First Corvids then..... Raptors! (1 Viewer)

Amarillo said:

Read throught the thread about CP Bells work (if you've got a spare day or two ;-)). http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=169572 I don't know whether he has links to Songbird Survival but he certainly has an agenda against conservation organisations. ...

Click to expand...

Ive just checked that out. Have you read the actual report Amarillo, because its actually worth it. Im not sure CP Bell is involved with anti-conservation though. His study is quite sensible. But I'd be interested to know if it was comissioned and by who, because his other studies seem to be mostly to do with migration behaviours and the sudden interest in predator induced population dynamics is a little out of character

The thing with the sparrowhawk-sparrow issue for me, is that I think I must be missing something.

Sparrow hawks definitly do eat sparrows, they eat lots of small birds, and with them persecuted so heavily those small birds were of course going to increase in number. With sparrows being prey of choice their numbers (stands to reason) will increase a lot.

House sparrows are a particularly successful species and without predators do well, maybe too well. Once the sprawks are back we see a sharp decline in sparrows, but to me thats expected isnt it? Am i missing something? To me the paper just says.
"When there are extra sparrows then sparrowhawks will eat them"

CP Bells study to me is more a explaination of what happens when predators are reintroduced to systems they were removed from for considerable time. The effects were dramatic and the ecology reacted like a small boat being jumped into, the whole thing rocking violently and dangerously close to the water line. Had the spawk not been removed the boat would have continued to gently rock from side to side in a more or less predictable manner, and influenced by only the ocean (which has become increasingly stormy).

I kinda like my 'small boat' analogy but worry ive lost you all in self indulgent nonsense.

Bell himself expects the sparrow population to recover, though in consideration of the many factors that are involved in that recovery (many of those being depleted) that may take a lot longer than expected.

Shadow-watcher said:

Ive just checked that out. Have you read the actual report Amarillo, because its actually worth it. Im not sure CP Bell is involved with anti-conservation though. His study is quite sensible. But I'd be interested to know if it was comissioned and by who, because his other studies seem to be mostly to do with migration behaviours and the sudden interest in predator induced population dynamics is a little out of character

The thing with the sparrowhawk-sparrow issue for me, is that I think im must be missing something.

Sparrow hawks definitly do eat sparrows, they eat lots of small birds, and with them persecuted so heavily those small birds were of course going to increase in number.

House sparrows are a particularly successful species and without predators do well, maybe too well. Once the sprawks are back we see a sharp decline in sparrows, but to me thats expected isnt it? Am i missing something? To me the paper just says.
"When there are extra sparrows then sparrowhawks will eat them"

CP Bells study to me is more a explaination of what happens when predators are reintroduced to systems they were removed from for considerable time. The effects were dramatic and the ecology reacted like a small boat being jumped into, the whole thing rocking violently and dangerously close to the water line. Had the sprawk not been removed the boat would have continued to gently rock from side to side in a more or less predictable manner, and influenced by only the ocean.

I kinda like my 'small boat' analogy but worry ive lost you all in self indulgent nonsense.

Bell himself expects the sparrow population to recover, though in consideration of the many factors that are involved in that recovery (many of those being depleted) that may take a lot longer than expected.

Click to expand...

I agree with all this (& think your "small boat" analogy is an excellent one).

Shadow-watcher said:

Ive just checked that out. Have you read the actual report Amarillo, because its actually worth it. Im not sure CP Bell is involved with anti-conservation though. His study is quite sensible. But I'd be interested to know if it was comissioned and by who, because his other studies seem to be mostly to do with migration behaviours and the sudden interest in predator induced population dynamics is a little out of character

Click to expand...

Yeah I've read it and debated it at length with him. There are criticisms that can be made of it, but generally I agree - it is quite a sensible study within its limitations. Its more the conclusions that can be drawn from it that are the problem because as you say, its not really surprising that prey species decline when a previously absent predator reappears. The reason he's been getting criticism is more because he gives ammunition to groups like the SS rather than that the study is total rubbish.

I agree, I don't think Bell is directly involved with anti-conservation groups like SS, but he has personal grudges against conservation organisations which are very evident in the long thread. Who knows? Wouldn't surprise me if the SS had signed him up...

fugl said:

I agree with all this (& think your "small boat" analogy is an excellent one).

Click to expand...

Thankyou very much

Amarillo- Totally agree. This information is misused, and considering its limitations (which you also point out) it doesnt give a very fair or comprehensive explaination in its totality.

