[Richard Klim]

Magnus Linklater, The Observer, 12 Aug 2012.

[Allen S. Moore]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

Magnus Linklater, The Observer, 12 Aug 2012.

I've not read the whole article, 'tis true, but the caption of the first photo caught my attention: Golden eagles are now flourishing in the Scottish Highlands. I think that I am correct in saying that the numbers of golden eagle barely changed between the last 2 Scottish censuses of the species, about 20-30 years apart. Of course, the caption writer might be looking at the longer term picture, but golden eagles have only recovered a bit from persecution. You might as well say that children are now flourishing in the UK (because they do not have to go down mines). Some of the big landowners will probably regret that, too.

[John Cantelo]

Originally Posted by Allen S. Moore

You might as well say that children are now flourishing in the UK (because they do not have to go down mines). Some of the big landowners will probably regret that, too.

[George London]

What an utterly ridiculous comparison, and ridiculous comment for you to pick up on John. Well done for confirming that you, too, are happy to engage in banal class war school ground sniping, rather than addressing the issues raised.

If you bother to read the article you will see that one of the assertions is that the RSPB won't engage 'the other side' on a rational basis... In fact, the summary underneath the headline states "The former editor of the Scotsman argues that unless the two sides come together our wildlife will pay the price".

So, why don't we all sit back in front of our computers, accuse the toffs of wanting a return to child labour, and before we know it our wildlife could have just paid the price!

Any comments on the article itself? Thanks for posting Richard, an interesting and thought provoking article.

[Allen S. Moore]

George,

The comment was solely in jest. Sorry that it did not appeal to your sense of humour.

Seriously, though, don't you think that it is rather backward for toffs, as you call them, to kill, or have their minions kill, birds of prey? It is against the law, but they seem to think that they are above the law in this. It is stating the B obvious, but lots of people enjoy seeing birds of prey, as they do other birds, including red grouse and pheasants, of course.

Allen

[George London]

Fair enough Allen, went to the Olympics yesterday, celebrated Annie Last not coming last, and I'm a bit hung over this morning... its just to me this article addresses one of the greatest UK conservation issues of our time and i get so frustrated reading endless vitriolic yet unhelpful commentary. Realise the comment was in jest but it's precisely those kind of comments 'in jest' that don't allow the debate to take place on a rational basis. One of those crofters referenced in the article may say 'some of those birders (insert some kind of more derogatory term for us birders including words beards and sandals) would sooner see my children starve than one of his beloved BOP die' in jest, but it is unlikely to advance the critical conservation issues the author is attempting to address. It's like any similarly emotionally charged issue, you have two parties that do not converge in any way whatsoever and so both resort to slagging each other off with little regard to the actual debate.

Of course i think its backward for landowners and their keepers to kill BOP! Not sure they think they are 'above the law' in doing this. Again, you just cant resist a little inference at arrogance within 'the opposition'. More probable is that they believe they are in a 'fight' with the RSPB/Birdforum et al.

Working on the basis that until the two parties do get to a sensible negotiating table, people are going to continue to kill BOP and only in some very rare instances get caught, and the RSPB et al are going to continue with their bellicose stance, it seems to me that we are all part of a movement which places more importance on shouting "I am right" louder than the opposition. I don't want to lie on my deathbed and think, well all goshawks, hen harriers etc are extinct in the UK and keepers are still routinely breaking the law, but I was right.

We can all sit in our cosy forum with a bunch of like minded folk, joking about the opposition but in doing so we are guilty of running away from the debate, losing the high ground and most importantly allowing our tribalism to get in the way of finding a way to protect all our birds, including BOP. I am sure some parts of the opposition fall squarely into the same bracket. But we will wake up in twenty years with a much worse situation conservation wise than we could create by compromise.

None of us like it, but compromise and pragmatism is the only way forward. Unless, of course, you can find a way to stop all these keepers, in the middle of nowhere, covering every inch of vast tracts of private land that they know like the backs of their hands, killing illegally? We should all understand that, like it or not, they will win that battle as they are at the moment.

[John Cantelo]

Originally Posted by George London

What an utterly ridiculous comparison, and ridiculous comment for you to pick up on John. Well done for confirming that you, too, are happy to engage in banal class war school ground sniping, rather than addressing the issues raised.

Any comments on the article itself? Thanks for posting Richard, an interesting and thought provoking article.

I'm sorry if I offended you George - it was an obviously a ridiculous comparison and hence one not to be taken too seriously. Even so, it did conjure up a wonderful "Bateman-esque" image in my mind that I thought was rather funny.

