redeyedvideo
It's like water off a duck's back!
Does anyone remember the story of the vicar who had a House Sparrow shot in his church because it was cheeping too loud? It made the national press.
-
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.
Are Herring Gulls a threat to our bio-diversity? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Gullplague
- Start date
Does anyone remember the story of the vicar who had a House Sparrow shot in his church because it was cheeping too loud? It made the national press.
Gullplague
Well-known member
It is good to see that a survey is being done on an Island that was showing declines compaered with the survey in 1985-88 (minus 56% compared with SCR in 1985-88 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/S2000_14_heg_tabs_and_figs_web.pdf ). As you will kknow, Puffin Island is one of 61 colonies surveyed by Seabird 2000.
According to the RSPB:
http://www.puffinisland.org.uk/meet-the-birds
7. Herring gull (Larus argentatus)
UK Conservation Status: Red
Breeding pairs on Puffin Island: 762 (PI)
Despite being a common sight these days in and around UK towns and cities, the herring gull is one of our most threatended seabirds. Over the last 50 years, their breeding populations in the UK have declined by over 50%. They seem to have a stronghold on Puffin Island though, feeding on a mixture of fish, shellfish and other things scavenged from the marine environment, possibly with some human waste mixed in too.
7. Herring gull (Larus argentatus)
UK Conservation Status: Red
Breeding pairs on Puffin Island: 762 (PI)
Despite being a common sight these days in and around UK towns and cities, the herring gull is one of our most threatended seabirds. Over the last 50 years, their breeding populations in the UK have declined by over 50%. They seem to have a stronghold on Puffin Island though, feeding on a mixture of fish, shellfish and other things scavenged from the marine environment, possibly with some human waste mixed in too.
As you will see from the above the RSPB say there were 762 breeding pairs or a count of 1524 (762 X 2).
If you look at Seabird 2000 (Line 30 on Table 2), the count for Puffin Island is 400 at the time of their survey (1998-2002).
The numbers have almost doubled between Seabird and the date of the RSPB report which is presumably 2009 according to the reference at the foot of the page (http://www.puffinisland.org.uk/meet-the-birds).
Perhaps the research that is underway this year will show even more than there were in 2009? The RSPB refer to a "stronghold" by the HG on this Island and this may suggest something akin to a "stranglehold."
Bottom line: HG are on the increase and Seabird 2000 is looking very dated.
redeyedvideo
It's like water off a duck's back!
I'm sure most people on here can multiply by 2 and know what a pair is don't you think?
Nest and egg control of Herring Gulls in urban areas for public health and safety is still covered under a general licence.
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/gull-licensing_tcm6-18281.pdf
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/gull-licensing_tcm6-18281.pdf
Nightranger
Senior Moment
Indeed, but it isn't such an easy 'gimme' since the review...or at least, it shouldn't be in practise. Don't quote me on this (
) but whoever wanted to control the birds would have to be very clear about the actual risk. As I said earlier, the GL has been used quite poorly in some instances and I have never been confident that DEFRA has enforced the rules adequately.* This would mean that a poorly executed reason for control would technically be against the WCA 1981 but I am not aware that anyone has been prosecuted for such offences. The GL is a mess in one sense but logic has prevailed when reviews have been deemed necessary and they seem to work quite well.* Disclaimer: This is a personal view and whilst based on knowledge of actual cases it is also based on a personal perception and as such should not be seen as a comment derived from any of my past employers' policies.
Nightranger
Senior Moment
Allen S. Moore
Well-known member
Clive, you misinterpret what that table is about. A lot more than 61 herring gull colonies were surveyed by Seabird 2000 or the earlier SCR census. The colonies and figures quoted in Table 2 are examples to show changes in the breeding population of herring gulls between the 2 surveys. There are actually 3 types of colonies included among the 61 in Table 2:
1. Numbers 1-38 were the 38 most populous colonies in the United Kingdom, Isle of Man and Channel Islands in the SCR census.
2. Numbers 39-49 consist of 11 colonies which showed large increases between the SCR census and Seabird 2000.
3. Numbers 50-61 comprised the 12 most populous colonies in Ireland (both the North and the Republic) in the SCR census.
That is my interpretation of what Table 2 is about, anyway. I surveyed colonies numbered 12 and 16 in 1985, so I think that I have some idea of it!
Thinking that Seabird 2000 only surveyed 61 colonies would explain why you seem to think that it would be a piece of micturition to repeat that survey now. Hey - the list of 61 doesn't include London, Brighton, Peacehaven, Cardiff, Peel, etc.
Perhaps you should look up "stronghold" in an English dictionary, and, please, don't include it as one of your attachments.
Yes, we know that is your view. You don't need to repeat it ad nauseum. You seem to adhere to the view that if you repeatedly throw s*** at a wall some will eventually stick.
dantheman
Bah humbug
Yes, but if you use imaginary numbers, 762 breeding pairs gives a total count of 16764 (762 x 2).
ie, a plague ...
