[Trystan]

Originally Posted by John o'Sullivan

Ian above stated "The fact that a significant proportion of the UK population agrees with me and wants to invest in the future, is no surprise to me."

It's no surprise to me either as the green zeitgeist is to believe in conservation, it is promoted, pushed and supported by "scientific" assertions by the likes of the BTO/RSPB but it is in many ways a fundamentally flawed, pointless, self motivated, fundamentalist, biased activity supported by self imposed stealth taxes in the form of memberships and donations (therefore tolerated by governments), well organised, well intentioned pressure groups and a range of geopolitical psychological pressures.

None of that makes much of it sensible however.

I am broadly anti-conservation (at a species level and current organisational level) but pro-sustainability and bio-diversity (I believe in a meaningful relationship between humankind and the rest of the natural world) and believe it or not it is possible to be both.

I am anti-RSPB as overall I believe they do more harm than good. They do have positive outcomes so I am happy that as a result of their activities we have more varied space for species than we would otherwise.

The major harm they do is they promote the social construct and psuedo scientifc activty that is modern conservation blinding people to more meaningful ways of interacting with the rest of the natural world.

I believe in the power of evolution to promote growth and diversity and sustainability utilising extinction as part of this blind process (one for Fugl).

Evolution and sustainability (probably) did not require intelligent design as provided by a creator to get started or maintained and similarly if it didn't need god it certainly now has no need of conservationists. You won't get that impression from conservationists however they like to pretend that without them life on earth is doomed.

Certain species are doomed but as we are born to die, species evolve to become extinct.

This is the bit of reality that conservationists struggle with-this doesn't matter, in order to promote their activities they pretend it does.

The name of their activity gives it away.

How do you propose that we reach this goal of a healthy relationship with the environment then?

Without the efforts of conservation groups raising public awareness we would arleady have sold off our forests and be in the process of eradicating our birds of prey under the current government alone. Is this your idea of a healthy relationship?

The whole point of CONSERVation is to conserve, not to evolve. We could just give up, let mankind run everything to ruin, enter another dark age and hope that what comes out of the other end has learned from our mistakes but thats a big gamble at a big price when we could work to conserve what we already have, a planet full of resources and biodiversity...

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by fugl

[I know, I know, I've bumped the damn thread yet again. But I can't help it--I'm like a moth to the flame]

At least the thread has evolved (I'll get me coat!) into something more interesting.

[CPBell]

Originally Posted by Nightranger

What is this? There are a lot less people with disposable income now than there were in 2007 when I left the RSPB. Several months later the economic downturn kicked in but when I saw my ex-colleagues a year later they were reporting a rise in memberships. OK, it was not what had been hoped for in the five-year plan but having seen what happened in the economy, the RSPB were not only breathing a sigh of relief but were close to punching the air in triumph that they should see any sort of growth at all under the circumstances.

You need to look at the bigger picture. The current economic situation boils down to the realisation that, collectively, we are a lot less wealthy than we thought we were. The question therefore, is who gets to keep the wealth they think they have, and who doesn’t. The soot has yet to hit the fan because governments continue to borrow money – but they can only do so by virtue of using their future tax revenues as collateral. In other words, it’s the taxpayers – the middle class – who will pick up the tab.

All of this arises in the first place because governments need to keep delivering rising living standards to get elected/stay in power, but a consequence of globalisation is levelling down as well as levelling up, so borrowing becomes the only means of maintaining the increase in living standards. When that ceases to be possible - it hasn’t happened here yet but has in Greece – living standards plummet.

The RSPB grew substantially during the 1970s, but then reached a plateau during the 1980s. Things may have stayed like that but for the fact that changes were afoot. The previously dominant old money/muesli-in-beard brigade were replaced by ambitious corporate types, and marketing went into overdrive. So much so that it became the organisation’s raison d’etre – hence my heroic but futile gesture of complaining to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Eventually however, even this reaches its natural limits, and now they have to burst a gasket just to maintain their numbers – and that’s before their client base has really started to suffer.

http://www.cpbell.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/CultoftheAmateur

[Jos Stratford]

Originally Posted by CPBell

... hence my heroic but futile gesture of complaining to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Petty and misplaced I would say, as it would seem the ASA seemed to agree. And given they are not in other ways engaged with the RSPB, surely a unbiased party (unlike those sacked by conservation movements, or indeed us supportive of the organisation)

[tittletattler]

Originally Posted by CPBell

hence my heroic but futile gesture of complaining to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Apart from the above I reckon that's a fair appraisal.

