, BTO and RSPB were actually on the working group (BTO resigned when the publicity hit the fan; but RSPB?).

I think you ought to check your facts on this one Alf. The BTO and RSPB were on the working group but the BTO resigned because they disagreed with the decided course of action and nothing to do with the furore that followed (I think their statement is still on their website somewhere). What I cannot vouch for is whether the working group still exists or whether the RSPB is still part of it.

 

[Alan Tilmouth]

This study recommended that more research was required and that
field studies should be undertaken to gather more evidence about the impact
of buzzards on pheasant poults

I don't think many people could seriously argue with the approach Defra took, as laid out there.

I take issue with the flawed logic followed here as a decision appears to have been taken that rather than investigate if a problem exists i.e. presumably what most unbiased individuals would understand by 'more research required' DEFRA leapt straight to an assumption that control methods would be required and developed proposals to test them on the one site that was claiming to have an issue.

The proposals if they had gone ahead would have provided no data as to the extent of the problem as it appeared not to be an attempt to quantify it. I won't go back over all the flawed thinking in this thread about the controls proposed as that has been done to death.

You seriously think that assuming a problem exists and then spending £375k on testing methods of resolving it before even knowing if the problem is widespread or just the result of poor practices at one site is a sensible approach?

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

I think you ought to check your facts on this one Alf. The BTO and RSPB were on the working group but the BTO resigned because they disagreed with the decided course of action and nothing to do with the furore that followed (I think their statement is still on their website somewhere). What I cannot vouch for is whether the working group still exists or whether the RSPB is still part of it.

I said "when" not necessarily "because of", although I'd guess that they were worried about members' response (unless you have inside knowledge?).

Something that has always confused me is that this whole story blew up out of a posting on a rather obscure blog, which was reposted across the web, and only after that did the RSPB and BTO etc. make comment. I don't know if that was a coincidence in timing, or whether the RSPB/BTO only 'acted' after it went viral. If it hadn't been posted on the raptor blog, would the RSPB have ever released a press statement? Would the BTO have resigned from the working group and released a statement? This is not any kind of attack, I'm just wondering why, considering the vehemence of the RSPB's response, we didn't hear it from them first. Did they miss it, or were they forced into a public opinion once it became public knowledge?

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

I take issue with the flawed logic followed here as a decision appears to have been taken that rather than investigate if a problem exists i.e. presumably what most unbiased individuals would understand by 'more research required' DEFRA leapt straight to an assumption that control methods would be required and developed proposals to test them on the one site that was claiming to have an issue.

And do you think that we have a better burden of evidence that the number of Hen Harriers is being determined by persecution, as we are constantly being told, or is that an educated guess too? Because there is no actual way of knowing what the number WOULD be in the absence of persecution, only what people THINK it SHOULD be, based on a desktop study.

The proposals if they had gone ahead would have provided no data as to the extent of the problem as it appeared not to be an attempt to quantify it.

I'm sorry, but you cannot possibly say this, because the successful research proposal was never made public (if one was ever awarded). The topic was offered for tender, not the actual methodology.

You seriously think that assuming a problem exists and then spending £375k on testing methods of resolving it before even knowing if the problem is widespread or just the result of poor practices at one site is a sensible approach?

And can you prove that the problem of Hen Harrier persecution is really widespread and a limiting factor on their populations, or just the result of illegal practices at a few sites? The majority of conservationists think it is, and we readily accept that. But when the majority of gamekeepers tell you someting about their business, you demand a higher burden of proof than you do of your own camp.

But you don't actually know how the £375k would have been spent, because it hasn't been made public how the study would be done, so why speculate and then condemn them on the basis of that guesswork? It is all hypothetical.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

If you can prove I accused Richard Benyon of corruption then fair enough but you are being deliberately inflamatory by claiming I did

No, I said you intimated it, when you said "a Conservative MP asking for privileges from a governmental department in a coalition government and for a private business" which seems pretty clear to me.

You said that he was ASKING FOR PRIVILEGES...FOR A PRIVATE BUSINESS.

No he wasn't, unless you can PROVE otherwise.

When Elliot Morley was Environment Minister, he was also an RSPB member, and a very recent RSPB Council member. Was that a conflict of interest to appoint him, given his known sympathies? Or is it different when it's 'the opposition'?


On edit, can you just clarify what you're saying? We agree that there is a potential conflict of interest, but are you saying that Benyon acted in favour of a business because he has a vested interest in it, and so acted upon that conflict of interest for some kind of personal motive, and so is corrupt by definition? Which you seem to be implying in post #258.

