Corvid control (1 Viewer)

AlfArbuthnot said:

If we substitute the word 'corvids' here with 'sparrowhawks', and assume that 'nests' relates to the whole breeding period, then it would seem to describe quite closely the results of th GWCT study of the impact of sparrowhawk on grey partridge (i.e, it seems quite 'critical'). So if you think (as you say above) that killing corvids can be "useful" if it limits predation, when why can't it be "useful" to kill sparrowhawks for the same reason? And if it's wrong to kill sparrowhawks for that reason, then why not crows aswell? (reiterating that both are green-listed and it could be done under special licence).

Click to expand...

Alf with complete respect, I am not disputing this but if you think I have not offered my side of the discussion to cover this then I see no reason to continue with the conversation. You have already admitted that part of your supposition is hypothetical and I have asked you whether you would accept sparrowhawks being put on the General License list. For me, that would be the thin end of the wedge and whilst it is only an opinion, I am not sure how I can say that any clearer. In addition, I have made my position perfectly clear in that I do not agree that Corvid (or sparrowhawk) control is necessary in most cases and it appears you agree from what you said in an earlier post. Similarly, I also made clear that this was a discussion so I am not sure why this won't penetrate and why I should justify what I am saying.* As I said to someone else only a week ago, you have the same sources to check through as I do and I despair of this continued egotistical argument that says everyone should back up their discussions (discussions note, not scientific publications) with a source. I am sure you will see this as evasion but that is up to you. I have just got back in from four hours on my local patch and I really do not (nor would I want to) have the time to sit in front of a PC chasing up information that you could do for yourself. If that isn't good enough for you then tough shit, now go and congratulate yourself on winning another Internet debate.

* Alf you know as well as I do how contentious these issues are and it is not difficult to find an Internet site somewhere that backs up whatever point you choose to make.

Nightranger said:

No Alf, you are yet again telling me how I am thinking which is something you seem to be particularly good. You accuse everyone else over moving the goalposts but you are actually quite good at doing this. You do not know how I think so don't try and pretend you do, otherwise I will continue to do you the disrespect of doing the same to you. Agreed?

Click to expand...

I am NOT telling you how you think - I am ASKING you how you think, and if you agree with a proposition. But instead of answers, you are repeatedly coming back with this. I have put specific points to you, as scenarios or questions, to ask if you agree or disagree and why, but you seem to be ignoring them.

AlfArbuthnot said:

You have made the same error as CP in thinking that sparrowhawks have to be 'specialists' in order to have a major effect.

Click to expand...

Alf, I never said this. You have interpreted what I said to mean this and I fail to see how we can move forward if you are going to do this all the time. However, the key phrase here is 'major effect', as I am not sure how the GWCT report can be taken to mean that unless you want to interpret it that way. Can we be clear about whether you are saying this is a general situation throughout the UK for sparrowhawks vs grey partridges?

AlfArbuthnot said:

The % that matters is not the % of sparrowhawk diet, but the % of the prey species that is taken. The former is much easuer to quanitfy (at nests), so is the one reported. The latter is hardly ever reported, except in the GWCT study of partridges.

Click to expand...

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.

AlfArbuthnot said:

That is not clear at all, as you have moved your goalposts and not answered the questions I asked. In the earlier post you very clearly said that there were situations in which corvid control was acceptable "in order to give a species a leg up for a few seasons". I specifically said that I wasn't asking about the general licence, as it could be a special licence as with cormorants. But here you seem to be saying that 'localised' (special licence) killing of sparrowhawks would not be acceptable - but then say that 'general licence' control of corvids is not acceptable either. So what about 'special licence' control of corvids "to give species a leg up for a a few seasons"? You have said this can be "useful" (see below). So let us compare like with like - why would it be "useful" to kill corvids (which i take as 'accetpable') but not sparrowhawks, despite scientifi evidence such as that from GWCT? If not, can you point to evidence stronger than GWCT's, for any species, to justify killing of corvids in situations where sparrowhawks should not be killed?

Click to expand...