[George London]

OK... It was hilarious. It never actually offended me, it's just a very predictable means of avoiding the relevant questions being asked ie if I don't like what I hear, it doesn't matter whether what has been said is relevant/pertinent/worthy of sensible rebutall or discussion, just take the p*** out of those I disagree with.

I have not read the full reports cited, nor do I intend to (AND i have absolutely no reason whatsoever to suspect that one piece of scientific research/project or another has any sinister motive (eg Chis Bell, migration expert for over twenty years, turns into BOP Hating Killer type thing)) but the general gist of it resonates with what I have felt for a while. As in it's high time that the RSPB, our beloved Birdforum etc 'gets real', moving away from simply encouraging children to seek out criminal behaviour, moving away from trashing research that doesn't precisely agree with what we want research to confirm or otherwise, to the negotiating table. Some of the quotes (which I agree can often be taken out of context) sound so pompous and crass I'm afraid i'm not remotely surprised folks don't take them seriously.

Surely it would be appropriate to give Richard some credit by not only applauding Allen's sharp sense of humour but also offering thoughts on the article? Agreeing with it or otherwise? Admittedly it wasn't posted that long ago but already the wall of silence speaks volumes. What is the solution? Can someone disagree with the article and say why the RSPB shouldn't go to the negotiating table?

[Richard Klim]

I posted a link to the Observer piece because it's a high-profile article clearly relevant to numerous recent discussions on BirdForum.

Although I disagree with many of the points raised by Linklater, it nevertheless gives a reasonably accurate picture of how RSPB and its supporters are perceived (like it or not) by many people (especially countryfolk), given the Society's seemingly uncompromising and self-righteous approach to many issues.

Personally, I think that useful lessons could probably be learnt – perhaps a slightly less crusading and adversarial approach would ultimately be more persuasive and effective.

[GraemeS]

An intersting article, thank you.
To be honest, I might not have looked at it if it hadn't been for the the kids in mines quip, but I'm glad I did :)
Assuming the article is not misleading, the language used by the RSPB is quite concerning, suggesting a lack of willingness to consider the views of others.

[Capercaillie71]

It's worth noting that Magnus Linklater is not an unbiased journalist when it comes to this subject, having a strong interest in shooting and previous form writing articles excusing the illegal persecution of birds of prey.

Having said that, I would agree that there is a lot to be gained by the two sides working together more closely.

[Farnboro John]

I suggest the reason the two sides can't come together rationally is that the shooters are not rational on this matter. I suggest further that this is actually linked to their toff status as they cannot understand or believe how someone can't either be a good little serf and do as they are told, or allow themselves to be bought off.

John

[John Cantelo]

Originally Posted by George London

Surely it would be appropriate to give Richard some credit by not only applauding Allen's sharp sense of humour but also offering thoughts on the article? Agreeing with it or otherwise? Admittedly it wasn't posted that long ago but already the wall of silence speaks volumes. What is the solution? Can someone disagree with the article and say why the RSPB shouldn't go to the negotiating table?

I'll offer thoughts on the article when I read and digested it. I had to put it down after the first page or so as I found its description of the RSPB's policies misleading and tendentious. (As was his opening description of the society as metropolitan evangelicals).

One small point will suffice pro tem - he notes the 'wealth' of the RSPB and its influence without acknowledging the far greater influence (how many Eton old boys in the cabinet?) and wealth (the Duke of Westminster alone is worth c £7.35 billion) of the shooting fraternity. He seems to be setting up a David vs Goliath scenario perversely ignoring that his 'David' in this case is a darn sight bigger than the conservation "Philistine". Still, I've not read it all so I'll save judgement until I do.

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Farnboro John

I suggest the reason the two sides can't come together rationally is that the shooters are not rational on this matter. I suggest further that this is actually linked to their toff status as they cannot understand or believe how someone can't either be a good little serf and do as they are told, or allow themselves to be bought off.

Fair enough if it was just wealthy toffs that RSPB alienates. But it's also done an excellent job of making enemies of (far from wealthy) crofters, anglers and pigeon fanciers - always dismissing their concerns as completely unfounded by very selective use of evidence.

[Robin Edwards]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

Fair enough if it was just wealthy toffs that RSPB alienates. But it's also done an excellent job of making enemies of (far from wealthy) crofters, anglers and pigeon fanciers - always dismissing their concerns as completely unfounded by very selective use of evidence.

Although it pains me to say so, I think you are right Richard. I don't mind admitting that I am a fan of the RSPB because in my view, if you care about birds then where better to pay your memebership fees for maximum effect in the UK? I would say however that as a volunteer and not an employee, some of their engagement from my experiance can be patronising and dismissive.