Or are you saying that Benyon has not acted upon the conflict of interest, and so put aside personal motives when making any decision, and so acted honourably?

Because if you are saying that he did not do the latter, then I don't see how you can not be saying that he was corrupt?

 

[Alan Tilmouth]

That you choose to wander off topic onto Hen Harriers and fail to address the arguments speaks volumes.
In relation to that subject there has been at least two studies that have been carried out that conclusions could be drawn from ( I'm on my phone and don't have refs to hand). One produced an estimate of numbers based if i remember correctly on habitat available and the other at Langholm highlighted the breeding density of HH that might be achieved if they were not illegally persecuted (amongst other findings including the impact on grouse).
Previous research into Buzzard predation on Pheasant poults conducted by GWCT in the last decade found a tiny percentage taken. A straw poll taken by an organisation with vested interests in Gamekeeping of gamekeepers who themselves have a vested interest in keeping their employers happy and thereby 'toeing the line' is not and never will be 'evidence'.
My opinion on this from the outset has been simple:
Don't spend £375k looking after non-native species.
If research is necessary then do the right research i.e to establish if a widespread problem exists and whether factors such as release pen siting/construction, poult concentrations make a difference.
The control techniques that were proposed would not have established whether Buzzards predation is a widespread issue or a localised problem related to other issues and as has been highlighted by others earlier in the thread involved seriously flawed methodology.

 

[Alan Tilmouth]

And by the way please don't presume to know what 'my camp' is, to the best of my knowledge we haven't met and discussed the issue at length so don't make assumptions about why I opposed it that involve other issues you don't know my views on.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

That you choose to wander off topic onto Hen Harriers and fail to address the arguments speaks volumes.

I was drawing a parallel, and thought I was addressing the arguments?

One produced an estimate of numbers based if i remember correctly on habitat available

Which was purely theoretical, with no evidence WHATSOEVER that hen harriers had ever occupied such a range. By the same token, we could say that Nuthatches should be present right across Scotland, and Tawny owls across Ireland, as there is apparently suitable woodland habitat. So it is clearly very speculative to try and define what a species' range should be on the basis of what we think its habitat is.

In fact, contemporary sources (in the Historical Atlas) make a large play of habitat loss and change being a factor in the decline of Hen Harriers in the 18th and 19th Century.

and the other at Langholm highlighted the breeding density of HH that might be achieved if they were not illegally persecuted (amongst other findings including the impact on grouse).

That is one site, where grouse were also artificially high (and which varies annually, often by a large degree), and so is not representative of everywhere and always. You cannot easily transpose breeding densities from one place to another, as is obvious if you look at House Sparrows in Paris and London - similar gross habitat type, radically different densities of sparrows.

Previous research into Buzzard predation on Pheasant poults conducted by GWCT in the last decade found a tiny percentage taken.

Wasn't this a study of pheasants AFTER release? And so a totally different time frame from the period under discussion, when poults are in pens and so BEFORE release?

A straw poll taken by an organisation with vested interests in Gamekeeping of gamekeepers who themselves have a vested interest in keeping their employers happy and thereby 'toeing the line' is not and never will be 'evidence'.

Come on, do you really think they would volunteer more work for themselves?! Why would employers want to invent a situation of Buzzards being a problem, when they currently can do nothing about it? It doesn't make any sense. But, drawing another parallel, one could argue that maybe the RSPB is inventing this huge problem of persecution? After all, they only prove a handful of cases each year, and the majority of their annual records are 'suspected'. Yet they keep telling us this is the tip of an iceberg that they have never revealed. Can you or the RSPB prove that this iceberg even exists? I bring this up to again point out the inconsistencies of what we are willing to accept from people we like compared to people we do not like, when the evidence for both is about the same (i.e. mostly anecdotal and unproven).

My opinion on this from the outset has been simple:
Don't spend £375k looking after non-native species.

Then you have comletely missed the point. Forget Pheasants as native or non-native, they are simply LIVESTOCK. This is about protecting livestock, or a crop. It could be trout (for which you can shoot Cormorants), lambs (for which you can shoot foxes), beans (for which you can shoot woodpigeons), or apples (for which you can shoot Bullfinches). It is not about wildlife, it is about damage to a crop.

If research is necessary then do the right research i.e to establish if a widespread problem exists and whether factors such as release pen siting/construction, poult concentrations make a difference.

I again point out that you have no idea what the study would have involved, as it has never been publicised. So, for all we know, it may have addressed the exact points you make here. But we'll never know now, will we?