'You seem to be saying'??? 'why would it be "useful" to kill corvids (which i take as 'accetpable')'??? No, this is your interpretation of what you think I am saying, which pardon my French, is plain b****cks. You are very fond of re-interpretation in your discussions and this is not the first time I have pulled you up about it. You rightly pulled me up for doing the same thing to you on another thread and I have had enough respect for you to abide by that. However, you are starting to really p*ss me off by continually doing this back to me and telling me what I am thinking. I have already said that I do not favour Corvid control but I offered my points up for discussion to what Chris originally posted. Is this not plain enough for you? Unfortunately, because you have now several times failed to acknowledge this, is the reason why I feel you are just arguing for egotistical reasons. As I understand it from your earlier posts, you do not even agree with the position you have put yourself in over saying that it would be OK to have sparrowhawk controls. I am not even sure you realise that is where you have placed yourself, hence why I asked you the question.

AlfArbuthnot said:

I am NOT telling you how you think - I am ASKING you how you think, and if you agree with a proposition. But instead of answers, you are repeatedly coming back with this. I have put specific points to you, as scenarios or questions, to ask if you agree or disagree and why, but you seem to be ignoring them.

Click to expand...

Thank you...and I have already made clear that my views are irrelevant...unless you want to discuss your views too. I have answered the point about whether I agree or disagree but it is actually you who keeps ignoring points I have made.

this debate is heading toward a Godwin's Law moment......

Nightranger said:

Alf with complete respect, I am not disputing this but if you think I have not offered my side of the discussion to cover this then I see no reason to continue with the conversation. You have already admitted that part of your supposition is hypothetical and I have asked you whether you would accept sparrowhawks being put on the General License list.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I have made specific reference to questions wich you have NOT answered.

Of course we are talking about hypotheticals in some cases - why would we not? We have to talk about hypotheticals if we are discussing things which are currently illegal/legal but may be changed.

Nightranger said:

For me, that would be the thin end of the wedge and whilst it is only an opinion, I am not sure how I can say that any clearer. In addition, I have made my position perfectly clear in that I do not agree that Corvid (or sparrowhawk) control is necessary in most cases and it appears you agree from what you said in an earlier post.

Click to expand...

Yes it was clear, but it was not what I aksed. You very clearly said that it was "useful" to kill corvids to give species a leg up. I asked if would also be useful to kill sparrowhawks for the same purpose, and if not (and you seem to be saying not) thn why crows should be treated differently from sparrowhawks.

You say in the above quote "I do not agree that Corvid (or sparrowhawk) control is necessary in most cases", but I am asking you about ANY cases, not most. I am correct to take it that here you are saying that it would be "necessary" to kill sparrowhawks (and corvids) in the cases left over when you remove "most"? I will rephrase it to make ot crystal clear what I am asking:

You have said clearly that it would it be necessary or useful to kill crows in some cases (I have quoted further above where you have plainly said this is "useful", in your first post on the thread, so I hope it is beyond contention).
So, here is the direct question to which I would like a yes/no answer, would it be necessary or useful to kill some sparrowhawks in some cases, for the same reason that crows are killed?

Nightranger said:

Similarly, I also made clear that this was a discussion so I am not sure why this won't penetrate and why I should justify what I am saying.*

Click to expand...

Of course it is a discussion. I did not think that we were forming official policy here, I am just asking your opinion.

Nightranger said:

As I said to someone else only a week ago, you have the same sources to check through as I do and I despair of this continued egotistical argument that says everyone should back up their discussions (discussions note, not scientific publications) with a source. I am sure you will see this as evasion but that is up to you.

Click to expand...

Egotistical?! No, sir, this is about backing up what you claim, and not making unsubstantiated assertions. This is the system we use in our society to distinguish between faith and fact, and between truth and make-believe. It is not egotistical to ask a doctor if his pills work, to ask a prosecution to provide a witness, or to ask you to give me some independent support for what you say in the same way that I have given you support. That is what a discussion is, and it is very revealing and disappointing that you have chosen this line of attack as some sort of defence.

Nightranger said:

I have just got back in from four hours on my local patch and I really do not (nor would I want to) have the time to sit in front of a PC chasing up information that you could do for yourself.

Click to expand...

Why on earth should I provide you with evidence to support your own opinion? If you do not have the time or inclination to engage in the discussion then simply don't reply to the thread, instead of typing articles of faith that you are unable or unwilling to back up? Is it not highly egotistical to expect me to just take your word for it?