I can't comment on crofters but I have tried to engage with both anglers and pigeon fanciers to understand their viewpoint, the latter more recently on Dr Mark Avery's blog. Whilst I started out with a balanced consideration of the points being made, I did feel that I was trying to communicate with a a group of people who have such deep misunderstanding of truth and an unwillingness to listen or be swayed, that it felt like a futile exercise. I wonder if others have formed the same view.

[Allen S. Moore]

Originally Posted by Allen S. Moore

George,

The comment was solely in jest. Sorry that it did not appeal to your sense of humour.

Seriously, though, don't you think that it is rather backward for toffs, as you call them, to kill, or have their minions kill, birds of prey? It is against the law, but they seem to think that they are above the law in this. It is stating the B obvious, but lots of people enjoy seeing birds of prey, as they do other birds, including red grouse and pheasants, of course.

Allen

I've read the article now. The point that I was trying to make was that, in the same way that not sending children down mines is a sign of civilisation and an advanced society, so is the conservation of the creatures with which we share the planet. That surely includes obeying laws which protect birds of prey. If some think that they can disregard that law, isn't that putting themselves "above" the law? What expression should I have used instead? Surely we can't pick and chose which laws we obey, can we?

I know the benefits of some types of land management to the conservation of other bird species. I am not an apologist for the RSPB. Neither was I out last night celebrating the Olympics.

[Farnboro John]

Originally Posted by Robin Edwards

Although it pains me to say so, I think you are right Richard. I don't mind admitting that I am a fan of the RSPB because in my view, if you care about birds then where better to pay your memebership fees for maximum effect in the UK? I would say however that as a volunteer and not an employee, some of their engagement from my experiance can be patronising and dismissive.

I can't comment on crofters but I have tried to engage with both anglers and pigeon fanciers to understand their viewpoint, the latter more recently on Dr Mark Avery's blog. Whilst I started out with a balanced consideration of the points being made, I did feel that I was trying to communicate with a a group of people who have such deep misunderstanding of truth and an unwillingness to listen or be swayed, that it felt like a futile exercise. I wonder if others have formed the same view.

A couple of anglers have advanced their views on otters in the Dorset birding thread. Responses were careful to avoid words like unthinking prejudice, lunatic fantasy and stone bonker, but one can form one's own opinion.

I have a good deal of sympathy for crofters who live on the vey edge of what is economically possible and literally can't afford to make allowances for anything unless it comes with compensatory funding, but perhaps that means it is time to clear the economics out of it and have conservation or government pay the a salary to farm for wildlife. Their crops are barely above subsistence farming anyway, not much effect on the nation's needs.

Pigeon fanciers belong in the same box as anglers and for that matter twitchers: its only a hobby and the native birds come first. Tough on your fishing/pigeon/suppressed first for Britain just below a nesting Golden Eagle. We have to put up with it (we do so, I hope, joyfully) and so do they.

John

[George London]

Originally Posted by Farnboro John

I suggest the reason the two sides can't come together rationally is that the shooters are not rational on this matter. I suggest further that this is actually linked to their toff status as they cannot understand or believe how someone can't either be a good little serf and do as they are told, or allow themselves to be bought off.

John

Is the approach you're taking really going to serve the long term interests of the birds we all seek to protect? Is this going to stop them being killed?

An interesting parallel Allen, I had taken it solely as a jest. I agree those killing BOP are putting themselves above the law. What I am saying is its likely something they feel they have to do whether legal or not. Theoretically a birder may feel he or she has to break the law in order to catch someone perpetrating the very act described above.

John you say that he's setting up a David and Giliath situation, I'm not sure it matters nor really critiquing the article either anymore. I've realised its the stalemate that interests me and don't want to hijack the thread so will leave it there.

George

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by Robin Edwards

Although it pains me to say so, I think you are right Richard. I don't mind admitting that I am a fan of the RSPB because in my view, if you care about birds then where better to pay your memebership fees for maximum effect in the UK? I would say however that as a volunteer and not an employee, some of their engagement from my experiance can be patronising and dismissive.

I can't comment on crofters but I have tried to engage with both anglers and pigeon fanciers to understand their viewpoint, the latter more recently on Dr Mark Avery's blog. Whilst I started out with a balanced consideration of the points being made, I did feel that I was trying to communicate with a a group of people who have such deep misunderstanding of truth and an unwillingness to listen or be swayed, that it felt like a futile exercise. I wonder if others have formed the same view.

