John B (not the sloop)
Don't blame me I didn't vote for 'em
Yet another uncontrolled dog incident :C
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8138440.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8138440.stm
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Dog attacks juvenile Chough in Cornwall (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter John B (not the sloop)
- Start date
ChrisKten
It's true, I quite like Pigeons
There are numerous incidents of uncontrolled Dogs (I'm a Dog lover BTW) attacking wildlife. Those sorts of incidents should not occur, as owners should always have control of their Dogs.
But to be fair, this particular "attack" is merely an anecdote. I see no proof that an attack actually happened, just a "He said". Apologies in advance if I somehow missed something in the article.
But to be fair, this particular "attack" is merely an anecdote. I see no proof that an attack actually happened, just a "He said". Apologies in advance if I somehow missed something in the article.
John B (not the sloop)
Don't blame me I didn't vote for 'em
Well I guess that the RSPB vol could have made it up. Seems unlikely though..... I'm just glad that no Chough was damaged.
apbarr
Well-known member
Sounds like a publicity stunt to me, make it up and issue a press release to prevent it actually happening
Sure, there's no proof the incident took place beyond word of mouth and the fact that uncontrolled-dog-related bird bothering is more regular than... something regular (I can't think of a suitable analogy), but theres even less evidence to suggest that the volunteer/rspb/whoever would resort to outright lies to get headlines...
ChrisKten
It's true, I quite like Pigeons
Word of mouth isn't proof, it's an anecdote, it's hearsay. But even with hearsay there's usually a name at least; "Mr Smith said", "John said". There's nothing in the article, no name at all.
There's not even a vague description of the "Dog", was it large or small? Did it chase the bird? Why did it stop chasing the bird?
There are simply no details to this "incident". Because of the lack of any facts most here have failed to react to the story, usually such a story would provoke many responses.
And of course uncontrolled Dogs attack wildlife, I even said so in my post here. We should condemn these incidents and try to find ways to prevent them. But we can't react to an individual incident without evidence that the incident took place.
I think you missed my point, and perhaps I worded things badly - "proof" was clearly the wrong word, "evidence" would have sufficed. Allow me to reword:
The only things we have to go on are the word of mouth anecdote in the article and the likelyhood of such an event taking place. As for the anecdotal evidence, one has to wonder if the chance of the RSPB/The Volunteer lying outright to get press coverage, as some have suggested they did, isn't going to be a wee bit lower than the chance of such an event taking place anyway - as we've agreed, uncontrolled dog incidents are hardly rare. I was merely suggesting that accusations of lying were, perhaps, slightly premature, given even less evidence to support them than there is in the original story.
ChrisKten
It's true, I quite like Pigeons
Fair enough, I can't see much to disagree with there.
I suppose much of what I feel about this article is based on my underlying mistrust of the Media. It's quite possible that there was in fact more detail, but it was omitted from the article itself. But it's also possible that peoples' words where taken out of context for the sake of the article.
There's also the fact that these forums are quite widely read. I feel that if we are seen to react to every suggestion of an incident that it undermines our credibility, so to speak.
So I guess I was sort of trying to convey that we'd need more evidence before we condemn something.
But I wasn't looking for an argument.|=)|
Last edited:
Similar threads