The control techniques that were proposed would not have established whether Buzzards predation is a widespread issue or a localised problem related to other issues and as has been highlighted by others earlier in the thread involved seriously flawed methodology.

I'll reiterate an analogy I made earlier in this thread. 'Widespread' has nothing to do with when it's your business being hammered, and being burgled every week feels no better just because the Police tell you that burglary rates are low because the other houses on the street haven't been touched. If Buzzards affect one single business, then that business still needs to do something about it.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

And by the way please don't presume to know what 'my camp' is, to the best of my knowledge we haven't met and discussed the issue at length so don't make assumptions about why I opposed it that involve other issues you don't know my views on.

I was using 'you' in the general sense. But fair enough.

 

[Nightranger]

No, I said you intimated it, when you said "a Conservative MP asking for privileges from a governmental department in a coalition government and for a private business" which seems pretty clear to me.

You said that he was ASKING FOR PRIVILEGES...FOR A PRIVATE BUSINESS.

No he wasn't, unless you can PROVE otherwise.

When Elliot Morley was Environment Minister, he was also an RSPB member, and a very recent RSPB Council member. Was that a conflict of interest to appoint him, given his known sympathies? Or is it different when it's 'the opposition'?


On edit, can you just clarify what you're saying? We agree that there is a potential conflict of interest, but are you saying that Benyon acted in favour of a business because he has a vested interest in it, and so acted upon that conflict of interest for some kind of personal motive, and so is corrupt by definition? Which you seem to be implying in post #258.

Or are you saying that Benyon has not acted upon the conflict of interest, and so put aside personal motives when making any decision, and so acted honourably?

Because if you are saying that he did not do the latter, then I don't see how you can not be saying that he was corrupt?

Quit with the cute attitude Alf you have severely p***ed me off by accusing me of using words that I did not use. If I want to say someone is corrupt I will actually use the word and I definitely don't need someone like you taking an Anthony Morton-esque approach to re-wording my posts just so that you can inflame the debate. I don't expect you to apologise but be aware that you have crossed the line here.

Right now to the business of answering your points:

1. You know as well as I do that MPs have to declare business interests if it is pertinent to their positions. In this case, you cannot deny that Richard Benyon owns a shooting estate and potentially stands to benefit from measures that he wants DEFRA to introduce. There is nothing corrupt about this but it does go a long way towards breaking ministerial code.

2. As history proved Elliot Morley had his own skeletons to deal with anyway but you are straying from the point. Firstly, you made clear he was an ex-RSPB council member at the time of his appointment. Secondly, why would someone with environmental credentials not be ideal for the job? Thirdly, Morley's background was not a business interest but to be more direct in answering your challenge - yes, I would feel it was the wrong appointment had Morley had a business stake in the RSPB or BTO (not that he could of course given both have charitable status).

3. You will notice that at no point have I suggested Richard Benyon should resign nor do I feel that way but on this matter and this matter alone, I am pointing out that he is not in a neutral position. As it stands, Richard Benyon as a shooting estate owner is an excellent man to have been appointed to look after rural issues generally.

4. You have consistently failed to address this business of 25-30% poult losses attributed to buzzards. As Jane Turner has pointed out, at least one source is alleged to have been Richard Benyon's own gamekeeper so how can that not be influencing the decisions to take action against buzzards given that it has been central to the entire submission?

5. I have made my position clear in the past about shooting and I will state once again that I am not against it morally and I reserve judgement on conservation grounds. Part of me thinks it is a bit of a pointless pastime but then again some people would think the same about bird watching or train-spotting.

 

[Nightranger]

Something that has always confused me is that this whole story blew up out of a posting on a rather obscure blog, which was reposted across the web, and only after that did the RSPB and BTO etc. make comment. I don't know if that was a coincidence in timing, or whether the RSPB/BTO only 'acted' after it went viral. If it hadn't been posted on the raptor blog, would the RSPB have ever released a press statement? Would the BTO have resigned from the working group and released a statement? This is not any kind of attack, I'm just wondering why, considering the vehemence of the RSPB's response, we didn't hear it from them first. Did they miss it, or were they forced into a public opinion once it became public knowledge?

On a calmer note here: I am not sure if there is an answer to all your questions. The statement I read from the BTO said that they withdrew from the working group before the story. I am not sure if the statement was issued in response to the story going public but given none of us were looking for the BTO's comments before then, it is possible that they had already issued the statement. The statement meantioned that the BTO was unhappy with the decisions made by DEFRA but that does not prove much because they would certainly have known about this long before the story broke. We also should not forget that the data being used was not published in a peer-reviewed journal or gathered by formal scientific tests and this would take the matter outside the BTO's remit anyway.

