[jacana]

Originally Posted by Nightranger

I do not disagree with this but isn't it a case of questioning which methods are most relevant. I assume you read Ian Newton's monograph on the sparrowhawk and there is no mention of grey partridges as prey from what I remember. Therefore, any additional evidence from other analyses is all about whether you accept it to be relevant or whether it is ventured to support a pre-determined position. I am not saying the GWCT report is wrong but it is placed in such a way that it can be read with a bias. Yet again, I am sure you will re-write my words to say that I am panning the GWCT so I do not know how else to say it.

I may be wrong here but I assume the GWCT study has been peer reviewed whereas a book has had no such process applied to it which leaves the author more room for personal bias. Therefore new evidence from books carries less weight. Plus the book was published in the mid 80's when such studies may not have been carried out.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by jacana

I may be wrong here but I assume the GWCT study has been peer reviewed whereas a book has had no such process applied to it which leaves the author more room for personal bias. Therefore new evidence from books carries less weight. Plus the book was published in the mid 80's when such studies may not have been carried out.

Will, Ian Newton's book was based on his own research and this would have been peer-reviewed and published elsewhere. Sadly, I do not have a copy of the book to tell you where the papers were published.

[Nightranger]

OK Alf, cards on the table here because this could have been a good line of discussion within Chris' thread had you not opened the manual on slick Internet debating techniques.

Firstly, I am well aware that this subject is dangerously loaded with moral traps and whilst I acknowledge that you may not have purposefully laid those traps I have no great desire to fall into one. With this in mind, it is disrespectful and morally wrong of you to push for me to give an answer that you want me to give. If I have in your eyes only given a partial answer then has it occurred to you that I may not want to go any further? This is actually no different from what you have chosen to do on other threads and I respect your right to do so.

Secondly, if you think you have hit a nerve then you are darn right. A certain ex-contributor to BF tried using the technique of re-interpreting what I was saying and then went on to quote one of my sentences out of context elsewhere. This nearly ended up with me being dismissed from my job and if you have had something similar done to you then you will understand my resentment and why I lost patience with you.

However, let us go into two examples in a bit more detail in case you do not understand why I am annoyed. The GWCT is a genuinely intriguing piece of work but the way you applied it to this discussion and then went on to discuss how this would justify putting sparrowhawks under Special License conditions. I genuinely do not see how this is not invoking the point that sparrowhawks are specifically taking grey partridges. I merely challenged this idea and I did not say that I thought that it required the sparrowhawk to be a specialist. What actually happened is that you leapt on my point to claim something that I clearly did not say.

Similarly, to change the word 'useful to 'acceptable' within the context of what I said is disrespectful beyond belief. I doubt if there is anyone who has read this thread who thinks the two words are interchangeable without changing the meaning of what I said. It seems not to have occurred to you that I deliberately chose the word too and had I wanted to use the word 'acceptable' I would have done so. It is this issue that leads me to think your motives are driven by an egotistical desire.

In conclusion Alf, I have no desire to give an answer that I do not want to give any more than you would. I do not see how not giving you the answer you want me to give is relevant. IMHO, it is pointless to set the rules of engagement in a debate and then not keep to them or change them because it means no one can get any sort of resolution. This is what you did on another thread too then you chose to leave the debate when I asked you for further clarification - fair enough, that is your choice and I respect it so do me the favour of respecting me. At the end of the day Alf, it is simple that the same rules apply to all of us equally or they do not apply at all and BF becomes (or goes back to) a free-for-all.

[jacana]

Originally Posted by Nightranger

Will, Ian Newton's book was based on his own research and this would have been peer-reviewed and published elsewhere. Sadly, I do not have a copy of the book to tell you where the papers were published.

no doubt but the the synthesis that is the book could show the bias, that was my point

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by jacana

no doubt but the the synthesis that is the book could show the bias, that was my point

You would have to take that up with Ian Newton, Will. However, what I can tell you is that Ian Newton was acting as an independent researcher at the time and not (as he is now) as an RSPB honorary board member so I doubt there was any bias. Each to his own but it was never my intention to be a champion of BoPs, it was a role I was cast into when I worked for the RSPB. As such, I read Ian Newton's book from cover to cover to make sure I had all the current facts to hand and I appear to be stuck with this reputation even though I left the RSPB almost five years ago. I am intrigued by more recent research but once you start digging below the surface, you find that the conclusions are not supported by the data. I have absolutely no reason for rejecting the GWCT submission at face value but IMO, Alf is using it to position himself purely for the attack and not because he believes in its conclusions. If he does believe in the conclusions then it is surely in contradiction to what he said shortly after he joined this thread:

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

And to counter your accusation of trollery, this is not a case of being against Sparrowhawks, but being for crows. And being for rational justification and against hypocrisy. It is disturbing how even conservationists can subscribe to this notion of corvids as 'trash birds' with less 'rights' that other species and turning a blind eye to their being killed with impunity and often for no justifiable reason. Yet, because of their extreme intelligence they are arguably deserving of greater protection than most other species - not less. After all, we grant the Great Apes special protection because of their intelligence (e.g. experimentation is banned), and corvids can out-perform Great Apes in some intelligence tests.