The jump from corvids to raptors is still (hopefully) a big one. Im reasuring myself that SBS is a very samll organisation with a big mouth. But it is doing a good job of throwing the predator control argument out there right now. This is exasperating one of my pet peevs, which is the lack of vocal positioning of conservation groups like RSPB. They have just lauched a new project, designed to promote public awareness however, so fingers crossed!

Shadow-watcher said:

The jump from corvids to raptors is still (hopefully) a big one. Im reasuring myself that SBS is a very samll organisation with a big mouth. But it is doing a good job of throwing the predator control argument out there right now. This is exasperating one of my pet peevs, which is the lack of vocal positioning of conservation groups like RSPB. They have just lauched a new project, designed to promote public awareness however, so fingers crossed!

Click to expand...

Yes I found it hugely frustrating listening to a debate on the radio recently where the RSPB and SBS were presented as the two largest UK bird charities! and the RSPB guy just took that without clarifying that while that might officially be true, the difference betwee the two is massive. It was the equivalent of the BNP being given equal footing in a debate instead of being presented as a minority view. Its all very well for people like us who know who these people are, but how is the average man in the street supposed to know that one is a credible organisation renowned around the world and the other is a bunch of crackpots?

If you read the comments from the general public (ie those with little conservation knowledge) on the various recent media articles there seems to be a worrying level of sympathy from the ill-informed with the SBS. And who can blame them the way they are presented? Totally agree, its about time the RSPB became a bit more vocal.

Shadow-watcher said:

Bell himself expects the sparrow population to recover, though in consideration of the many factors that are involved in that recovery (many of those being depleted) that may take a lot longer than expected.

Click to expand...

Yes I picked that up too early in the discussion when I pressed Dr Bell on the issue, and I went away reasonably happy.

My take was that House Sparrow numbers got up to abundant levels in the UK due in no small part to the absence of a significant natural predator. They were so abundant they were on the "pest list" and could be disposed of by authorised persons. Then the natural predator made a comeback and House Sparrow numbers got readjusted from abundant to merely "very common". During the process the sparrows may have reacquired their avian predator avoidance skills and numbers are creeping back up in some localities.

That was all fine and dandy then Dr Bell went off on some anti RSPB rants, and seemed to be too dismissive of possible other causes for House Sparrow population decline. At that point, for me anyway, he lost credibility.

John B (not the sloop) said:

That was all fine and dandy then Dr Bell went off on some anti RSPB rants, and seemed to be too dismissive of possible other causes for House Sparrow population decline. At that point, for me anyway, he lost credibility.

Click to expand...

Did he? I missed that, were there more pages to the thread? Ill reinvestigate.

If a link could be found between SBS and the BNP it would go a long way to discredit them...... wait, there are links; they are both minorities, both have big mouths and spout fact twisting rubbish!

Andy

Shadow-watcher said:

Did he? I missed that, were there more pages to the thread? Ill reinvestigate.

Click to expand...

Well perhaps "rants" is a little harsh. "Commented disparagingly" is a better reflection.

He's not a fan of the BTO either

Really, the things people say about you behind your back.

Shadow-watcher said:

I'd be interested to know if it was comissioned and by who, because his other studies seem to be mostly to do with migration behaviours and the sudden interest in predator induced population dynamics is a little out of character

Click to expand...

It wasn’t commissioned by anybody. I simply got curious and did it using my own resources plus, of course, the data provided free by hundreds of volunteer observers up and down the country, though I had to set up an elaborate sting to force the BTO to release it.

Shadow-watcher said:

CP Bells study to me is more a explaination of what happens when predators are reintroduced to systems they were removed from for considerable time. The effects were dramatic and the ecology reacted like a small boat being jumped into, the whole thing rocking violently and dangerously close to the water line. Had the spawk not been removed the boat would have continued to gently rock from side to side in a more or less predictable manner, and influenced by only the ocean (which has become increasingly stormy).

Click to expand...

Yes.

Shadow-watcher said:

Did he? I missed that, were there more pages to the thread? Ill reinvestigate.

Click to expand...

To save Shadow-watcher the trouble of toiling through the whole thread, I’ll take the opportunity to exercise my ‘grudge’ and summarize my previous ‘rants’ against the RSPB and BTO.

Given the mission of both organisations, a naïve observer might expect them to encourage, promote, perhaps even celebrate a piece of work such as this one by an amateur ornithologist, thoroughly peer-reviewed, and offering an original solution to a high profile issue. However, their only reaction has been via the Independent competition, which they had no choice about since they were judges. Having handed down their pronouncements they were only too anxious to disengage as soon as possible, refusing any constructive debate, and discouraging wider coverage of the study.