Run for the hills .... !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nightranger
Senior Moment
Wrong! Urban herring gull pairs are on the increase as are the numbers at selected sites. However, the general national picture still reports as a decline so to repeat a model to explain the evidence you have submitted:
Cityville: Herring gull numbers
2005 = 10 pairs
2011 = 110 pairs
% increase 1000
Cliffedge: Herring gulls numbers
2005 = 4,500 pairs
2011 = 4,100 pairs
% decrease <10
Net result over the two sites -300 pairs roughly equivalent to around 7% of the population summed from both sites - a decline. Substitute sites and actual numbers instead of just percentages from all the evidence posted by our Reverend contributor and this is still what you would get.
The numbers would have come in from a variety of sources and would in all likelihood have been collated by the BTO. This would have created an alert at the IUCN and generated a Data listing if the trend remained constant for 25 years. The RSPB and probably, Birdlife International would then have taken an interest and looked at the reasons for decline and attempted to formulate a recovery plan. Small increases in the number of urban pairs could not replace the numbers supported by natural/coastal sites, it is therefore unlikely that urban numbers would ever achieve anything more than provide a basement population level.*
Apologies - I know a lot of you understand all this but the Reverend gentleman keeps just adjusting his sights a little so I just wish to remind him of his central tenets and conclusions.
* Note: I managed without difficulty to post that paragraph without having to refer to DEFRA.
Last edited:
Gullplague
Well-known member
The RSPB's reply was misrepresented according to you.
I asked if they had anything newer than Seabird 2000.
Sam Stokes said no.
I have repeated that information.
How is that misrepresentation?
BTW emails are public domain unless they are sent under a condition that they not to be published or shared. There are no implied secrecy limitations. An email has as much protection as a postcard.
The Freedom of Information Act precludes any body from witholding information that is reasonably requested. I requested information from the RSPB to help me with my research and you may not know who Sam Stokes is or what her job is. She is the Media Officer and her job is to answer questions about such things as bird counts. To suggest that the RSPB would even contemplete prosecuting someone for using information that is not private and given by a media officer is absurd. The purpose of the media office is to disseminate such information! I think you know this but it seems that all of this is deliberate distraction from the purpose of the thread. In fact, quite a few seem to want to go off topic by rainsing all kiinds of side issues. We have had Creationism, does God love gulls, questions about other professions, Jehovah's Witnesses and other trollish irrelevancies.
The thread is asking questions of bird enthusiasts about the gull problem and to see if anyone has any useful information as to the status of the HG.
There has been one useful response about an ongoing survey on Puffin Island and a report showing numbers are down in Cumbria. On the other side of things, there are many reports (see the OP Pdf) suggesting numbers are on the rise.
It is a major issue and is about to go before Parliament for 4th time due to the large number of complaints from Local Goverment and various other bodies and individuals. Some on here think I am the only person flagging the HG up as a threat to our bio-diversity (which includes humans).* A Regional Health Observatory has flagged the HG as potential public health threat and Scotland are taking action against the HG because they already see it as a public health threat--due to hugely increased numbers. Given the amount of attention the HG is receiving it seems reasonable to suggest it needs to be surveyed to determine how great the danger is and whether it is likely to get worse.
Last edited:
Gullplague
Well-known member
A stronghold is quite a strong term however you want to try to interpret it away.
I simply looked at the 61 colonies Seabird did cover. I will repeat my post above because it is a good illustration to demonstrate that, on Puffin Is., numbers have increased by a large number. Is there any reason why such an increase should not be widespread? Why is there an automatic denial in relation to anything that shows an increase? Can't anyone simply agree that, in the case of Puffin Is, numbers have increased instead of parsing words and phrases?
Here is the data again--is there anything wrong with it and does it or does it not show an increase?
According to the RSPB:
http://www.puffinisland.org.uk/meet-the-birds
7. Herring gull (Larus argentatus)
UK Conservation Status: Red
Breeding pairs on Puffin Island: 762 (PI)
Despite being a common sight these days in and around UK towns and cities, the herring gull is one of our most threatended seabirds. Over the last 50 years, their breeding populations in the UK have declined by over 50%. They seem to have a stronghold on Puffin Island though, feeding on a mixture of fish, shellfish and other things scavenged from the marine environment, possibly with some human waste mixed in too.
As you will see from the above the RSPB say there were 762 breeding pairs or a count of 1524 (762 X 2).
If you look at Seabird 2000 (Line 30 on Table 2), the count for Puffin Island is 400 at the time of their survey (1998-2002).
The numbers have almost doubled between Seabird and the date of the RSPB report which is presumably 2009 according to the reference at the foot of the page (http://www.puffinisland.org.uk/meet-the-birds).