In many respects the Coalition are right in their attitude towards public spending. But people don't like pain and so they will eventually vote for a party that will continue to spend and borrow (ie, as has happened in Greece and France recently).

Cheers, Andy.

[Jos Stratford]

Originally Posted by John o'Sullivan

I am anti-RSPB as overall I believe they do more harm than good.

Ah John, we haven't met for many years now, but I get an inkling that you don't really believe that.

Okay, maybe individual species protection may not be up your street, a concept at least worthy of debate, but habitat protection (a core of RSPB and county trust actions) can surely be nothing but beneficial. Yes, climate change may make it futile to try to cling onto certain species, yes, it might be wasted resourses to pour fnds into protecting or removing certain species, but just take north Norfolk, or indeed the Gwent levels, without the conservation movements, then would simply be drained agricultural monopoly, no wetlands of any note. Be it the Avocets and Marsh Harriers, or be it colonising egrets and Glossy Ibis, take out the habitat and there is nothing.

Personally, I think Britain is far the richer for the RSPB and allied conservation bodies.

And, to the argument by Bell that the RSPB have moved from 'muesli-in-beard brigade' to money-orientated marketing machine led by 'ambitious corporate types', I don't give a toss ...or actually would welcome it. Just means more effective at marketing = better public awareness and more income, neither of which gives me reason to be concerned. Quite the contrary.

[AlfArbuthnot]

At the last election the UK population voted in a coalition Govt on an austerity ticket. Hardly a clamour for gold and oysters.

Rather than the desert blooms of Greece, Ireland and Portugal, the US has strong growth overall and the UK is in stagnation (not collapse) with interest rates and inflation of essentially zero, despite the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Even Japan never saw living standards "plummet" during a decade of economic turmoil - it has never happened to a modern established mixed economy. Except Germany, for obvious reasons.


But leaving aside the Sheldon Cooper School of Rigid Thought, allow me to try and drag us back to the thread topic, and the much more interesteing subject of how rigorous was your keystone study on Sparrowhawk predation on House Sparrows:

1. What were your sample sizes for each zone/period?
2. How accurate were these sample sizes considering the method of classifying each data point seems to have been based on two students guessing a percentage cover on a screen rather than measuring it (please clarify!), and free-hand drawing of recovery zones on a map of the UK copied by-eye from a small-scale printed version, where their pencil line would be about 5 km wide?
3. How accurate were these classifcations over time, bearing in mind that you did not allow for any change in urbanisation over a 30 year period?
4. Why didn't you do this crucial piece of data validation in the first place?
5. How many inaccurate data points would it take for the significant relationship in your model to become non-significant? 2? 4? 15?

You have not answered any of these important questions about how reliable your Sparrowhawk study was. I'd still like to know the answer, if you're willing to discuss your work for once?

[Jos Stratford]

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

... if you're willing to discuss your work for once?

Might I wager you a pound that he will never answer your questions?

Strange though, given the confidence he has in his study, you'd have thought he'd have been only too happy to explain the details of his methods.

[AlfArbuthnot]

Originally Posted by Jos Stratford

Strange though, given the confidence he has in his study, you'd have thought he'd have been only too happy to explain the details of his methods.

It's almost like a penny may have dropped, isn't it?

[Jane Turner]

Originally Posted by Jos Stratford

Might I wager you a pound that he will never answer your questions? .

I'll take a tenner!

