Twite
Well-known member
Is this an admission that their methods of capture and handling were flawed?
Agreed.
-
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.
Couple Sue RSPB for Defamation (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bitterntwisted
- Start date
Is this an admission that their methods of capture and handling were flawed?
Agreed.
Jane Turner
Well-known member
The numbers are of course too low to read too much into the study..... but its remarkable how few of the resident Black Grouse females did manage to produce young in the first place.
I'm sure that I have read somewhere that the biggest problem that Black Grouse face is a sluggish response evolutionary to global warming. Hatching being timed to coincide with Sawfly hatching which is now out of synchronisation.
I'm sure that I have read somewhere that the biggest problem that Black Grouse face is a sluggish response evolutionary to global warming. Hatching being timed to coincide with Sawfly hatching which is now out of synchronisation.
Capercaillie71
Well-known member
Yes , and it is also the standard method used by the RSPB and others to monitor Capercaillie breeding success. However, if I am reading the quotes in Jane's post correctly, it sounds like broods may have been counted twice in August using pointers. This is not common practice and I suppose could be construed to be excessive disturbance. However, I'm not sure if I'm understanding it right.
BTW, I don't think the RSPB denies the role of predators in poor breeding success among Black grouse or Capercaillie. Predator control is undertaken on many of their reserves. It's just that they seem to have a preference for look at habitat management measures that could reduce the effects of predation.
chris butterworth
aka The Person Named Above
Which, for a conservation organisation, seems like ( a ) common sense, and ( b ) the obvious way forward to preserve all aspects of wildlife, the "money spinning" game birds and the "rapacious, villainous" birds of prey both.
Chris
Capercaillie71
Well-known member
I quite agree.
I think this might be the paper in question:
http://www.wildlifebiology.com/Downloads/Article/637/En/bowker et al.pdf
From a first look, it seems that the radio-tagged grouse were searched for and flushed every two weeks until all but one had died. The numbers tagged (5 adults and 34 juveniles over four years) also seem quite high relative to the local population (35 adults at the start of the survey period). So, even if you accept that predation is important, it seems fair enough to me to question whether these factors might possibly have enhanced the levels of predation recorded, and as a result, had an impact on the local population.
The central issue in the case is whether the comments made in letters by the RSPB were defamatory, and could therefore be damaging to the Bowkers’s careers/reputations. Without seeing the letters it’s difficult to be sure, but from the press coverage the RSPB seem to have said that the methods were untried and untested, and may conceivably have contributed to decline in the grouse population being studied. The Bowkers’ case therefore seems to be that it could be inferred from this comment that they acted in a ‘reckless, incompetent and dangerous’ fashion.
The crux of the matter would therefore be the actual wording used by the RSPB, and it appears they didn’t use any emotive language to describe the Bowkers’ actions, but instead couched the criticisms in terms of reservations about the methodology and possible perturbation of results. Since this is a commonplace mode of scientific discourse, the Bowkers would therefore seem to have had little chance of success, since there is an established principle that scientific disputes should not be pursued through litigation.
While I support this general principle, I think the Bowkers are right to feel aggrieved, and the dismissal of their case in no way vindicates the RSPB’s position regarding the science. The RSPB tend to react negatively to studies that throw up evidence that raptors affect prey populations, and anyone publishing such evidence can expect to be staring down the barrel of RSPB criticism. Given the power wielded by the RSPB in terms of ornithological science in the UK, this is an unhealthy situation, since it cannot help but skew the science in favour of the RSPB’s favoured position.
If the press reports are accurate, and the letters sent by the RSPB did imply that the Bowkers’ methods could have contributed to the decline, it’s hard not to regard this as irresponsible given the effect this could have on the Bowkers’ livelihood. It also illustrates the way they have no compunction about hitting below the belt when they feel their interests threatened. If the Bowkers’ resort to the law has no other outcome, therefore, it has put the spotlight on the shadowy side of the RSPB’s operation, and I applaud their courage in doing so.