Perhaps the research that is underway this year will show even more than there were in 2009? The RSPB refer to a "stronghold" by the HG on this Island and this may suggest something akin to a "stranglehold."
Bottom line: HG are on the increase and Seabird 2000 is looking very dated.
Phil Andrews
It's only Rock and Roller but I like it
Arent the vast majority of charities exempt from the Freedom of Information Act?
Nightranger
Senior Moment
In which case, you should have sought Sam's permission to publish or published the email (in full) but removed her name. I cannot see that a reply would be so terse from the RSPB if it was sent in the full knowledge that it was going to be reproduced in this way. This is why the RSPB has a dedicated Public Affairs section and whilst Sam is the regional representative in that role, I see no reason why she would think she was supposed to be commenting on society policy (or in your words, to contradict DEFRA) when she was answering a simple query. In addition, you failed to acknowledge the precise wording of Sam's reply and ignored the word 'full'. This is far from as trivial as you would like to portray it. Therefore I am fully justified in labelling your efforts as misrepresentation
Wrong! Emails are NOT in the public domain and protection has nothing to do with this point. Email security is quite a different matter. See below.
No, no, no! I am well aware of Sam's role, as I looked it up but I can assure you, you are labouring under a very serious misapprehension. The Data Protection Act is there to look after all of us and it is what gives you the right to remain anonymous if you so choose. You may be entitled to reproduce a response from the RSPB in general terms but you are not at liberty to specifically name your source unless that person has allowed you to do so. The Freedom of Information Act may well have the limitations you state here but be honest, did you ask for permission to re-post the email? I can assure you that had I asked the same question of the team at The Lodge, I would have received a fuller explanation. BTW, did you declare that your request was made to further your research? (Note: does this approach sound familiar to everyone else? :eek!
I fully explained this point by saying the RSPB would not do so because it is expensive and has no guarantee of success, therefore it would be a waste of charitable donations. However, do not be fooled into thinking that serious offences such as breaches of DPA and misrepresentation have not occured and continue to do so. If you really wish to test this - try doing something similar to Warner Studios, CBS or even Smith-Klein for that matter. It is not a deflection at all but a point designed to demonstrate that you are not only misrepresenting the data sources you have posted but sources for alleged support for what is actually a preconceived position on your part
Not my problem! If you want to answer the side issues it is up to you. I am happy to explore every avenue within the topic and I am sorry to inform you, that includes how you present what the RSPB has said to you.
I am not sure why you cannot accept that most (if not all) bird species are counted on an annual basis through BBS, Birdtrack, reserves (WWT, RSPB, Wilife Trusts), county information. These may not be as comprehensive as Seabird 2000 but it is certainly enough to spot trends and is what you missed in Sam's short reply to your specific question. I will set you a challenge - email Sam again and ask her if there have been any counts (from any sources and any locations) of herring gulls since 2000 and I bet your reply will be different.
Ah, so the Mayans were right!
Not really Clive! You seem to have no concept of what the term 'biodiversity' actually means and yet again you have repeated your personal statement 'due to hugely increased numbers.' This paragraph neatly sums up your unilateral and untenable position on this subject.
Nightranger
Senior Moment
I am not sure this is true Phil, in fact it is probably more the complete opposite given what I know of something the RSPB were asked about a few years ago. It was not a major issue and no attempt had been made to hold back on information should it have been specifically requested but it certainly opened up the debate about whether a charity should be totally open. I am not going to talk about the specific subject here because it is too much of a diversion but I will posit the hypothetical question - is it morally wrong for a charity not to publicise information or views from outside the organisation that contradict the organisation's own policy? Remember, the charity still has a charter to adhere by so it is not a clear cut answer.
Note: The RSPB is big compared with other conservation charities but I can tell you with complete authority that all conservation charities have to face this moral dilemma on more than a few occasions.
JTweedie
Well-known member
I think it depends on the context - if an opposing view is likely to bring harm to something that a charity is there to protect, then it is in its interests to point out why they think said views are wrong.
But then some things are not about opinion - on some things there is no "discussion" to be had, for example whether evolution happens or whether the Earth orbits the Sun.
If a claim is made in a newspaper that there were no robins left in the UK, the RSPB would be entitled to not say anything about it when it would be clear from most people's everyday experiences that robins were still in the country. However, if there was a continuous concerted campaign resulting in public unease or doubt about the accuracy of the statements i.e. if some people start believing it's true, then it would make sense for the organisation to make a statement about it to clear up the wrongly held views or concerns.
This is what has happened with numerous organisations - e.g. Royal Society issuing statements on the issue of climate change.
