RSPB stunned by Defra plan to 'imprison' buzzards (RSPB) (1 Viewer)

[Alan Tilmouth]

I was drawing a parallel, and thought I was addressing the arguments?

You weren't (addressing the arguments).

Which was purely theoretical, with no evidence WHATSOEVER that hen harriers had ever occupied such a range.

Not so, the JNCC study used previous population surveys i.e. evidence to create population models. You only need to look at the diaries of Victorian Gamekeepers to determine that HH occupied a much greater range in England than they do currently.

By the same token, we could say that Nuthatches should be present right across Scotland, and Tawny owls across Ireland, as there is apparently suitable woodland habitat.

No you can't as they are different species occupying different ecological niches. Nuthatches continue to spread their breeding range northwards in Scotland, probably a situation that has been ongoing since the last Ice Age. As for Tawny Owl there is the small matter of the Irish Sea to contend with.

That is one site, where grouse were also artificially high (and which varies annually, often by a large degree), and so is not representative of everywhere and always.

I didn't say it was representative of 'everywhere and always' but it clearly demonstrated that HH would breed on some grouse moors in significant numbers if not persecuted.

Why would employers want to invent a situation of Buzzards being a problem, when they currently can do nothing about it?

In a word Profit, the extra 1,2, or 3%. The Game Industry has a long history of predator removal, anything that may impact on profits ( or perhaps you wish to argue this is also a figment of my imagination?) Increasing numbers of Buzzards may well mean that over 2000 Hectares where 20 years ago there was a single pair there are now 10 pairs so losses in theory will be greater though not as is regularly suggested enough to warrant shoots unsustainable.

I again point out that you have no idea what the study would have involved, as it has never been publicised. So, for all we know, it may have addressed the exact points you make here. But we'll never know now, will we?

The tender document clearly set out the four control methods to be tested and the preferred location for the testing. It did not suggest any control sites, or methodologies for determining populations of Buzzard or take on Pheasant poults. How can you possibly suggest that I have no idea what the study would have involved?

I'll reiterate an analogy I made earlier in this thread. 'Widespread' has nothing to do with when it's your business being hammered, and being burgled every week feels no better just because the Police tell you that burglary rates are low because the other houses on the street haven't been touched. If Buzzards affect one single business, then that business still needs to do something about it.

So basically profit comes before wildlife every time? I find this ugly and morally wrong. If a business can't live alongside other life using reasonable and clearly non-lethal dispersal techniques to protect itself then you have to question if it should continue. If that continuance is only propped up by a sustained loss of life of our natural heritage it has no place existing for me.

 

[Nightranger]

So basically profit comes before wildlife every time? I find this ugly and morally wrong. If a business can't live alongside other life using reasonable and clearly non-lethal dispersal techniques to protect itself then you have to question if it should continue. If that continuance is only propped up by a sustained loss of life of our natural heritage it has no place existing for me.

I think the best example of a positive side to this argument is around Loch Garten where a local trout farmer is quite happy to have the ospreys taking from his pens. Loch Garten is acidic and has very little fish life in it so the ospreys have to get their food from furthger afield and this has been going on for years. I am not sure if the trout farmer is compensated for the fish that are taken but I can think of several benefits and one of them is the chance for him to gain a little free publicity, which is never a bad thing. From the scientific side it gives us a good chance to ascertain how much food the ospreys need and how any losses contirbute to yields. I think one of the key things in fish farming generally is that it is intensive and the farmers know that that in itself causes high mortality so it is hard to begrudge what the ospreys take. Anyway, the bottomline is that farming and wildlife can exist together.

 

[Sandra (Taylor)]

I think the best example of a positive side to this argument is around Loch Garten where a local trout farmer is quite happy to have the ospreys taking from his pens. Loch Garten is acidic and has very little fish life in it so the ospreys have to get their food from furthger afield and this has been going on for years. I am not sure if the trout farmer is compensated for the fish that are taken but I can think of several benefits and one of them is the chance for him to gain a little free publicity, which is never a bad thing. From the scientific side it gives us a good chance to ascertain how much food the ospreys need and how any losses contirbute to yields. I think one of the key things in fish farming generally is that it is intensive and the farmers know that that in itself causes high mortality so it is hard to begrudge what the ospreys take. Anyway, the bottomline is that farming and wildlife can exist together.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Many years ago when we first started watching the ospreys at the fish farm, angling finished at 5.30pm and the farm then allowed birdwatchers onto the site for a couple of pounds entrance fee. We used to negotiate a weekly fee. There were always a good number of birders there and that's where I firstr saw an osprey catch a fish! I'll never forget it.

 

[Nightranger]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Many years ago when we first started watching the ospreys at the fish farm, angling finished at 5.30pm and the farm then allowed birdwatchers onto the site for a couple of pounds entrance fee. We used to negotiate a weekly fee. There were always a good number of birders there and that's where I firstr saw an osprey catch a fish! I'll never forget it.

Thanks Sandra,

I had not realised that was the arrangement but it makes a lot of sense.

 

[Jack Dawe]

Just in case anyone missed it:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=257829

Better to reply there than here?

 

[lewis20126]

R Benyon sacked today

cheers, a

 

[Jane Turner]

result!

 

[Farnboro John]

I am not sure whether they have changed the statement but I definitely remember reading that the BTO withdrew because of the direction the working group was taking. I have never worked for the BTO so more than that, I cannot help you but given the focus was going awayfrom the scientific side, it would be entirely in keeping with the BTO's remit.



I agree, it is an important issue and it would be interesting to know the background. I worked in Wildlife Enquiries so I know that a story like this can involve an awful lot of work right across the society to the point that it gets in the way of research and reserve work. I am not saying it is right to ignore an important story or try to let it 'go away' but it is equally important that people realise what it is like to be at the other end. Alf, for what its worth, I doubt there is any deep conspiracy here but I think the RSPB may have been caught on the hop and they would have been preparing their own statement. It could have been Raptor Politics going live with the story earlier than expected or DEFRA announcing something unexpected or before they had agreed (DEFRA are not above making announcements out of the blue, BTW). The one scenario you have missed is that there could have been an agreement about when to launch the story but someone broke ranks. Using Occam's Razor suggests this is the least complicated explanation and is probably the correct one. As you say, it would be strange if DEFRA suddenly introduced something that had not been previously discussed given they would expect the RSPB to counter the suggestion anyway.

Incidentally, while I am happy to let bygones be bygones again I would appreciate you reading my post #275, given you made some serious allegations against me. I am not expecting an apology or retraction but it would be nice if you were polite enough to acknowledge my response.

Both of you need to understand the way government procurement works. Even where proposals for contracts have to follow the full process of European law, Treasury guidelines now place a best practice period of 120 days as all that is necessary from first publishing of an advert to contract let. That is four months. Contract opportunities are NOT advertised for months before moving on.

European law is strict about changes in scope of proposals (in the interests of maintaining a level playing field) so dramatic changes in the requirement would have resulted in re-advertising.

All proposals over £10K (in total, not per year) have to be advertised on the Contracts Finder part of .gov.uk so tracking down what was published should be easy.

John