Who To Believe? (1 Viewer)

[Richard D]

When one understands this, then one understands that Magpies do affect the overall numbers of songbirds through predation. Certain posters, have now seen fit to twist the words and meaning of the above statement, and now are claiming that the sensible amongst us are claiming that the decline in songbird population is restricted only to the affect of predation by Magpies. The original statement has never stated or meant that the songbird number decline is wholly the result of predation by Magpies, or any other predator. The inability of certain individuals on the N.G. to actually take time, and read what is posted, and not to glance over and argue spuriously is WELL beyond belief.

Malky,

No one has at any point denied that Magpies do predate songbirds.

No one to the best of my knowledge has stated that the "sensible" are claiming that the decline in songbird population is restricted only to the affect of predation by Magpies.

What some of us have said is that there is no apparant scientific evidence that Magpie predation plays any part in songbird population decline.

As has been stated several times, if there is insufficient habitat to sustain the population then in terms of overall population numbers it does not matter whether the number of birds that could not be sustained die from predation or starvation.

If one is a society or body, telling the public that one “protects birds!!” for gods sake, one does not freely admit that birds kill birds, or even that one may have to kill one species to save another. Think of the society’s income.

Okay for a start the RSPB and the BTO freely admit that birds eat birds - if you have a look at the RSPB website's birds by alphabetical order you'll find that under the Magpie description it clearly states predator, if you look at the Merlin description you'll see that it is clearly stated that it's diet is principally small birds. Doesn't this count as freely admitting birds eat birds?

Te rest of your statement gives us two possibilities 1. They believe the scientific evidence doesn't justify killing Magpies or 2. The RSPB and BTO are actively complicit in songbird decline, caring more about their finances than conservation. If you believe the latter I suggest you take your evidence to the charity commission.

The only thing of substance that has emerged from this entire thread, is that Anthony was correct in thinking that this thread would reach a certain number of replies.

There's actually quite a lot of substance in the reports that Jane has quoted, but if you're totally dismissive of large quantities of scientific study and prefer your own beliefs, then fine.

He has read you lot very well, and probably understands you better that you do yourself.



Well done that man.

I don't think raising a provocative discussion is a great skill, but this thread has had the benefit of showing why the majority of conservationists would suggest increased habitat to be the key to an increased songbird population, and not the needless culling of a successful species.

Regards Richard

 

[Keith Reeder]

Richard,

he didn't "raise a provocative discussion", and it really is not Anthony's fault that this has degenerated into the shambles it is now.

He asked which of two reports should be believed - it's right there in post no. 1 - then the thread was (in my humble opinion) hijacked by people who clearly weren't interested in answering the simple question being asked, for reasons best known to themselves.

Yes, that question has finally been answered - but back in post 2 or 3 if someone had simply suggested what has been gradually been dragged out of this thread - that the two reports aren't really contradictory and that threat or not, magpies are not the biggest problem - then we wouldn't be in this stage now.

Hindsight, eh?

As I read it, Anthony at no time espoused a particular position on the matter, but has had words put in his mouth time and time again by certain of the forum Glitterati, who might have spent their time better sharing their knowledge (something clearly begrudged by some people here) rather than using the subject matter as a hook to hang personal differences on...

What an appalling way to go on.

 

[Jane Turner]

Yes, that question has finally been answered - but back in post 2 or 3 if someone had simply suggested what has been gradually been dragged out of this thread - that the two reports aren't really contradictory and that threat or not, magpies are not the biggest problem - then we wouldn't be in this stage now.

I'm glad that despite all the tooing and fro-ing, this simple message did shine through. It sort of makes it all worthwhile.

 

[James Lowther]

Keith,
Anthony's original post#1, made at 11:18 on the 27th, was first answered by Mike Pennington, #9, at 15:30 on the same day.
His post regarding the supposedly contradictory paper (#29, made at 12:05 on the 28th) was first answered by Richard D., #35 at 14:28 on the same day i.e.5 DAYS AGO. I'm afraid Anthony has contributed considerably to the 'degeneration' of this thread by constantly maintaining the fiction that his questions are being ignored, despite numerous opportunities to admit this hasn't been the case.
James

 

[Richard D]

Richard,

he didn't "raise a provocative discussion", and it really is not Anthony's fault that this has degenerated into the shambles it is now.

He asked which of two reports should be believed - it's right there in post no. 1 - then the thread was (in my humble opinion) hijacked by people who clearly weren't interested in answering the simple question being asked, for reasons best known to themselves.

Perhaps I misjudged Anthony's motives in starting this discussion, and his later postings.

Yes, that question has finally been answered - but back in post 2 or 3 if someone had simply suggested what has been gradually been dragged out of this thread - that the two reports aren't really contradictory and that threat or not, magpies are not the biggest problem - then we wouldn't be in this stage now.

The original question was answered on the first day of the discussion. The further supposedly contradictory evidence (that was simply a misrepresentation by a shooting magazine and the GCT) was also dealt with within a few posts.