As for the RSPB and Raptor Politics, I think we all know that they make uncomfortable bed-fellows at times but I am not sure why the RSPB did not launch first. It is more than possible if not, likely the RSPB were going to go public but someone beat them to the draw. Having said that, I would be seriously concerned if they were not originally intending to go public but I will not defend the RSPB over everything and their silence over the Clarkson-Packham-Countryfile barn owl incident shows they will bury awkward news if they can.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

The statement I read from the BTO said that they withdrew from the working group before the story. I am not sure if the statement was issued in response to the story going public but given none of us were looking for the BTO's comments before then, it is possible that they had already issued the statement. The statement meantioned that the BTO was unhappy with the decisions made by DEFRA but that does not prove much because they would certainly have known about this long before the story broke. We also should not forget that the data being used was not published in a peer-reviewed journal or gathered by formal scientific tests and this would take the matter outside the BTO's remit anyway.

The BTO statement is here: http://www.bto.org/news-events/news/buzzards-and-pheasants

It makes no mention of the reasons for their withdrawal from the working group. Only that they "no longer" wished to be part of it, as of several days after the story broke online. We can read into that what we will.

As for the RSPB and Raptor Politics, I think we all know that they make uncomfortable bed-fellows at times but I am not sure why the RSPB did not launch first. It is more than possible if not, likely the RSPB were going to go public but someone beat them to the draw. Having said that, I would be seriously concerned if they were not originally intending to go public but I will not defend the RSPB over everything and their silence over the Clarkson-Packham-Countryfile barn owl incident shows they will bury awkward news if they can.

The story broke just as the deadline for tender applications was a few days away, at the end of April, so the advertisement and outline must have been in the public domain for a few months? So I cannot believe that the RSPB was waiting for something else to happen before objecting, as they must have had weeks to do so but apparently waitied until a few days before the deadline. This raises some interesting questions; as the RSPB were on the working group, did they know the content of the advertisement well before they complained? Yet they only released a statement, and a very critical one at that, well after the event and only after it had gained traction on the internet after being posted by Raptor Politics.

From this, it seems reasonable to conclude that the RSPB would not have released that statement if the story had not been taken up by others. Either because they missed it, or they didn't mind so long as nobody else minded. And this makes the strength of their statement all the more surprising. If they felt so strongly, and it is clearly a very strongly-worded statement, then (1) why wait for weeks before mentioning it, when they must have known about it (or should have, seeing as they are on the working group), and (2) why only do so after someone else broke the story to the public?

One could imagine a couple of scenarious, none of which sound particularly good: either they totally missed this, in which case they seriously dropped the ball seeing as they were supposed to be on the working group. Also, RSPB closely monitor all funding opportunities, so this must have surely popped up on their radar quite early? So maybe they only formed their strong opinion when they saw that the public had formed a strong opinion, which sounds pretty bad. The least bad scenario I can think of is that they were simply not told what Defra had proposed, but this seems a little odd when they presumably had input and were supposed to be 'in the loop', and they should have seen the advert. So maybe there were some missed meetings, some low prioritising, someone asleep on the job?

There seems more to this than we know.

 

[Nightranger]

The BTO statement is here: http://www.bto.org/news-events/news/buzzards-and-pheasants

It makes no mention of the reasons for their withdrawal from the working group. Only that they "no longer" wished to be part of it, as of several days after the story broke online. We can read into that what we will.

I am not sure whether they have changed the statement but I definitely remember reading that the BTO withdrew because of the direction the working group was taking. I have never worked for the BTO so more than that, I cannot help you but given the focus was going awayfrom the scientific side, it would be entirely in keeping with the BTO's remit.

The story broke just as the deadline for tender applications was a few days away, at the end of April, so the advertisement and outline must have been in the public domain for a few months? So I cannot believe that the RSPB was waiting for something else to happen before objecting, as they must have had weeks to do so but apparently waitied until a few days before the deadline. This raises some interesting questions; as the RSPB were on the working group, did they know the content of the advertisement well before they complained? Yet they only released a statement, and a very critical one at that, well after the event and only after it had gained traction on the internet after being posted by Raptor Politics.