More reflections here.
http://www.cpbell.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/CultoftheAmateur
The crux of the matter would therefore be the actual wording used by the RSPB, and it appears they didn’t use any emotive language to describe the Bowkers’ actions, but instead couched the criticisms in terms of reservations about the methodology and possible perturbation of results. Since this is a commonplace mode of scientific discourse, the Bowkers would therefore seem to have had little chance of success, since there is an established principle that scientific disputes should not be pursued through litigation.
While I support this general principle, I think the Bowkers are right to feel aggrieved, and the dismissal of their case in no way vindicates the RSPB’s position regarding the science. The RSPB tend to react negatively to studies that throw up evidence that raptors affect prey populations, and anyone publishing such evidence can expect to be staring down the barrel of RSPB criticism. Given the power wielded by the RSPB in terms of ornithological science in the UK, this is an unhealthy situation, since it cannot help but skew the science in favour of the RSPB’s favoured position.
If the press reports are accurate, and the letters sent by the RSPB did imply that the Bowkers’ methods could have contributed to the decline, it’s hard not to regard this as irresponsible given the effect this could have on the Bowkers’ livelihood. It also illustrates the way they have no compunction about hitting below the belt when they feel their interests threatened. If the Bowkers’ resort to the law has no other outcome, therefore, it has put the spotlight on the shadowy side of the RSPB’s operation, and I applaud their courage in doing so.
More reflections here.
http://www.cpbell.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/CultoftheAmateur
simple
Well-known member
CP Bell in another post you wrote
The RSPB in particular realises that if it’s going to get much above it’s million members it needs to make inroads into the ‘inner cities’, and House Sparrow declines are too good an opportunity to miss – hence ‘Charlie the Sparrow Detective’ etc. You could therefore argue that blaming yuppies is a ‘virtuous lie’ if it helps to get urban kids interested in conservation. However I suspect it’s mainly about safeguarding the final salary pension plans of the RSPB’s top executives, since it’s making real solutions less likely. Like the man said, if you want to understand what’s going on, ‘follow the money’.
I'd take your posts although factually incorrect a lot more serious if you didn't post such anti RSPB rhetoric.
Oh and for the record and I think you know now that the RSPB no longer has a final salary pension plan.
What don't you like about raptors?
The RSPB in particular realises that if it’s going to get much above it’s million members it needs to make inroads into the ‘inner cities’, and House Sparrow declines are too good an opportunity to miss – hence ‘Charlie the Sparrow Detective’ etc. You could therefore argue that blaming yuppies is a ‘virtuous lie’ if it helps to get urban kids interested in conservation. However I suspect it’s mainly about safeguarding the final salary pension plans of the RSPB’s top executives, since it’s making real solutions less likely. Like the man said, if you want to understand what’s going on, ‘follow the money’.
I'd take your posts although factually incorrect a lot more serious if you didn't post such anti RSPB rhetoric.
Oh and for the record and I think you know now that the RSPB no longer has a final salary pension plan.
What don't you like about raptors?
jurek
Well-known member
Radio-tracking is well established method of studying animals. That it is "untried or untested" because in was not done on black grouse chicks in particular is clearly an overrepresentation.
I also cannot see a serious reason how handling by scientists could expose chicks to attacks of predators outside short time immediately after release (which is NOT when these chicks were predated).
Should we slam RSPB for "untried or untested" radiotracking study of migrating Cuckoos, Whooper Swans etc. advertised on their website now?
Yes, I also feel RSPB got too entangled in politics, publicity campaigns and press relations.
If there is a study which shows predators affect Black Grouse, RSPB's proper reaction should be change policy, not to slam the study.
BTW, it is nowadays well acknowledged that increase of middle-sized predators can wipe out sensitive wild species (I don't know it is the case in Black Grouse in this particular area). There is even a scientific term "mesopredator release".
simple
Well-known member
Jurek you state:
'Yes, I also feel RSPB got too entangled in politics, publicity campaigns and press relations'
Thats what the RSPB do and has done throughout its history it's a campaigning organisation.