As I read it, Anthony at no time espoused a particular position on the matter,

I agree, he was very careful not to espouse a particular position, and merely questioned the evidence or claimed his questions hadn't been answered, which may well be through ignorance rather than intent to fuel the debate.

Hopefully now that the original question has been revisited several times, and the scientific evidence has been shown to proclaim the Magpie as innocent of being a party to songbird decline that people willmake their own mind up as to whether to trust the studies or believe that the conservation groups are misguided/deceptive, and this thread will die.

Regards Richard

 

[Edward woodwood]

I'm glad that despite all the tooing and fro-ing, this simple message did shine through. It sort of makes it all worthwhile.

I did suggest that and that it was not as simple as perhaos thought by many at first...

at least the vast majority of people know the score now

and for that it has been worthwhile

those who choose to believe magpies influence songbird populations will continue to do so although i do also suspect a few WILL have realised the real situation and changed their minds...on the massive bulk of ALL the scinetific evidence

atb
Tim

 

[RecoveringScot]

Richard,

he didn't "raise a provocative discussion", and it really is not Anthony's fault that this has degenerated into the shambles it is now.QUOTE]

Yes it is, partly. His thread was a carefully designed troll. However having said that, the responses sometimes lacked conciseness.

Precisely. He impugned the reliability of properly conducted scientific studies by implying that people had to choose between them and random observations, vaguely characterised (populations 'boosted', 'many' nests 'robbed'), as a matter of 'belief' rather than evidence. Nobody disputes that Stevie saw what he saw. What is disputed is the value and relevance of those observations. The answer is that, until they are properly documented, and statistically analysed, the answer is : none. Otherwise my random evidence of harmonious co-existence between both Magpies (and Sparrowhawks) and healthy small bird populations, which I have seen in several places, will have to carry equal weight.

One more thing, the presence of large numbers of Magpies in local roosts proves nothing. It remains to be proved, by marking and study, that the birds in those roosts are themselves local, as this is not necessarily the case.

In addition Anthony raised the purely irrelevant political question of land managers. This at least allowed us to deduce certain things about his aims.

Phil

 

[Keith Reeder]

Anthony's original post#1, made at 11:18 on the 27th, was first answered by Mike Pennington, #9, at 15:30 on the same day.

Yep, by which time the rot had well and truly started, James.

I know it's been one of "those" threads, but I can't escape the sense that the "subtext" of this farce is personalities: look at Tim's response to my post 6, and my comments in post 11 (and the response) - Anthony was on a hiding to nowt from the start, which was obvious to me within 10 postings...

Oh, and my two cents:

I resent being told that a subject is not worthy of discussion just because it's been done to death for the "old hands": I must have been on the sick the day we voted in the forum arbiters of worthwhile discussion, and it would have been far more constructive if some of these individuals had either just answered the question or said nothing instead of launching into the kinds of personal attack and condemnation of the subject matter ("deliberately obtuse cod-science", "we have hit rock bottom and are asking for a shovel with the magpie v songbird debate") which we can see in the first few contributions.

 

[Jane Turner]

Yep, by which time the rot had well and truly started, James.

I know it's been one of "those" threads, but I can't escape the sense that the "subtext" of this farce is personalities: look at Tim's response to my post 6, and my comments in post 11 (and the response) - Anthony was on a hiding to nowt from the start, which was obvious to me within 10 postings...

Oh, and my two cents:

I resent being told that a subject is not worthy of discussion just because it's been done to death for the "old hands": I must have been on the sick the day we voted in the forum arbiters of worthwhile discussion, and it would have been far more constructive if some of these individuals had either just answered the question or said nothing instead of launching into the kinds of personal attack and condemnation of the subject matter ("deliberately obtuse cod-science", "we have hit rock bottom and are asking for a shovel with the magpie v songbird debate") which we can see in the first few contributions.

Keith... that aside, are you happy with the content of the rest of the debate on here though? It took a lot of effort to try and feed the request for evidence being made... if it was helpful I may do it again.

 

[RecoveringScot]

Sorry, my editing mucked up the quoting there. The paragraph beginning 'Yes he did, partly.' is mine not blythkeiths.

Phil

 

[James Lowther]

It took a lot of effort to try and feed the request for evidence being made... if it was helpful I may do it again.

Jane, you can blind ME with science any time you like. If the papers are there on the thread people can choose to ignore or denigrate the science, but at least they can't deny it .
James

 

[Edward woodwood]

well i stand right by my comments in thread 7

totally vindicated
i
Mr Morton has been enitrely anatagonistic as pointed out by several people

and people are obviously believeing what they want as they are denying the obvious clear and overwhelming uncontravertible evidence

 

[Grousemore]

and people are obviously believeing what they want as they are denying the obvious clear and overwhelming uncontravertible evidence

"Uncontravertible" eh ?....QED.

