harriers down - RSPB investigation (1 Viewer)

A friend of mine at the RSPB has asked me to post the following re the recent shooting of two Hen Harriers.

http://blogs.rspb.org.uk/investigations/archive/2007/11/07/Harriers-Down.aspx

Sombre reading Tim. Thanks.

Thanks Tim.

Tim Allwood said:

A friend of mine at the RSPB has asked me to post the following re the recent shooting of two Hen Harriers.

http://blogs.rspb.org.uk/investigations/archive/2007/11/07/Harriers-Down.aspx

Click to expand...

No chance of the RSPB removing the 'Royal' from its name as a gesture, I suppose. They may reckon that the connection brings other rewards. Still it would reflect a lot of people's feelings over this truly disgraceful incident, re-inforced by the feeling that these people haven't even got the guts to put their hands up to doing wrong (or at least to observing wrong being done), even though, from what we are repeatedly told by their proponents, they are somehow (I'm not sure how) meant to function as moral exemplars to the rest of us.

No cheers,

Tim
Yesterday Mary posted this

Mary said:

http://blogs.rspb.org.uk/investigations/archive/2007/11/07/Harriers-Down.aspx

Click to expand...

on the other thread "Rare birds dead on Queen's...." straight after your last post on it.

RecoveringScot said:

No chance of the RSPB removing the 'Royal' from its name as a gesture, I suppose. They may reckon that the connection brings other rewards. Still it would reflect a lot of people's feelings over this truly disgraceful incident, re-inforced by the feeling that these people haven't even got the guts to put their hands up to doing wrong (or at least to observing wrong being done), even though, from what we are repeatedly told by their proponents, they are somehow (I'm not sure how) meant to function as moral exemplars to the rest of us.

No cheers,

Click to expand...

I mentioned earlier that I wouldn't have anything to do with any organisation that has royal patronage yet is meant to support wildlife. I find the RSPB very informative, but when I hear about what the royals kill for their own entertainment, then I feel quite twofaced in offering my support to the organisations that have the royals as patrons. If the royal family wish to kill for their own amusement then they shouldn't be part of any protection organisations, just so hypocritical. My uncle was a member, and on his death, a sale was held of all his music albums (he had hundreds, many collectors items) and he raised a good couple of thousand. I would have preferred the money to have gone to one of the smaller organisations who maybe are not as well publicised but need the money nevertheless.

RSPB is a good information base for me, but I would not join out of principle due to the double standards of having royal patronage.

Dryocopus said:

Tim
Yesterday Mary posted this

on the other thread "Rare birds dead on Queen's...." straight after your last post on it.

Click to expand...

I noticed the link too, and it is sombre reading.

Regards
Kathy

KLH said:

RSPB is a good information base for me, but I would not join out of principle due to the double standards of having royal patronage.

Click to expand...

Your post seems to be a far better example of 'double standards' than the RSPB's alleged position.

Grousemore said:

Your post seems to be a far better example of 'double standards' than the RSPB's alleged position.

Click to expand...

I am struggling to understand what you are saying here Grousemore.

What do you mean by the RSPB's "alleged position"?

How is KLH's position of not wishing to subscribe on a matter of principle any sort of an example of "double standards" at all? I think my own position as someone who shares KLH's opinion but still subscribes would be a better example.

However, regardless of its perceived faults, the RSPB is the most active organisation in tackling wildlife crime, in protecting scarce species and creating a system of reserves that have no rivals in Europe. Is refraining from supporting all this really to the benefit of birds?

PS 1 I hope those that have chosen to boycott the RSPB for whatever reason are not then visiting Titchwell, Minsmere or any of the other reserves, as that really would be touching on double standards

PS 2 the Royal patronage is the Queen, no? Is she too guilty through association?

I think what Grousemore is suggesting is that KLH objects to joining the RSPB due to the Royal patronage but still uses the Society as a very good source of info.

mcapper said:

I think what Grousemore is suggesting is that KLH objects to joining the RSPB due to the Royal patronage but still uses the Society as a very good source of info.

Click to expand...

Ah thank you, I suppose there is a small point there.

(The same could be said for many of us on here then I suppose. Although not Grousemore I note)

In comparison to having the figurehead of a conservation group who is so closely linked to the let us kill for fun campaign, it seems minute to me.

(I am of course aware, that as has often been stated, usually unnecessarily, pleasure killing is currently legal.)

mcapper said:

I think what Grousemore is suggesting is that KLH objects to joining the RSPB due to the Royal patronage but still uses the Society as a very good source of info.

Click to expand...

Presumably the RSPB gets its charitable status as a result of, inter alia, promising to make info available in that way, or, if not, it chooses to make such info available as a public relations strategy. Either way, I see no double standard in using the information so provided, even if one is not a member. That's what the RSPB is for, amongst other things, I reckon.

Whether it is wise to rely on the patronage of the Royals is another, more arguable question (many similar groups do just fine without doing so). It all depends on one's view of that group. I would not be dissuaded from joining an organisation purely on account of Royal patronage, but have no feelings about people who would, if only because the Royals are, for the most part, of no interest one way or another to me.

The RSPB is a charity. If charity is to become morally compulsory (because one uses information supplied willingly and freely by a charity) then it's no longer charity.

Cheers,

Hmmmmmm - think I'd better post!!

To be more exact - wouldn'd consider it double standards as such - I am personally very against the way royalty are attached to wildlife organisations when they so openly slaughter it. I say the RSPB is a good source of info - which it most certainly is, but if it comes dowm to donating money and paying memberships, I would much rather support smaller organisations that maybe don't get as much publicity, nor are associated with royalty. The double standards are, I think the royals themselves. I think people who have had a proven track record of conservation and protection of wildlife should be patrons.