This particular issue with the gulls is one where I don't think the RSPB should be compelled to address at this particular moment, but if the balance starts tipping towards a kind of moral panic, with letters in newspapers, people on TV issuing clearly wrong information, MPs talking about changing Government policy, then that's when the RSPB in conjunction with other bodies like the BTO can start issuing statements about it, pointing out why it's wrong. I would say that if someone speaks to the RSPB directly, then they're entitled to a personal response, but this doesn't amount to being a public statement of policy or intent, although they should be prepared to standby the response if it did become more widely publicised, i.e. whatever they say in a personal response should be factually correct.
There are some things they can hide, like where the sites of rare breeding birds are, but all they have to say to an enquirer is because of a risk to the birds' wellbeing they cannot reveal that information. It's not giving the person the answer they want, but its not lying either and there's a real reason for withholding the information.
Nightranger
Senior Moment
Thanks JT and I agree completely. Going back to gulls - it is clear Sam Stokes was responding to Clive's (possibly, specific) question and yet he has chosen to take the answer at face value and go on to make a number of assumptions that are not supported in what he has reproduced so far. I do not expect a different response from the RSPB but had he gone to Public Affairs at The Lodge, he would have received a fuller reply that would have been better for public release. My role at the RSPB was not the same as Sam's but I could easily have been the one writing a response depending on how the original query was submitted. This means that whilst the RSPB has no choice about being open when challenged, it does not give an excuse for an enquirer to fight dirty and disguise the reason for asking a question. OK, it happens but it shouldn't and as I mentioned above, anyone this kind of attitude with a major commercial organisation would almost certainly find themselves on the wrong side of a writ. I have seen so many submissions (not just here) using the charitable status against conservation organisations (not just the RSPB) that I find it frustrating when people exploit the weak financial position of these organisations to do things they would not even dream of in commercial circles. It is possible that this is just one man's crusade despite the length of this thread and I am sure the PA department and Sam Stokes will know more about the background than I do.*
* I still have contacts within the RSPB but since leaving, I have tried to avoid using them as a repository for information, particularly on sensitive subjects. I know from my own experiences that it is easy to inadvertently release something that is not in the public domain and I would not want any of my former colleagues to extend a reply to me further than they needed to do. I alerted Sam about this thread in case she did not know of its existence (unlikely) and I do not expect or require a reponse from her.
MJB
Well-known member
If Clive's MDiv does come from the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (address 2001 West Seminary, Forth Worth TX), then perhaps it's relevant that in 2007 the seminary began an initiative for engaging and transforming culture, its new Center for Cultural Engagement, named in honor of Richard Land*. In line with this initiative, the seminary employed prominent intelligent design advocate William A. Dembski**.
Bear with me for just two moments for these short Wiki excerpts...
"1. *Dr. Richard D. Land (born 1946) is the president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), the moral and ethics concern entity of the Southern Baptist Convention in the United States, a post he has held since 1988. He was host of the nationally syndicated radio program Richard Land Live! from 2002 to 2012 and is the executive editor of The Christian Post.
In the March 31, 2012 edition of Richard Land Live!, Land accused the Obama administration and civil rights leaders of using the Trayvon Martin case to deliberately stir up racial tension and "gin up the black vote" for Obama in the 2012 election. His comments were criticized by several black Southern Baptist pastors, who felt they reversed a long effort by the SBC to distance itself from a past history of racism. One of those pastors, Dwight McKissic, even announced he would introduce a resolution repudiating Land's remarks.[6] However, Land refused to back down, saying that he would not "bow to the false god of political correctness. However, he subsequently wrote an open letter of apology for "any hurt or misunderstanding" that his words might have caused. The SBC took Richard Land Live! off the air.
2. **William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American philosopher, and theologian. He is a proponent of intelligent design, well known for promoting the concept of specified complexity. He is currently the Philip E. Johnson Research Professor in Culture & Science at the Southern Evangelical Seminary at Matthews, North Carolina, and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He is the author of a number of books about intelligent design, including The Design Inference (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (1999), The Design Revolution (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
The concept of intelligent design involves the argument that an intelligent mind is responsible for the complexity of life and that it can be detected empirically. Dembski postulates that probability theory can be used to prove irreducible complexity, or what he calls specified complexity. Intelligent design—and Dembski's concept of specified complexity—are seen by the scientific community as a form of conservative Christian creationism, attempting to portray itself as science."
Perhaps Clive openly or secretly disagrees with these stalwarts of his alma mater, but if not, then I leave Bird Forum members to draw their own conclusions.
MJB
Robin Edwards
Well-known member
I drew my conclusions several pages back MJB, some of the early responses being closer to the truth than I first imagined.
DMW
Well-known member
The FOI Act does not apply to "any body" - it applies only to those bodies defined under the law, of which the RSPB is not one.
In any event, the FOI Act is not relevant here, since environmental matters fall within the ambit of the Environmental Information Regulations. Since the RSPB is not a public authority or under the control of one, and the RSPB is not performing an act of public administration, it is not subject to these Regulations either.