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by CPBell

You need to look at the bigger picture. The current economic situation boils down to the realisation that, collectively, we are a lot less wealthy than we thought we were. The question therefore, is who gets to keep the wealth they think they have, and who doesn’t. The soot has yet to hit the fan because governments continue to borrow money – but they can only do so by virtue of using their future tax revenues as collateral. In other words, it’s the taxpayers – the middle class – who will pick up the tab.

So, only the middle classes pay taxes do they? In fact, I am not even going to give the rest of this paragraph the time of day. If you end a paragraph with a sentence like that how can the rest of it mean anything? I will answer fo you, it is utter twaddle - just a series of words assembled into a random order with the odd soundbite thrown in.

Originally Posted by CPBell

All of this arises in the first place because governments need to keep delivering rising living standards to get elected/stay in power, but a consequence of globalisation is levelling down as well as levelling up, so borrowing becomes the only means of maintaining the increase in living standards. When that ceases to be possible - it hasn’t happened here yet but has in Greece – living standards plummet.

This is way beyond the subject of BF (except for Ruffled Feathers) and there is too much of a general assumption in this statement. There are a number of reasons why the UK differs from Greece but you are right in that it is a warning from the trenches.

Originally Posted by CPBell

The RSPB grew substantially during the 1970s, but then reached a plateau during the 1980s. Things may have stayed like that but for the fact that changes were afoot. The previously dominant old money/muesli-in-beard brigade were replaced by ambitious corporate types, and marketing went into overdrive. So much so that it became the organisation’s raison d’etre – hence my heroic but futile gesture of complaining to the Advertising Standards Authority.

So what? The core values of the RSPB did not change and they cannot do so without being re-classified under the Charity Commission rules. Had you looked into this are before your idiotic (there was nothing heroic about massaging your own ego) getsure to the ASA, you would have saved yourself a lot of trouble. As Jos says, there is nothing wrong with protecting your interests over a longer period of time through commercial enterprise but it has not changed what the RSPB is. For that matter, all the conservation NGOs (as have a lot of non-conservation charities too) have adopted the same model to a greater or lesser extent because it makes sense. Not to mention the fact that the RSPB membership peaked way beyond the 1980s and is still growing albeit at a much slower pace so the general public didn't see anything wrong with the new approach.

Originally Posted by CPBell

Eventually however, even this reaches its natural limits, and now they have to burst a gasket just to maintain their numbers – and that’s before their client base has really started to suffer.

Why should this be a surprise? And why should the membership figures suffer (I haven't a clue what you mean with 'client base')? Read again what I wrote about visiting my old membership colleagues after the recession kicked in. There was a room full of justifiably proud and hard-working ladies telling me that they had maintained a growth and whilst not as good as hoped for two years before, it was still better than the drop that more recent forecasts had said would happen. Again, the general public believe in what the RSPB does and good on them.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by Trystan

The whole point of CONSERVation is to conserve, not to evolve. We could just give up, let mankind run everything to ruin, enter another dark age and hope that what comes out of the other end has learned from our mistakes but thats a big gamble at a big price when we could work to conserve what we already have, a planet full of resources and biodiversity...

I know what John is trying to say and I don't totally disagree with him from the cold-hearted scientist's view. However, he is missing the point in that we already have a controlling hand on this planet and even without conservation work, we still will have an influence. Looking well into the future, the human race will almost certainly become extinct at some point even if it is when the sun goes out (interstellar travel is possible in theory but may turn out to be impossible from a practical standpoint...with or without an incredible form of propulsion). As individuals, we do not sit around and wait to die even though theoretically every single one of us could choose to live a hedonistic lifestyle. The reality is that some humans are quite selfless and want to work towards a legacy even though it will not prolong their lives by one second (the stress sometimes shortens lives, I imagine). If conservation is futile then just about everything we do is ultimately futile in the scheme of the universe but I do not see human life accepting that without a fight.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

You have not answered any of these important questions about how reliable your Sparrowhawk study was. I'd still like to know the answer, if you're willing to discuss your work for once?