I find it impossible to avoid the conclusion that this is because the issue is sensitive for both organisations, which have reaped huge rewards from the government’s acceptance that the 1975-85 halving of farmland bird populations was caused by agricultural practice. With House Sparrows I may be tugging on the loose thread that unravels the whole fabric, since it also occurs in cities, where declines can’t be agricultural. This is why the RSPB has pinned its hopes on urban insect shortage as the cause of urban sparrow decline, and tied itself in knots trying to manufacture evidence. Undeterred by the fact that there isn’t any, they’ve encouraged urban councils all over the country to squander their council tax on supposedly evidence based sparrow conservation measures.

The BTO, meanwhile, has refused to release the data I need to apply the methodology I used in the House Sparrow study to a wider range of farmland birds. Let me repeat that. The BTO is actively blocking a legitimate research project into the cause of farmland bird declines.

Finally, John B, I’m quite content for you to ascribe to me whatever nefarious motivation takes your fancy, but please don’t accuse me of being ‘dismissive’ of other points of view. What I do is the opposite of this – I engage with the arguments and offer counter-arguments if I disagree with them. That is why I responded to the thread that you started, and why there is now several hours-worth of material discussing rival theories on my YouTube channel. I leave the ‘dismissing’ to the other side.

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

First thank you for your input Mr Bell.

CPBell said:

It wasn’t commissioned by anybody. I simply got curious and did it using my own resources....

Click to expand...

This is very encouraging.

CPBell said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

It appears my small boat is a good analogy after all! But surely this point could have been demonstrated more clearly by you in the study. I emphasize im not critisizing it, I found your study to be interesting and well written. Perhaps such extrapolations would have been deemed outside of the boundaries of evidence based conclusions in a peer review.

CPBell said:

With House Sparrows I may be tugging on the loose thread that unravels the whole fabric, since it also occurs in cities, where declines can’t be agricultural.

Click to expand...

But wouldn't the base causes of species decline in cities be the same as the those in agriculture, ie loss of habitat, decline in food resourse, human impact and pollution? Isnt the issue that the highest proportion of breeding popuations exist in farmland because human population intensity in cities is too high. Meaning that the farms are where the science matters, because thats where the birds are?

Again I think your study was very sensible, and coming from a science background myself I do sympathize with the boundaries around opinion when it comes to interpreting results. Coincidentally i find your info regarding the BTO quite worrying, but suggest that because of the lack of understanding that exist in the public forum regarding the actual meaning of such studies (ie not everyone sees the small boat) that they may be worried that the info could end up being used to justify predator control proposals that they disagree with.

Andy Hurley said:

If a link could be found between SBS and the BNP it would go a long way to discredit them......

Click to expand...

We could propose the corvid cull is an issue of colour! B

CPBell said:

Finally, John B, I’m quite content for you to ascribe to me whatever nefarious motivation takes your fancy, but please don’t accuse me of being ‘dismissive’ of other points of view. What I do is the opposite of this – I engage with the arguments and offer counter-arguments if I disagree with them. That is why I responded to the thread that you started, and why there is now several hours-worth of material discussing rival theories on my YouTube channel. I leave the ‘dismissing’ to the other side.

Click to expand...

Oh dear.... and to think I was on your side for a little while early on too.

Ok then, lets try "less than open and receptive to the viewpoints of others (including experienced ornithologists and other scientists)".

You sure have a way with people...... |=\|

Shadow-watcher said:

But wouldn't the base causes of species decline in cities be the same as the those in agriculture, ie loss of habitat, decline in food resourse, human impact and pollution? Isnt the issue that the highest proportion of breeding popuations exist in farmland because human population intensity in cities is too high. Meaning that the farms are where the science matters, because thats where the birds are?

Click to expand...

Not for House Sparrow. Densities in cities are about 10x greater than in the countryside for this species, so urban areas are much more important as a habitat. The point I'm making is that the habitat/food explanation offered for general bird declines in the country (including sparrow) requires mental gymnastics to adapt it as an explanation for urban sparrow declines. Meanwhile, the spatial and temporal expansion of the sparrowhawk fits the pattern of both urban and rural house sparrow decline hand in glove.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see if this is also the case for other declining farmland birds, like bullfinch, tree sparrow, linnet etc? I think so, but the organisation with the information to do the job, which is the BTO, has said it 'isn't a priority', i.e. they aren't going to do it. I offered to do it for them, but they refused to let me have the data.

