• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Manx Shearwaters rescued (1 Viewer)

Without having seen any footage, or knowing quite how poorly the birds were, my gut reaction is that this isn't a nice story ...

They put down 100 Manx shearwaters 'because they were underweight or injured' ... this is a bird which can live to the age of 50!!! How underweight??
 
Without having seen any footage, or knowing quite how poorly the birds were, my gut reaction is that this isn't a nice story ...

They put down 100 Manx shearwaters 'because they were underweight or injured' ... this is a bird which can live to the age of 50!!! How underweight??

couldn't agree more, the RSPCA are approaching PETA in the level of threat that they pose to anything that they manage to get their hands on now.
 
Yes, I watched the news clip and they didn't appear injured at all, just waterlogged. I visualised them being put in a warm, dry, dark room for a couple of hours then released in a sheltered bay close to where they were collected!
What a complete overreaction by the RSPCA.


Without having seen any footage, or knowing quite how poorly the birds were, my gut reaction is that this isn't a nice story ...

They put down 100 Manx shearwaters 'because they were underweight or injured' ... this is a bird which can live to the age of 50!!! How underweight??
 
Yes, I watched the news clip and they didn't appear injured at all, just waterlogged. I visualised them being put in a warm, dry, dark room for a couple of hours then released in a sheltered bay close to where they were collected! What a complete overreaction by the RSPCA.

You could be right, of course, but forgive me if the judgement of people in the field might just be taken as better than someone looking at a computer screen in a nice cosy room? The terms 'armchair expert' and 'possible libel' :scribe: come irresistibly to mind...
MJB
 
You could be right, of course, but forgive me if the judgement of people in the field might just be taken as better than someone looking at a computer screen in a nice cosy room? The terms 'armchair expert' and 'possible libel' :scribe: come irresistibly to mind...
MJB

so your suggestion is that an underweight bird be killed then is it?
 
so your suggestion is that an underweight bird be killed then is it?

Great leaps of the imagination can be wonderful things, but gratuitous oversimplification isn't, wouldn't you say?

You appear to wish to leap in on a reported statement made in a short news report. Would it not have been better to have asked the RSPCA what degree of emaciation was suffered by the birds in question rather than just making the cheap shot of slagging them off?

If they had declined to respond to a civil enquiry, then perhaps then an angry, even intemperate response might be justified.

People working on rescuing seabirds from oil spills or 'wrecks' from storms don't have infinite resources - even the African Penguin saga had to adopt the triage approach - those that can almost certainly be saved by simple means (saved), those that require assistance beyond the available resources (put down, killed, euthanised), and the middle group that can probably be saved with a large amount of effort, but with variable success (I think the full report is still available from the Percy Fitzpatrick Institute). Such rescues are distressing enough for the volunteers without the added armchair criticism.

If the birds put down in this particular case were not evaluated as thoroughly as the available resources permitted, then you have a point, but to base your criticism on a solely on a media report without bothering to hear or find out the case put by the people who actually tried to help the birds strikes me as unjustified.

Oh, and to answer your question, no, I don't think that killing a bird solely because it is underweight is right, but I do think that the explanation offered to the media was summarised for their benefit, because the media don't want lengthy rational arguments when they've got a 90-second slot to fill. I have seen the media at work at close hand - on many interviews, they tell the interviewee to keep answers short. Often, the resultant interview is then drastically cut. One notable exception I've watched in action was the Radio 4 presenter, the late John Dunn, who was thoroughly professional in his work.

Lastly, I'm sure the RSPCA has its share of incompetent people, like most organisations, and I'm aware of quite a bit of the internal politics that have occurred recently.
MJB
 
You could be right, of course, but forgive me if the judgement of people in the field might just be taken as better than someone looking at a computer screen in a nice cosy room? The terms 'armchair expert' and 'possible libel' :scribe: come irresistibly to mind...
MJB

If 100 Manxies weren't destroyed then i apologise unreservedly.

If they were, then i think you are over complicating the situation. I'm fairly sure i know a lot more about Manx Shearwater biology than the guys "in the field" - who in turn know more about veterinary science for cats, dogs, horses etc than i do. Perhaps the term "armchair expert" could be applied to yourself?
I still don't feel that a waterlogged and exhausted Manxie should be put down instead of re-released. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Great leaps of the imagination can be wonderful things, but gratuitous oversimplification isn't, wouldn't you say?

You appear to wish to leap in on a reported statement made in a short news report. Would it not have been better to have asked the RSPCA what degree of emaciation was suffered by the birds in question rather than just making the cheap shot of slagging them off?

If they had declined to respond to a civil enquiry, then perhaps then an angry, even intemperate response might be justified.

People working on rescuing seabirds from oil spills or 'wrecks' from storms don't have infinite resources - even the African Penguin saga had to adopt the triage approach - those that can almost certainly be saved by simple means (saved), those that require assistance beyond the available resources (put down, killed, euthanised), and the middle group that can probably be saved with a large amount of effort, but with variable success (I think the full report is still available from the Percy Fitzpatrick Institute). Such rescues are distressing enough for the volunteers without the added armchair criticism.

If the birds put down in this particular case were not evaluated as thoroughly as the available resources permitted, then you have a point, but to base your criticism on a solely on a media report without bothering to hear or find out the case put by the people who actually tried to help the birds strikes me as unjustified.

Oh, and to answer your question, no, I don't think that killing a bird solely because it is underweight is right, but I do think that the explanation offered to the media was summarised for their benefit, because the media don't want lengthy rational arguments when they've got a 90-second slot to fill. I have seen the media at work at close hand - on many interviews, they tell the interviewee to keep answers short. Often, the resultant interview is then drastically cut. One notable exception I've watched in action was the Radio 4 presenter, the late John Dunn, who was thoroughly professional in his work.