As said I would prefer to financially support a smaller organisation rather than donate to a larger organisation with a royal patron. But that doesn't mean to say that I don't find their information base useful!!

Hope that clears things..

I for one am not at all surprised that the CPS aren't bringing any prosecution, to do so there would have to be evidence, and it seems to me having read this and other threads relating to this 'alleged' shooting there is very little evidence at all.

What there is, is an allegation, by one supposededly expert birder and two other people who's ornithological experience is unknown. Nothing has been said at what range these birds were from the 'expert' when he identified them, so was the identification positive?
It has been said that this shooting occurred at dusk, and identification of birds is such light conditions are not generally so positive as when they are made in broad daylight.

No mention is made of how far away from the 'expert' these birds were when they were allegedly shot, but assuming they were still within visible range (through bins or eyeball) then the shooter would certainly be within 35-40 yards of the birds (this distance is the maximum effective range of a shotgun) yet the shooter(s) were not seen, so there is no evidence as to who the shooter(s) was or were.

The fact that one Royal personage admits being out shooting that evening is not evidence that he did shoot these birds.

The fact that some shotgun cartridges were found beside a pond can be given little credence, fired shotgun cartridges can be found at this time of year around almost any pond where ducks fly in during the evening. (I have found many of these myself around ponds all over Northumberland and Durham when doing dragonfly surveys including around ponds in Nature Reserves). No ballistic evidence could be obtained (had the birds been recovered) as lead shot isn't identifiable as to which gun shot it. A fired cartridge case may be matched to an individual firearm (shotgun) but not the lead shot fired from it.

As the birds weren't recovered there is no hard evidence that they were, either shot or even correctly identified. As no shooter was either seen or identified, therefore there is no evidence to show who fired the alleged fatal shots. A search of the area and vehicles failed to find any evidence either the following day.

All we have, is just an allegation that these events took place with no verifiable positive identification of the birds involved, or any evidence whatsoever as to who actually fired the shots that were heard.

Without any evidence, it isn't possible to bring anyone to court.

The shooting, trapping, poisoning or otherwise killing of any protected species (bird or otherwise) is reprehensible, and we all know it takes place, but as the RSPB and other organisations have found out, without direct evidence to prove who carried out these acts, it is impossible to bring a prosecution.

Harry (Not the Royal one).

Harry makes the legal case for no prosecution very well.

But even the most dispassionate observer might be swayed by the RSPB publishing the views expressed in Tim's link.They give considerable credence to the evidence of a shooting, and species ID provided by the Natural England employee.

Whether the lack of evidence on the ground indicates no crime -or concealment, will inevitably bring personal feelings and predjudices into play for those considering the matter.

However for those who advocate withdrawal of support for RSPB because of it's Royal patronage, I would point out that logic demands a similar stance in respect of two other charities :-The National Trust ( President Prince Charles) , and the Wildlife Trusts ( Patron The Prince of Wales)

The land holding of the three organisations is as follows:-
RSPB-131k ha. / National Trust -250k ha / Wildlife Trusts 80k ha

This is a total of 461,000 ha-an area the size of Northumberland.

The landscape, habitat & species protection provided by these organisations through land acquisition, and it's ongoing management can hardly be overstated. If the three charities feel that Royal Patronage further's their aims in raising membership and funds, then what purpose is served by calling for their removal?

Colin

Jos Stratford said:

However, regardless of its perceived faults, the RSPB is the most active organisation in tackling wildlife crime, in protecting scarce species and creating a system of reserves that have no rivals in Europe. Is refraining from supporting all this really to the benefit of birds?

PS 1 I hope those that have chosen to boycott the RSPB for whatever reason are not then visiting Titchwell, Minsmere or any of the other reserves, as that really would be touching on double standards

PS 2 the Royal patronage is the Queen, no? Is she too guilty through association?

Click to expand...

Now let's get this clear!

Referring to PS1. Those of us that find the clergy
repulsive, not fit for purpose for having a choir boy or
two. Yet we/they still go to church are touching on
double standards! Is that it???

Ref:- PS2. No, not by association. But by actions!!!!!

Kind regards,
young Ian.

young ian said:

Now let's get this clear!

Referring to PS1. Those of us that find the clergy
repulsive, not fit for purpose for having a choir boy or
two. Yet we/they still go to church are touching on
double standards! Is that it???
.

Click to expand...

Nice of you only to pick up the PS ... parts. However, if you find the clergy repulsive, but still wish to go to church, then I would hope you still feel still some desire/duty to contribute to the upkeep of the church. Or no, maybe you'd just prefer to see it crumble. Yes it is double standards to say I will not contribute to the RSPB on principle, but will happily visit their reserves.

I don't actually visit reserves myself - so I think I'm safe there!! and I am not a church goer either, although it is fair to say that if I did attend a certain church, and it turned out that the vicar was being a little bit naughty shall we say, then I probably would not attend that particular church again until the offending vicar had been dealt with.

KLH said:

I probably would not attend that particular church again until the offending vicar had been dealt with.

Click to expand...

So, likewise, all those that have taken offence at the RSPB and decided to no longer support them for any particular principle should naturally not be attending their particular reserves.

The bottom line is, for me at least, any organisation the size and success of the RSPB is always going to do certain things that we don't particularly approve of - can't please everybody all the time, etc. So, at the end of the day, if on a bird front they are doing a goog job, they continue to get my support - no skin off my nose either way if the Queen or some weirdo from Mars is a patron, if it helps raise their profile and further boost funds for conservation, then its okay by me (think directly to the work they do in rotecting Hen Harriers).