Shadow-watcher said:

i find your info regarding the BTO quite worrying

Click to expand...

So do I, so I think I'll say it again. The BTO is actively blocking a legitimate research project into the cause of farmland bird declines.

John B (not the sloop) said:

Oh dear.... and to think I was on your side for a little while early on too.

Ok then, lets try "less than open and receptive to the viewpoints of others (including experienced ornithologists and other scientists)".

You sure have a way with people...... |=\|

Click to expand...

..and I also leave the ad hominems to the other side. If you or anyone else has any arguments to back up their position you'll find me as open and receptive as you like. However, if I think the arguments don't stack up I'll say why, especially if the poster is claiming professional credentials.

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

CPBell said:

However, if I think the arguments don't stack up I'll say why, especially if the poster is claiming professional credentials.

Click to expand...

Err... yes, I think I got that bit.

Tideliner said:

Otters are very playful animals and will kill easy quarry well beyond their needs. One guy I know was in tears last year when he found six 25-30lb carp killed and left on the bank with just a mouth full of flesh taken from each fish. It sounds unbelievable , but each fish is worth ten + thousands of pounds to the fishery in terms of buying the fish and lost revenue from fee paying anglers that would otherwise be attracted to the fishery.

Click to expand...

What kind of carp? Here we have what people call European Carp, which are an introduced species. Most people who catch them just leave them on the bank (it's illegal to release them).

I don't know how big they get, but I'd say 25lb would be a pretty big one. If anyone caught one that big, they'd be impressed, but they'd still leave it rotting on the bank.

I try not to get involved in discussions of this kind as I tend to upset people by being as forthright as they are ( only in the opposing camp - which as we all know is not a nice thing to do and is the biased view of a 'townie'.) I did note the following comments and, against my better judgement, had to point them out.

Tideliner said:

.......... bear in mind that there is a problem here.

Click to expand...

The "problem" isn't with the Otters, in the same way Badgers aren't the problem with Bovine TB ( otherwise it'd be Badger TB. Badgers caught it from farmers diseased cows)

Tideliner said:

One guy I know was in tears last year when he found six 25-30lb carp killed and left on the bank with just a mouth full of flesh taken from each fish. It sounds unbelievable , but each fish is worth ten + thousands of pounds to the fishery in terms of buying the fish and lost revenue from fee paying anglers that would otherwise be attracted to the fishery.

Click to expand...

He was in tears........... over possible income. I'm not sure, but shouldn't he be a bit more adult about something that doesn't exist, except as a hypothetical?

Chris

Quote “The "problem" isn't with the Otters, in the same way Badgers aren't the problem with Bovine TB “

So Chris you think its not a problem if someone has invested tens of thousands of pounds over 4 decades in building a fishery only to have a real risk of losing the lot when otters destroy his income.

Quote “He was in tears........... over possible income “

Its been his only income , but then I guess you would be happy if he sold the lakes to a farmer who would infill the lakes and turn them into intensive farmland . And sod the wildlife who reside there at the moment.

Get real for gods sake. I am not suggesting any otter population control, just pointing out there is a problem for the fishery owner and the guys who work for him.

What is more important to you a guys livelyhood or otters ?

Tideliner said:

So Chris you think its not a problem if someone has invested tens of thousands of pounds over 4 decades in building a fishery only to have a real risk of losing the lot when otters destroy his income.

Click to expand...

Not really and for two reasons. No-one is guaranteed to make a business work or to even make money. That is down to outside causes, the market, lack of experience or otters - it's all the same. That is the risk you take and if you are going to go into business then learn to stand on your own two feet and stop whining.

Tideliner said:

Quote “He was in tears........... over possible income “

Its been his only income , but then I guess you would be happy if he sold the lakes to a farmer who would infill the lakes and turn them into intensive farmland . And sod the wildlife who reside there at the moment.

Click to expand...

So its his only income, pardon me for not bursting into tears because he's only got one source of income ( like the vast majority of people in the country ). At least, if it doesn't work out he's got the money from the sale of the fishery to fall back on. If he'd just been working for someone there would be a good possibility he'd come out of it with nothing. As for "sod the wildlife", getting rid of Otters, even if it is by relocation, is saying exactly that. 'The natural world is impinging on my tiny little life and I don't like it ' I really do wish people would both think things through and remain consistant.

Tideliner said:

What is more important to you a guys livelyhood or otters ?

Click to expand...

You can always get another job so my answer should be easy to figure out.

Chris