Alf, I doubt he will answer any of the questions but it would be interesting if he did. CP is actually citing a study from the Netherlands (if memory serves me correctly) rather than presenting his own research. I read the paper and it was an interesting read (I think it may have been mentioned in one of J. Dennis Summer-Smith's books too) although the conclusions may not have been examined closely enough to form a true picture. No other study has replicated the results since and this suggests the data (if interpreted correctly) was showing a very localised phenomenon. I am sure the species that was affected was not the house sparrow although it may have been mentioned in the conclusion. Given that the conclusion rightly talked about potential effects of sparrowhawk on species with a limited range and my first guess was one of the tit family but after thinking about this again, I think it may have been the goldcrest. Perhaps not that impportant but it may help anyone wishing to Google for teh study (assuming it is presented somewhere online).

[AlfArbuthnot]

Originally Posted by Nightranger

Alf, I doubt he will answer any of the questions but it would be interesting if he did. CP is actually citing a study from the Netherlands (if memory serves me correctly) rather than presenting his own research. I read the paper and it was an interesting read (I think it may have been mentioned in one of J. Dennis Summer-Smith's books too) although the conclusions may not have been examined closely enough to form a true picture. No other study has replicated the results since and this suggests the data (if interpreted correctly) was showing a very localised phenomenon. I am sure the species that was affected was not the house sparrow although it may have been mentioned in the conclusion. Given that the conclusion rightly talked about potential effects of sparrowhawk on species with a limited range and my first guess was one of the tit family but after thinking about this again, I think it may have been the goldcrest. Perhaps not that impportant but it may help anyone wishing to Google for teh study (assuming it is presented somewhere online).

I was trying to keep a laser focus on the subject of this thread, which was Bell's paper in Auk. It got past three (?) reviewers and had media coverage, especially by our friends at the Daily Mail, and therefore gained some element of traction and 'validity', but after the methods were scrutinsed on various internet threads by some people who obviously knew their onions, it became clear that there were fundamental questions about the methods that the reviewers had apparently missed, and that Mr Bell appeared to be trying to spin the paper beyond the limits of its own conclusions by treating it as conclusive proof in his self-publicity. This attitude invited closer scrutiny of what he actually did to get those results, and it is this scrutiny which he is now shunning, by refusing to discuss his methods and reveal what he actually did to get them.

Curiouser and curiouser. And speaking volumes.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

I was trying to keep a laser focus on the subject of this thread, which was Bell's paper in Auk. It got past three (?) reviewers and had media coverage, especially by our friends at the Daily Mail, and therefore gained some element of traction and 'validity', but after the methods were scrutinsed on various internet threads by some people who obviously knew their onions, it became clear that there were fundamental questions about the methods that the reviewers had apparently missed, and that Mr Bell appeared to be trying to spin the paper beyond the limits of its own conclusions by treating it as conclusive proof in his self-publicity. This attitude invited closer scrutiny of what he actually did to get those results, and it is this scrutiny which he is now shunning, by refusing to discuss his methods and reveal what he actually did to get them.

Curiouser and curiouser. And speaking volumes.

Interesting stuff Alf.

Bell, C.P., Baker, S.W., Parkes, N.G., Brooke, M.D. & Chamberlain, D. (2010) THE ROLE OF THE EURASIAN SPARROWHAWK (Accipiter nisus) IN THE DECLINE OF THE HOUSE SPARROW (Passer domesticus) IN BRITAIN. The Auk, 127, 411-420

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1wZFuj8O8

[Nightranger]

You may also find this interesting:

http://www.ecology.ugent.be/terec/pd...estel_2011.pdf

As I suspected, there is a Dutch link and I wonder how much the paper I referred to above influenced the ideas here. The idea that fat accumulation is a trade-off between starvation and predator avoidance is difficult to measure with any certainty although it has been tried with bullfinches in the UK. The UK work involved rural bullfinches and birds that we would expect to be more sparrowhawk-ready (in simple terms) but there was no firm correlation that the bullfinches were staying flight fit (as it were), they did tend to be lighter but it was not statistically significant*.

The quoted link here uses lots of 'mays' when it mentions why house sparrows declined and I am still trying to figure out what methods were used. The paper also wrongly says that sparrowhawks are still on the increase when the population has stabilised (it is actually falling but at a rate that is not statistically significant)*.