Nightranger said:

If that isn't good enough for you then tough shit, now go and congratulate yourself on winning another Internet debate.

Click to expand...

Re-read that to yourself for a minute. Unlike you, I did not see this as some sort of competition. As stated, I was just asking you to justify what you were saying in the interest that it may convince me and change my own interpretations, which is what disucssion boards are for. Instead, when asked to provide support and justify your own assertions, you resort to this in the place of discussion and debate. How sad.

Nightranger said:

* Alf you know as well as I do how contentious these issues are and it is not difficult to find an Internet site somewhere that backs up whatever point you choose to make.

Click to expand...

Which is why I suggested that we stick to published research. I easily found evidence to support what I was saying, but it seems you have none.

To try and drag something from this sorry debacle and descent into immature swearing and name-calling, I think we can conclude for ChrisKten that there is no rational argument for killing crows but not common raptors. Or, put another way, there is no rational reason to kill crows when it is not legal to kill other species for the reasons that crows are killed. To see the irrational response to this question, see Nightranger's later comments.

Nightranger said:

Alf, I never said this. You have interpreted what I said to mean this and I fail to see how we can move forward if you are going to do this all the time.

Click to expand...

In post 36 you said this: "if you know of any data that suggests sparrowhawks are specialist hunters of one prey species then I would love to see it"!!! If this is not suggesting that sparrowhawks would need to be "specialist hunters" of partridges to have the effect of suppression, then what on Earth does it mean?!

Nightranger said:

However, the key phrase here is 'major effect', as I am not sure how the GWCT report can be taken to mean that unless you want to interpret it that way. Can we be clear about whether you are saying this is a general situation throughout the UK for sparrowhawks vs grey partridges?

Click to expand...

No, I am not talking general. I am talking site-specific to the GWCT study sites. They found that sparrowhawks suppressed grey partridge numbers, particularly at low population levels. That would suggest that control of sparrowhawks would help grey partridge AT THOSE SITES. Regardless of the magnitude. Although magnitude was 18% loss to raptors (mostly sparrowhawks). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01345.x/full

Nightranger said:

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.

Click to expand...

Newton's data comes from one area of southern Scotland, where grey partridges might not have been available (we have no information). GWCT data comes from one area of England where they WERE available. That is an obvious source of the difference. There is no reason to suppose bias in one and not the other, unless one has a pre-existing prejudice. The GWCT study covered 20 sites, from Lincs to Dorset, so was actually much more widespread in scope than Newton's study.

Nightranger said:

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.

Click to expand...

I have left your words untouched. So please explain why they "can be read with a bias"?

Nightranger said:

'You seem to be saying'??? 'why would it be "useful" to kill corvids (which i take as 'accetpable')'??? No, this is your interpretation of what you think I am saying, which pardon my French, is plain b****cks.

Click to expand...

Let me get this right. When you said in your first post in this thread that it is sometimes "useful" to kill crows to "give other species a leg up", you were not saying useful = acceptable?

Nightranger said:

I have already said that I do not favour Corvid control but I offered my points up for discussion to what Chris originally posted. Is this not plain enough for you?

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. But maybe you can answer it here: is it acceptable to kill crows if it is "useful" in giving other species "a leg up"? I can't ask it any more simply. Please answer yes/no, if you will, for clarity.

Nightranger said:

Unfortunately, because you have now several times failed to acknowledge this, is the reason why I feel you are just arguing for egotistical reasons.

Click to expand...

That's right, is it? And it's me trying to mind-read you, is it? And that's the reason you're the one swearing and lobbing insults, is it?

Nightranger said:

As I understand it from your earlier posts, you do not even agree with the position you have put yourself in over saying that it would be OK to have sparrowhawk controls. I am not even sure you realise that is where you have placed yourself, hence why I asked you the question.

Click to expand...

Because I was asking what YOU think. But, on reflection, I give up.

OK, here's what I'm getting from the debate (or fight if look out of your window at Alf and Ian|=)|):

Corvids are treated differently to other "common" predators (I know Corvids are sort of part-time predators, but the effect is the same). If any Raptor was in a similar position of threatening a vulnerable species (or controlling Raptors would help the vulnerable species), there would be uproar trying to get anything done about it. In fact even the suggestion would be shouted down (actually happened recently with Buzzards, didn't it; although that was a bit different)

So I guess the question is why?