Lastly, I'm sure the RSPCA has its share of incompetent people, like most organisations, and I'm aware of quite a bit of the internal politics that have occurred recently.
MJB


you really do appear to like the sound of your own type writer keys.

were 20% of the birds found stranded damaged beyond repair due to broken bones,
the answer to this question is NO THEY WERE NOT any other reason for killing them is utterly unacceptable.

what's more this action has inordinately increased the predator threat to those which actually have survived, due to the weakest and most feeble having been removed from their population, thus forcing a stronger bird to be killed as the weak one is no longer available to the predator population.
 
Cheap shots or not, I'm thinking there is something to this. There is no mention that, despite the numbers, they were overwhelmed.

In fairness, the rehabilitation of seabirds is a complicated scenario. {... something about a high percentage of weak birds in care not pulling through at all...} But I'm wondering if it's been a little overcomplicated in this case. How long does it take a waterlogged (and at the time underweight bird) to dry out? Not very long I'd have thought.

Surely, rather than euthanise (which would have a cost too, I imagine), the best option would have been to release them asap to a suitable offshore location. Involve the coastguard or navy helicopter even ...

Would be interesting to know the fat score/weight of the birds which were put down/killed, and how this relates to the weight of birds (which may have just finished breeding, and be in relatively poor condition (but within 'normal' levels)), how this decision relates to policy. I don't think 20% of domestic animals received by the RSPCA are automatically put down because they are underweight, or people euthanising those swallows which turned up in an early cold spell in Italy (?) the other year and which were even being talked about being flown back down south (whether or not that was a actually in the birds best interests)
 
you really do appear to like the sound of your own type writer keys.

were 20% of the birds found stranded damaged beyond repair due to broken bones,
the answer to this question is NO THEY WERE NOT any other reason for killing them is utterly unacceptable.

what's more this action has inordinately increased the predator threat to those which actually have survived, due to the weakest and most feeble having been removed from their population, thus forcing a stronger bird to be killed as the weak one is no longer available to the predator population.

Still with the venom, I see. The response from dantheman is much more reasoned, which I welcome. Still, seemingly no-one has yet asked the RSPCA for comment on the charges made on this forum. If the charges are valid, then as said before, you have a point.

What's with the shouty capitals?

I think I follow your last paragraph, but I'll leave it to others to judge whether you're a sad loss to population dynamics.
MJB
 
If 100 Manxies weren't destroyed then i apologise unreservedly.

If they were, then i think you are over complicating the situation. I'm fairly sure i know a lot more about Manx Shearwater biology than the guys "in the field" - who in turn know more about veterinary science for cats, dogs, horses etc than i do. Perhaps the term "armchair expert" could be applied to yourself?
I still don't feel that a waterlogged and exhausted Manxie should be put down instead of re-released. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Fair points, and well made.
MJB
 
Still with the venom, I see. The response from dantheman is much more reasoned, which I welcome. Still, seemingly no-one has yet asked the RSPCA for comment on the charges made on this forum. If the charges are valid, then as said before, you have a point.

What's with the shouty capitals?

I think I follow your last paragraph, but I'll leave it to others to judge whether you're a sad loss to population dynamics.
MJB

you appear to be under some impression that the RSPCA did not remove 20% of the birds that they got their hands on from continued existence.

as for the point in bold. it's called emphasis, something else which you appear not to have understood.

in fact your general lack of comprehension of anything at all, leaves me feeling that further discourse with you is an utter waste of electricity.
 
what's more this action has inordinately increased the predator threat to those which actually have survived, due to the weakest and most feeble having been removed from their population, thus forcing a stronger bird to be killed as the weak one is no longer available to the predator population.

This is getting a bit silly now, reguardless as to wether it was right or wrong to kill them we are only talking about 100 birds which is actually going to make no difference at all the Manx Sheawaters as a species.

However many millions of Manx Sheawaters there are wont be wiped out by predators because someone killed 100 birds thats a totally insignificant number in the bigger picture.
 
you appear to be under some impression that the RSPCA did not remove 20% of the birds that they got their hands on from continued existence.

as for the point in bold. it's called emphasis, something else which you appear not to have understood.

in fact your general lack of comprehension of anything at all, leaves me feeling that further discourse with you is an utter waste of electricity.

You seem to be under the impression that MJB personally slaughtered those shearwaters with his own bare hands. He didn't, he merely suggested that the people on the ground might have been better positioned to judge the situation than us keyboard warriors. I agree with that, and I would also suggest that your quarrel is with the RSPCA and not with MJB. I also find myself in the unusual situation of agreeing with Adam W; the number of birds invovled is trivial compared to the population size of Manx Sheawaters.
 
You seem to be under the impression that MJB personally slaughtered those shearwaters with his own bare hands. He didn't, he merely suggested that the people on the ground might have been better positioned to judge the situation than us keyboard warriors. I agree with that, and I would also suggest that your quarrel is with the RSPCA and not with MJB. I also find myself in the unusual situation of agreeing with Adam W; the number of birds invovled is trivial compared to the population size of Manx Sheawaters.

Stuart,
I have an alibi defence: I've been in Australia since June, and couldn't possibly have had any involvement with the Manx Shearwater incident...

I was wondering where CaptainCarot got his nom-de-plume: was it the 'Captain Carrot' animated character who urged us to eat vegetables, or was it the Terry Pratchett 'Captain Carrot' of Ankh-Morpork?
MJB
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top