* Statistical significance means sets of data that vary beyond what could be expected in experimental error (measurement errors etc) and bias encountered in small samples (this is generally reduced in larger samples but it is difficult to eliminate it completely - it is key where house sparrows are concerned because colonies can be very localised with little movement of individual birds and should mean the work CP has been involved with would show up very clearly).

[bluechaffinch]

Originally Posted by Trystan

The whole point of CONSERVation is to conserve, not to evolve.

Well, if it is to serve any purpose at all, conservation must address evolution. The point of it is to conserve and protect evolutionary processes: this is a basic concept in conservation biology; the protection of 'evolutionary significant units' I believe it is called (vaguely remembering my degree lectures). On the ground, this translates into activities carried out by organisations such as the Raspberries. As long as they, or others, have an eye on the big picture then that's fine. I think that what Dr Bell and the few others are getting at is that the activities of the RSPB et al sometimes appear to be more akin to clever/hip marketing than hairy-arsed ecology/conservation. I must admit that I object wholeheartedly to receiving plastic-wrapped catalogues full of flipping Christmas cards with robins on, fleeces with Bald eagles on or hedgehog houses. There is a fair point in all this - the RSPB are a huge corporation, pulling in huge amounts of cash by 'exploiting' a general trend in the UK population for some kind of wishy-washy Springwatch-type view of wildlife. They know exactly what they are doing...it's clever, contrived stuff.

There is a general trend on this forum, typified by the off-original-topic replies in this thread, for folk to view the RSPB et al as beyond any reproach whatsoever; criticising them is like denying that the Earth is flat. It's the same view that holds Crisp Packet, Kate Humble etc as paragons of the conservation movement. This is an unhelpful attitude. I have huge respect for much of the work that the RSPB do (was a YOC member from aged 6!) but I find the mass-marketing pap highly offensive.

Single-species reintroductions may drag in the dosh but are these the methods we need to assist our native wildlife? The RSPB is right there with Corncrake releases in Fenland, but waited until the very last minute to jump on the bandwagon over Great bustards - it took many, many years of personal struggle and expense for the Great Bustard Group before the RSPB stepped in when it all looked like taking off and may succeed.

So can we please stop this unthinking genuflection over the RSPB et al?- I am certain that they are good eggs but let us admit that they may not get it right every time. There are other valid views.

And once again, I should say that this is probably the most interesting thread on the forum...keep it up all.

[Nightranger]

http://www.bioone.org/toc/tauk/128/2

Alf, this is a breakdown of the The Auk 127 as per the reference but the papr is not there? I am really puzzled now.

[ZanderII]

Originally Posted by Nightranger

http://www.bioone.org/toc/tauk/128/2

Alf, this is a breakdown of the The Auk 127 as per the reference but the papr is not there? I am really puzzled now.

Its 128, not 127, anyway download it off CPB's site and keep up!

Of wider note anyone notice the press release on lepidoptera declines - is this the work of a resurgent raptor population? Maybe Hobbies? Or vagrant Red-foots?

http://www.birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?a=3288

Or could this be symptomatic of wider biodiversity collapse?

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by bluechaffinch

So can we please stop this unthinking genuflection over the RSPB et al?- I am certain that they are good eggs but let us admit that they may not get it right every time. There are other valid views.

And once again, I should say that this is probably the most interesting thread on the forum...keep it up all.

I agree, they don't get it right all the time. I was working for them at a time when they got one subject very wrong and they quietly swept the subject under the carpet when information came into existence that proved their original view wrong. I am not going to talk about that here because it will cause another off-topic swing and because the 'rival' view did and still does contain assumption errors even though they turned out to be right in the end.

However, the RSPB bases its policy on sound scientific data - often from the BTO but often from independent research too - whereas it is more than not up against an article or work that starts with or contains supposition. Unfortunately, people will believe what they want to believe but we should not confuse that with sound reasoning - it is what it is, an opinion that often as not is just rhetorical.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by ZanderII

Its 128, not 127, anyway download it off CPB's site and keep up!