Having worked for the RSPB, I know there is a certain 'party' line that they have to follow and a surprising amount of this is dictated by the mission statement presented when the society became a charitable organisation. It can be frustratingly restrictive for everyone involved and potentially can involve individuals having to promote a position they are morally opposed to. Nevertheless, the views of the shooting community are deeply rooted in 19th Century attitudes rather than class issues. The fact that upland grouse shooting is still largely for the well-to-do is unfortunate because lowland pheasant shooting is well within the range of the employed masses from urban areas. There are some comparisons between the two but there are also enormous differences from commercial, conservation and management perspectives (yet are both are treated together for anyone not involved). Where the shooting community and the RSPB truly differ is that the former can adapt and adopt whereas the RSPB are constrained by their mission staement. This means that although there is a lot of middle ground to be occupied, effectively it is the shooting community that has the greater flexibility to move into it rather than the RSPB who are already in there somewhere.

[Trystan]

It is not surprising to me that no one can sit and talk rationally about two opposed view points:

It is acceptable to kill BoPs/It is not acceptable to kill BoPs

Since it is by law, not acceptable and yet it still happens then any shift in stance to a compromise of "It is acceptable to kill some BoPs" would inevitably lead to further decimation of already vulnerable BoP populations.

There is no compromise on this, it is morally unacceptable in todays society and we have to fight in it in the same way that other morally unacceptable issues have been fought in the past.

[John S. Armitage]

It seems to me there is a very real problem of this subject being talked about, but with no action being taken. The RSPB has to take this matter forward in a major way, regardless of what has been done before. I'm convinced the situation is worse than many realise and that there is a determined, concerted resolve on the part of the shooting fraternity to gain what they want ( see the article in Shooting Times last week where people are urged to ignore the RSPB ). I worked for the RSPB for over twenty years, much of it associated with raptors, and it hurts to criticise it , but I just don't believe enough is being done ( take a look at the Blog entry ( http://www.birdingodyssey.blogspot.com/ " Raptor persecution......muck or nettles I'm afraid!" ). I believe the situation has gone beyond the luxury of discussion and, very sadly, moved into a different phase altogether. It's depressing but efforts to improve cannot be set aside!

[davercox]

The shooting mob certainly have a big propaganda campaign going at the moment. They even managed a spot on Countryfile a few weeks ago, where the useful idiot reporter was again going on about "compromise" and "discussion".

There is no discussion needed, the criminal law is regularly being flouted and that, you would think, is unacceptable in what is supposed to be a law-abiding society.

[George London]

Dave,

If there is no discussion needed then why are we discussing it? If you are satisfied with the current situation then fine, but if you are not happy with the current situation it seems somewhat unhelpful to post about your determination not to discuss it. It's all very well saying its against the law. We all know it's against the law but I don't think repeating that over and over is going to change anything.

I agree with John's comments though, it needs more than discussion. Again, however morally repugnant the opposition are, refusing to consider any conversation on the basis that we are right and why should we have any conversation whatsoever with lawbreakers is not going to solve anything. There seems to be a lot of rousing chat in this thread but little on how to make the situation better for BOP. Refuse to communicate with the shooting fraternity in any sense whatsoever? Come on, we all know that more BOP will be killed, not less! Given many of the posts on this thread i am beginning to become convinced I am missing something here, because to my mind many of the posts (still!) place priority on being right over actually asking what can be done to protect BOP more successfully, which I totally cannot understand!

George

[Trystan]

Like everything in the world today, working through the system gets you tied up in bureaucracy with nothing being achieved. Working outside the system makes you the criminal so it's not surprising that people just vent their frustration in threads like this.

[anandprasad]

Originally Posted by George London

What an utterly ridiculous comparison, and ridiculous comment for you to pick up on John. Well done for confirming that you, too, are happy to engage in banal class war school ground sniping, rather than addressing the issues raised.
could have just paid the price!

Any comments on the article itself? Thanks for posting Richard, an interesting and thought provoking article.

It is a perfectly valid comparison.
The article is claiming that raptors are doing well in general therefore us common folk should just let the landowners get on with what they have always done. Kill anything they don't like.

The leading photo is enough. It is a lie. GE's are not flourishing. They are stable overall but flourishing in the west away from the shooting estates and declining directly due to persecution on the shooting estates in the east.
The article and that mindset is ignoring the fact that crime is being committed in a institutionalized way by the shooting fraternity. This article is part of a propaganda campaign to grab back this power the landowners have always had and are worried they may be losing if they are forced to obey the law.

The article is like saying that the RSPCC should shut up because most children are not abused. I cannot see anything wrong with this parallel although obviously it has touched a nerve.

To think that this is not a wealth/class issue is just naive. Of course there are exceptions to every generalisation but the generalisation still holds.

I couldn't finish the article there was so much distortion and cherry picking of facts.

If you don't believe there is s deliberate campaign try reading the recent farmers newspapers in Scotland.

This is not going to be solved by discussion but by forcing those who think they are above the law to start obeying it. Not he game keepers the landowners and not £500 fines either.