[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

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]

Originally Posted by Nightranger

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/...-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.

Originally Posted by Nightranger

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]

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

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

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

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]

Originally Posted by Robin Edwards

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.

[Alan Tilmouth]

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

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

You weren't (addressing the arguments).

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

Which was purely theoretical, with no evidence WHATSOEVER that hen harriers had ever occupied such a range.

Not so, the JNCC study used previous population surveys i.e. evidence to create population models. You only need to look at the diaries of Victorian Gamekeepers to determine that HH occupied a much greater range in England than they do currently.

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

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.

No you can't as they are different species occupying different ecological niches. Nuthatches continue to spread their breeding range northwards in Scotland, probably a situation that has been ongoing since the last Ice Age. As for Tawny Owl there is the small matter of the Irish Sea to contend with.

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

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.

I didn't say it was representative of 'everywhere and always' but it clearly demonstrated that HH would breed on some grouse moors in significant numbers if not persecuted.

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

Why would employers want to invent a situation of Buzzards being a problem, when they currently can do nothing about it?

In a word Profit, the extra 1,2, or 3%. The Game Industry has a long history of predator removal, anything that may impact on profits ( or perhaps you wish to argue this is also a figment of my imagination?) Increasing numbers of Buzzards may well mean that over 2000 Hectares where 20 years ago there was a single pair there are now 10 pairs so losses in theory will be greater though not as is regularly suggested enough to warrant shoots unsustainable.

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

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 tender document clearly set out the four control methods to be tested and the preferred location for the testing. It did not suggest any control sites, or methodologies for determining populations of Buzzard or take on Pheasant poults. How can you possibly suggest that I have no idea what the study would have involved?

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

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.

So basically profit comes before wildlife every time? I find this ugly and morally wrong. If a business can't live alongside other life using reasonable and clearly non-lethal dispersal techniques to protect itself then you have to question if it should continue. If that continuance is only propped up by a sustained loss of life of our natural heritage it has no place existing for me.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by Rare Visitor

So basically profit comes before wildlife every time? I find this ugly and morally wrong. If a business can't live alongside other life using reasonable and clearly non-lethal dispersal techniques to protect itself then you have to question if it should continue. If that continuance is only propped up by a sustained loss of life of our natural heritage it has no place existing for me.

I think the best example of a positive side to this argument is around Loch Garten where a local trout farmer is quite happy to have the ospreys taking from his pens. Loch Garten is acidic and has very little fish life in it so the ospreys have to get their food from furthger afield and this has been going on for years. I am not sure if the trout farmer is compensated for the fish that are taken but I can think of several benefits and one of them is the chance for him to gain a little free publicity, which is never a bad thing. From the scientific side it gives us a good chance to ascertain how much food the ospreys need and how any losses contirbute to yields. I think one of the key things in fish farming generally is that it is intensive and the farmers know that that in itself causes high mortality so it is hard to begrudge what the ospreys take. Anyway, the bottomline is that farming and wildlife can exist together.

[Sandra (Taylor)]

Originally Posted by Nightranger

I think the best example of a positive side to this argument is around Loch Garten where a local trout farmer is quite happy to have the ospreys taking from his pens. Loch Garten is acidic and has very little fish life in it so the ospreys have to get their food from furthger afield and this has been going on for years. I am not sure if the trout farmer is compensated for the fish that are taken but I can think of several benefits and one of them is the chance for him to gain a little free publicity, which is never a bad thing. From the scientific side it gives us a good chance to ascertain how much food the ospreys need and how any losses contirbute to yields. I think one of the key things in fish farming generally is that it is intensive and the farmers know that that in itself causes high mortality so it is hard to begrudge what the ospreys take. Anyway, the bottomline is that farming and wildlife can exist together.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Many years ago when we first started watching the ospreys at the fish farm, angling finished at 5.30pm and the farm then allowed birdwatchers onto the site for a couple of pounds entrance fee. We used to negotiate a weekly fee. There were always a good number of birders there and that's where I firstr saw an osprey catch a fish! I'll never forget it.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by Sandra (Taylor)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Many years ago when we first started watching the ospreys at the fish farm, angling finished at 5.30pm and the farm then allowed birdwatchers onto the site for a couple of pounds entrance fee. We used to negotiate a weekly fee. There were always a good number of birders there and that's where I firstr saw an osprey catch a fish! I'll never forget it.

Thanks Sandra,

I had not realised that was the arrangement but it makes a lot of sense.

[Jack Dawe]

Just in case anyone missed it:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=257829

Better to reply there than here?