Whoops so it is! I still had the page open when I saw your reply and I had clicked open the wrong edition. Thanks for the correction I can see it now:

http://www.bioone.org/toc/tauk/127/2

Originally Posted by ZanderII

Of wider note anyone notice the press release on lepidoptera declines - is this the work of a resurgent raptor population? Maybe Hobbies? Or vagrant Red-foots?

http://www.birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?a=3288

Or could this be symptomatic of wider biodiversity collapse?

I suspect climatic issues rather than hobbies although there seems to be a dramatic increase in the birds recently. However, I should point out this is a national increase and is typified by a spread of the birds beyond their previous range rather than a build up of numbers within their former range. Having said that, there may be a coincidental connection in that both lepidoptera declines and hobby increeases are attributable to climatic trends of late. Certainly something for further research.

[ZanderII]

Originally Posted by Nightranger

I suspect climatic issues rather than hobbies although there seems to be a dramatic increase in the birds recently. However, I should point out this is a national increase and is typified by a spread of the birds beyond their previous range rather than a build up of numbers within their former range. Having said that, there may be a coincidental connection in that both lepidoptera declines and hobby increeases are attributable to climatic trends of late. Certainly something for further research.

Ian - on the off chance you are being serious - may I add that I was being extremely sarcastic, I don't believe that Hobby increases are associated with butterfly declines. The loss of most butterfly species is directly tied to habitat loss. This is an ongoing process that has seen national and local extinctions and now declines in our most common species. Sound familiar?

If you read CPB's comments he makes the jump to suggest that declines of many songbirds (not just HS) can be attributed to increases in their key predator. Given the paralell declines in the rest of the biota I think we need look to other drivers too.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by ZanderII

Ian - on the off chance you are being serious - may I add that I was being extremely sarcastic, I don't believe that Hobby increases are associated with butterfly declines. The loss of most butterfly species is directly tied to habitat loss. This is an ongoing process that has seen national and local extinctions and now declines in our most common species. Sound familiar?

I had a feeling you were given you mentioned red-footed falcons - had you said Odonata declines it would have been an interesting idea to run with.

Originally Posted by ZanderII

If you read CPB's comments he makes the jump to suggest that declines of many songbirds (not just HS) can be attributed to increases in their key predator. Given the paralell declines in the rest of the biota I think we need look to other drivers too.

I know, as I have said elsewhere on this thread I am aware of a similar piece of evidence that came from the Netherlands but it involved goldcrests if memory serves me correctly. The paper was interesting if incorrect in its conclusion because it suggested a case for considering predator-driven declines in sedentary species. Without wishing to invoke conspiracy theory it may not be coincidental that CP's work is linked to Ghent university and he will certainly be aware of the earlier paper. I have never been convinced that the sparrowhawk drives species declines since I was asked to write the species profile for Birds magazine and looked at a lot of what was written on sparrowhawks. Our local pair seem to prefer taking feral pigeons and collared doves, which makes sense for a maximised return on the effort taken to mmake the kill. Recently, a few young starlings have got the chop too but they may have been the work of a local cat because the carcases were not removed, something you would expect with such small prey. Interestingly enough, one of the most contentious parts of my article was what RSPB members had reported in that urban and suburban sparrowhawks will take collared doves as an ideal prey because they are within the ranges for both sexes whereas males would normally be limited to birds up to blackbird-sized (feral pigeons generally being too big for male sparrowhawks). Some of the conservation team questioned whther this idea should be included (it was, in the end) because it was not supported by scientific data. I suggested a mini survey but I think it was felt to be too gruesome although it would have fitted nicely in the follow-ups to Big Garden Bird Watch.

I should also add that I have looked at the methods that were used (such as they are presented) and you will see from one of my posts above that they may not be a useful as once thought. As you rightly say, there are a lot of drivers to a species decline (never just one) and this alone could mask the data being produced by the fat accumulation study, making the data sets unreliable enough to be inadequate for drawing proper conclusions.