From this, it seems reasonable to conclude that the RSPB would not have released that statement if the story had not been taken up by others. Either because they missed it, or they didn't mind so long as nobody else minded. And this makes the strength of their statement all the more surprising. If they felt so strongly, and it is clearly a very strongly-worded statement, then (1) why wait for weeks before mentioning it, when they must have known about it (or should have, seeing as they are on the working group), and (2) why only do so after someone else broke the story to the public?

One could imagine a couple of scenarious, none of which sound particularly good: either they totally missed this, in which case they seriously dropped the ball seeing as they were supposed to be on the working group. Also, RSPB closely monitor all funding opportunities, so this must have surely popped up on their radar quite early? So maybe they only formed their strong opinion when they saw that the public had formed a strong opinion, which sounds pretty bad. The least bad scenario I can think of is that they were simply not told what Defra had proposed, but this seems a little odd when they presumably had input and were supposed to be 'in the loop', and they should have seen the advert. So maybe there were some missed meetings, some low prioritising, someone asleep on the job?

There seems more to this than we know.

I agree, it is an important issue and it would be interesting to know the background. I worked in Wildlife Enquiries so I know that a story like this can involve an awful lot of work right across the society to the point that it gets in the way of research and reserve work. I am not saying it is right to ignore an important story or try to let it 'go away' but it is equally important that people realise what it is like to be at the other end. Alf, for what its worth, I doubt there is any deep conspiracy here but I think the RSPB may have been caught on the hop and they would have been preparing their own statement. It could have been Raptor Politics going live with the story earlier than expected or DEFRA announcing something unexpected or before they had agreed (DEFRA are not above making announcements out of the blue, BTW). The one scenario you have missed is that there could have been an agreement about when to launch the story but someone broke ranks. Using Occam's Razor suggests this is the least complicated explanation and is probably the correct one. As you say, it would be strange if DEFRA suddenly introduced something that had not been previously discussed given they would expect the RSPB to counter the suggestion anyway.

Incidentally, while I am happy to let bygones be bygones again I would appreciate you reading my post #275, given you made some serious allegations against me. I am not expecting an apology or retraction but it would be nice if you were polite enough to acknowledge my response.

 

[Jane Turner]

So my Tory MP has now formally responded - has anyone else had a reply?

In the light of the public concerns expressed recently, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has decided to look at developing new research proposals on buzzards.

The success of conservation measures over the last two decades has seen large increases in the numbers of buzzards and other birds of prey. It is important that the Government takes the right steps to protect buzzard populations and ensure that they continue to thrive. As such, it is vital that Defra make these decisions on the basis of the best scientific evidence available and improve our understanding of the whole relationship between raptors, game birds and other livestock.

Defra will collaborate with all the organisations that have an interest in this issue before bringing forward new proposals. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor the situation on your behalf.

Needless to say that I will respond further.

I've now got a more detailed reply......


Dear Dr Turner
BUZZARDS RESEARCH
Thank you for your email regarding the Defra research proposals looking into the impact of buzzard predation on pheasants. I have been asked to reply.
The success of conservation measures has seen large increases in the numbers of buzzards and other birds of prey over the last two decades. The Minister for Wildlife celebrates that and since 2010 we have championed many new measures to benefit wildlife across England – set out in our England Biodiversity Strategy.

In January this year, Defra formed a working group that was charged with gathering the best available evidence on the current impact of buzzard predation on pheasant poults and other game species. The group included a wide range of people from both the shooting and conservation sectors and was formed because Defra was made aware that Natural England had received several applications to lethally control buzzards where it was alleged that damage caused by buzzards was having an unsustainable impact on rural businesses.

As part of the work of the group, Defra commissioned the Food and Environment Research Agency to undertake a desk study into the available research regarding the impacts of buzzards on game birds and other livestock. This study recommended that more research was required and that field studies should be undertaken to gather more evidence about the impact of buzzards on pheasant poults and to look at how non lethal methods could be used to prevent the damage buzzards can sometimes cause.

This resulted in proposals for field research being drawn up and it is these proposals that have caused a good deal of public concern. In light of these concerns we have decided to look at developing new research proposals on buzzards to understand better the whole relationship between raptors, game birds and other livestock.

Defra will collaborate with all the organisations that have an interest in this issue and will bring forward new proposals in the near future.

Yours sincerely,
JENNIFER LONG
Defra - Customer Contact Unit

 

[Jack Dawe]

Yes, a friend of mine has had that letter too - though signed by someone else. A carefully considered official response, and so it should be, but it does skate over the embarrassment that the proposals "to gather more evidence" involved the destruction of nests.

Kind of makes you wonder what else goes on with other species that we don't get to hear about.