 

[Edward woodwood]

yes

the papers state how population dynamics in these systems work

end of

 

[David Bryant]

Here!!!!!!!!!!
How do you manage to get online at 1.33! You must have very relaxed lunch hours at your school, Tim! LOL!
Have a good weekend! I'm off to France to look for sticky squids! (And premiere cru clarets!)

 

[Mike Pennington]

Yep, by which time the rot had well and truly started, James.

("deliberately obtuse cod-science",

As my name has been cropping up again here are a few comments.

Apologies to all for whom the subject under (occasional!!) discussion i.e. Magpies and predation, was not a familiar subject of controversy. It is easy to forget that are are people out there who are genuinely unaware of the research and my original e-mail, while at least one person has acknowledged that it answered the question, was probably a little too harsh, and fuelled the fires a little.

I am pretty sure that some of the contributors to this thread were not as unaware of the background as they claimed, and I base my assessement on their contributions to other threads, not just this one. I do not agree that there were people on this thread who were not expressing an opinion and just trying to find the truth. They were being deliberatley provocative and they succeeded in provoking. I do not for one minute believe that the proponents of what might be described by them as 'neutral' comments really believe them to be neutral, nor are they as surprised as they may seem by the responses. I believe that they have a hidden agenda, as they tend to be people who do not contribute much to the core focus of the forum (birds) and give very little of their background away. But, as was said in another thread today, there are times when you can ignore certain comments, but other days when you cannot resist.

Oh, and if anyone should think that this is a dig at Keith (as I'm replying to his mail) I don't include him in these comments. I may not agree with all his opinions (and I know he doesn't agree with all mine) but he has taken the time to give measured replies on several controversial threads and I appreciate his contributions.

 

[Dimitris]

Boy have I have a sweet headache...

Sorry but I couldn't read evrything.But anyway I did download loads of info.I'll have to get studying I guess.I just got a 10 in ecology,but this is nothing in front of these guys...thanks and a very well deserved:clap::clap::clap:!!!!!!!

Now here is MY humble opinion:
Magpies are predators of songbirds,but just one of the many:BOP,mamalian predators(MAN)etc...Predatation is not,however,a bad thing.It might be "cruel" but it helps in keeping the prey populaton healthy and keeps it evolving.However if one of the predators increases for some reason the prey will decrease in numbers,this will however cause in turn(NOT always.The predator may be shifting predator ex:man,or may be a generalist(One that preys on more then one prey items))a decrease in the predator(s).So things will eventually end up as they were...

However predation is only one of the factors one should consider when studying a population and its breeding sucsess.Other factors that should be considered include the following:
1-weather(Unusualy high rainfall for example may cause a boon on insect populations which in turn boons the entire food chain...)
2-habitat and its destruction by any cause.
3-the tolerance level of the species and many others....

Removing magpies may or may not boost the number of songbirds.But magpies are just a tiny part of the huge web called an ecosystem etc,etc.So my conclusion is that maggies should be shot or removed only when there is enough evidense suggesting that there are to many of them around.

Thanks for your time,

Dimitris.

PS:1-People believe what they want to believe.
2-Jane,you are great!!:clap:
3-Tim,I'd love to have you as a teacher in uni.

 

[David Bryant]

3-Tim,I'd love to have you as a teacher in uni.

Nah! You wouldn't! Tim's only about 16 years old! Look at his avatar! LOL!

 

[Jane Turner]

I am pretty sure that some of the contributors to this thread were not as unaware of the background as they claimed, and I base my assessement on their contributions to other threads, not just this one. I do not agree that there were people on this thread who were not expressing an opinion and just trying to find the truth. They were being deliberatley provocative and they succeeded in provoking. I do not for one minute believe that the proponents of what might be described by them as 'neutral' comments really believe them to be neutral, nor are they as surprised as they may seem by the responses. I believe that they have a hidden agenda, as they tend to be people who do not contribute much to the core focus of the forum (birds) and give very little of their background away.

Hi Mike... I just re-read the ENTIRE Sparrowhawk thread and a few others. Yes of course you are correct! I could drag up all the quotes from them... but life is rather too short for that and I believe that most people reading this thread will have already formed their own views about motives.

 

[rayl]

OK so I have also worked my way through all of it. I would also like to express my thanks to Jane for the time and effort she has obviously put in, and I hope in the not to distant future to come back and read more of the papers. The EVIDENCE is overwhelming.
There is obviously a subtext to the thread but this has only worked in favour of educating most of us as to the true facts. It has been said many times previously but is worth repeating that sometimes local observations can be at variance with the evidence but this does, nor should it detract from the evidence and thus the conclusions that result.
I have a son who has just finished a 4-year PhD in Molecular Biology studying prostate cancer. He has worked from 7am till 10pm mostly seven days a week; he has taken no more than 10 days holiday per year during this time. I have seen him so tired he could hardly speak, but he persevered and on Wednesday I will attend to see him presented with his Doctorate. He is a Scientist, and it’s to him along with similar dedicated people who have contributed to this thread that the future of the planet and its inhabitance depend..

Tim you have 20*20 vision


Ray