[bluechaffinch]

Originally Posted by ZanderII

Ian - on the off chance you are being serious - may I add that I was being extremely sarcastic, I don't believe that Hobby increases are associated with butterfly declines. The loss of most butterfly species is directly tied to habitat loss. This is an ongoing process that has seen national and local extinctions and now declines in our most common species. Sound familiar?

If you read CPB's comments he makes the jump to suggest that declines of many songbirds (not just HS) can be attributed to increases in their key predator. Given the paralell declines in the rest of the biota I think we need look to other drivers too.

Yes and no. Do we actually know, with 100% certainty, that butterfly losses are due solely to habitat loss? No. It's a theory. Butterfly populations are highly susceptible to annual variations and long-term trends in weather/climate - just look at any county butterfly/moth report and they will invariably begin with 'this was a bad/good/exceptional year for butterflies/moths'. We cannot make the assumption that 'habitat loss' is the key driver for all biotic groups - this is clearly not correct. It is worth remembering that we are several decades into an ecological 'revolution' during which our knowledge/experience of 'conservation' has come on leaps and bounds. We now have more land under 'conservation' management than at any point in living memory and have a raft of schemes aimed solely at protecting, maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. If you think the current situation is grim, try going back to the 1960s/70s.

In the face of all this conservation effort, populations of some species have declined and do continue to decline. This is why it may not be sensible to assume that those who have charged themselves with addressing the issue may not have it right. Given the evolution of, e.g. Butterfly Conservation and their ever-growing portfolio of reserves, why are (some) butterflies and (some) moth species still declining? Is it someone else's (i.e. 'our') fault?

If we take otters, for example; they are now on every major river system in the UK - that's a result, but concurrent with declines in various other disparate groups - ergo, ecology is flipping complex and 'habitat loss drives all' is not a valid answer. It is again an example of an unthinking 'humans are all b'stards and killing everything' worldview. This may in fact be correct in some cases, but is I am sure far from the truth. We simply do not know for sure.

Getting back on topic, I believe that Dr Bell's assertion is (simply put) that urban Sparrowhawks are responsible for (urban) house sparrow declines, and that if this is the case, then maybe other songbird declines can be attributed to an increase in what is after all a dedicated songbird specialist. Comparisons with invertebrates are essentially meaningless.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by bluechaffinch

Getting back on topic, I believe that Dr Bell's assertion is (simply put) that urban Sparrowhawks are responsible for (urban) house sparrow declines, and that if this is the case, then maybe other songbird declines can be attributed to an increase in what is after all a dedicated songbird specialist. Comparisons with invertebrates are essentially meaningless.

I am not sure I believe that you are serious about anything in your post but to say 'comparisons with invertebrates are essentially meaningless' is...well...meaningless! Does this really come from the Jeremy Clarkson school of thought in that fluffy-bunny conservation is invalid because it involves cute creatures? As Zander II correctly points out, seeing a trend in one data set does not automatically hold true for another species. I am not convinced any data shows sparrowhawks to be responsible for declines except on a very localised basis and definitely not across the whole species also definitely not between different species. You can run mathematical models to prove this and it really does take some effort in inputting improbable scenarios to cause extinction (the ultimate end-result in decline) even when only one predator and prey is involved (there used to be a shark vs fish graphic available online but I have not seen it for years). Clearly, the real life situation varies widely from a two-body situation and therein lies the explanation. Should a predator target a prey species to the point where it declines to unsustainable levels (no predator 100% specialises on one prey species anyway), the predator will switch to the next abundant species and so on. What CRB is defending is a very localised effect and as I mentioned previously, is not seen in other studies and though I regret to say this for CRB's sake it is meaningless in the conservation sense.

Unfortunately knowing acadaemia as I do I suspect a lot of funding depends on CRB being right to maintain future funding for research. I do not have a great deal of a problem with this situation because a lot of good work has come out of seemingly blind alleys (particularly in palaeontology) and I have a lot of sympathy for CRB in this respect. If I had unlimited funds I would fund CRB's work because the fat accumulation data is priceless if we can apply it to all bird species and build up a database.