Of course we'd be better off demanding/campaigning a fairer deal from the Common Agricultural Policy for farm / countryside wildlife including the Black Grouse, Bustard and Corn bunting.
'Yes, I also feel RSPB got too entangled in politics, publicity campaigns and press relations'
Thats what the RSPB do and has done throughout its history it's a campaigning organisation.
Of course we'd be better off demanding/campaigning a fairer deal from the Common Agricultural Policy for farm / countryside wildlife including the Black Grouse, Bustard and Corn bunting.
gandytron
Well-known member
I work in medical research, where many studies have to get ethical clearance before they can go ahead.
Should the same process take place when studying birds (and other wildlife) that is of conservation concern?
Such a rigorous process would help to stop cases like this going the distance, and would help to convince skeptics of the value of important conservation science - the same could equally be applied to highly invasive, but arguably highly valuable conservation projects (I think specifically of the Spoon-billed Sandpiper captive breeding programme)
Should the same process take place when studying birds (and other wildlife) that is of conservation concern?
Such a rigorous process would help to stop cases like this going the distance, and would help to convince skeptics of the value of important conservation science - the same could equally be applied to highly invasive, but arguably highly valuable conservation projects (I think specifically of the Spoon-billed Sandpiper captive breeding programme)
Defamation
The case is not about whether the science is correct or not, but about the Bowkers having a proven reputation which has to have been damaged by the RSPB. If though RSPB can prove qualified privilege then the Bowkers will lose the case and a lot of money to boot. Its unfortunate that their representatives could not see this? Should never have got to court! The court will not make any judgement on science being correct or incorrect that is for the scientists.
The case is not about whether the science is correct or not, but about the Bowkers having a proven reputation which has to have been damaged by the RSPB. If though RSPB can prove qualified privilege then the Bowkers will lose the case and a lot of money to boot. Its unfortunate that their representatives could not see this? Should never have got to court! The court will not make any judgement on science being correct or incorrect that is for the scientists.
kevindurose
Well-known member
http://www.wildlifebiology.com/Downloads/Article/637/En/bowker et al.pdf
I just skimmed the paper and I can see why the RSPB are resisant as there are obvious unanswered questions. The papers writers method of assigning causes of death seems weak. Bite marks etc. could have been caused by a predator scavenging the corpse. Without a control, for example if they had laid radio tracked corpses, dead chickens or similar, how can they conclude whether birds were killed by predators or simply scavenged. Also of interest is the extremely high mortality rate which suggests something unnatural may have been acting on the grouse, especially considering surrounding areas had higher success resulting in immigration of females into the study area. Regular disturbance causing stress, disorientation and separation of family groups/broods would be my guess as to why mortality was higher than in the adjoining areas. Any disorientated, stressed grouse would also make easy targets for predators. Strangely there is no mention of attempts to assign deaths by use of radio tracks, for example radio tags suddenly moving a large distance suggestive of being taken by a raptor. This would have been an obvious thing to do during the breeding season when goshawk and peregrine would be feeding their young.
I just skimmed the paper and I can see why the RSPB are resisant as there are obvious unanswered questions. The papers writers method of assigning causes of death seems weak. Bite marks etc. could have been caused by a predator scavenging the corpse. Without a control, for example if they had laid radio tracked corpses, dead chickens or similar, how can they conclude whether birds were killed by predators or simply scavenged. Also of interest is the extremely high mortality rate which suggests something unnatural may have been acting on the grouse, especially considering surrounding areas had higher success resulting in immigration of females into the study area. Regular disturbance causing stress, disorientation and separation of family groups/broods would be my guess as to why mortality was higher than in the adjoining areas. Any disorientated, stressed grouse would also make easy targets for predators. Strangely there is no mention of attempts to assign deaths by use of radio tracks, for example radio tags suddenly moving a large distance suggestive of being taken by a raptor. This would have been an obvious thing to do during the breeding season when goshawk and peregrine would be feeding their young.