Crows and other corvids have been on this island forever. In our cities, on our beaches, landing grounds, fields, streets and hills, and god forbid our golf courses(3). We see them in bins, eating rotting carcasses on the side of the roads, hanging around pigs and rubbish dumps, and generally leading a pretty distasteful (in a human sense) lifestyle. As i type I can hear the screams of urban children on days out to 'The Countryside' at the mere sight of a dead rabbit, let alone throwing in a big bird tearing away at it. And we can't forget Hitchcock's 'Birds' either... Actually and a magpie's or crow's 'song' ain't going to win gold at the Bird Olympics either.

The Sparrowhawk - the mystery, the beauty, speed, agility, the ruthless efficiency and power. Most people have never even seen one. A small proportion of the population have seen them, fleetingly, for just a moment, snatching birds from their bird table or shooting past as they walk with as many awed by their seamless combination of brutality and elegance as those upset. Only birders see them with any regularity, and can only feel amazed and lucky every time.

Perhaps partly because of the above contrast there is general outrage at the suggestion of controlling any raptor, from both within and outside the birding community.

They fall within 'Raptors', headline stuff for the RSPB and number 1 priority: to allow any control of any bird within this group would be tantamount to failure and deemed completely unacceptable.

It's probably made trickier by the fact Sparrowhawks were decimated in the last century and having made (doubtless with the hard work and dedication of many) an immensely gratifying and satisfying comeback its unintuitive to start culling them all of a sudden.

I think the recent Buzzard legislation was relatively similar to what would happen theoretically in the instance of Sparrowhawk legislation.

IMHO that's why...

George

George London said:

Crows and other corvids have been on this island forever. In our cities, on our beaches, landing grounds, fields, streets and hills, and god forbid our golf courses(3). We see them in bins, eating rotting carcasses on the side of the roads, hanging around pigs and rubbish dumps, and generally leading a pretty distasteful (in a human sense) lifestyle. As i type I can hear the screams of urban children on days out to 'The Countryside' at the mere sight of a dead rabbit, let alone throwing in a big bird tearing away at it. And we can't forget Hitchcock's 'Birds' either... Actually and a magpie's or crow's 'song' ain't going to win gold at the Bird Olympics either.

The Sparrowhawk - the mystery, the beauty, speed, agility, the ruthless efficiency and power. Most people have never even seen one. A small proportion of the population have seen them, fleetingly, for just a moment, snatching birds from their bird table or shooting past as they walk with as many awed by their seamless combination of brutality and elegance as those upset. Only birders see them with any regularity, and can only feel amazed and lucky every time.

Perhaps partly because of the above contrast there is general outrage at the suggestion of controlling any raptor, from both within and outside the birding community.

They fall within 'Raptors', headline stuff for the RSPB and number 1 priority: to allow any control of any bird within this group would be tantamount to failure and deemed completely unacceptable.

It's probably made trickier by the fact Sparrowhawks were decimated in the last century and having made (doubtless with the hard work and dedication of many) an immensely gratifying and satisfying comeback its unintuitive to start culling them all of a sudden.

I think the recent Buzzard legislation was relatively similar to what would happen theoretically in the instance of Sparrowhawk legislation.

IMHO that's why...

George

Click to expand...

I think I'd go along with most of that, George; although don't forget the film Kes (close enough to a Sprawk|=)|).

It's a bit different for me, as I see Crows, Jays, Magpies, and Sparrowhawks in my garden often; I see them all at their "worst" (No malice in any of them though; just trying to survive.) The Corvids are generally more intelligent and more interesting to watch; the Sparrowhawks are well... a bit more so I guess|=)|


EDIT: I've just thought of something else.

I think there's a feeling that Corvids have a choice; that they don't need to kill, they could live on scraps. Whereas a Raptor has no alternative but kill. But Corvids only kill when the opportunity presents itself, and I've seen nothing to suggest that they enjoy killing

Nightranger said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jacana said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Nightranger said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

jacana said:

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

Click to expand...

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:

AlfArbuthnot said:

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.

Click to expand...