There is already an ongoing 3 year population study trying to identify the cause of Herring Gull declines - mentioned here... www.puffinisland.org.uk/news/2012gullcensus. Skokholm and Walney are also taking part to my knowledge.
Wintering population figures up to 2004 are given here http://webs.uvigo.es/yeonkim/papers/Kim2006(JZool270)b.pdf
Nest and egg control of Herring Gulls in urban areas for public health and safety is still covered under a general licence.
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.
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.
As you will see from the above the RSPB say there were 762 breeding pairs or a count of 1524 (762 X 2).
I'm sure most people on here can multiply by 2 and know what a pair is don't you think?
Bottom line: HG are on the increase and Seabird 2000 is looking very dated.
Don't try and be cute, I haven't accused you of fabricating the contents of the email although you probably selectively edited some bits out (and according to your reply above, deliberately ignored key wording). I do not require a reply from Sam and I have made that clear but I have absolutely no reason to think she would not reply to you. Having worked there, I know the society policy about answering queries. You are actually making wild assumptions here, the first of which, is that the RSPB and DEFRA would always be in agreement. Even at a basic level, this is not true - DEFRA is a governmental department and plays along with party politics, the RSPB is an NGO and independent charity with a charter that does not align it in any political direction. Indeed, in recent years, DEFRA and the RSPB have disagreed on probably as much as they have agreed upon and that is how it should be. I have been quite easy-going with you over this point so far but if you continue to cast DEFRA into an argument that they have no place in at the moment, then it is another of your fallacies that I am quite willing to repeat until you are bored.
In fact, this is highly debatable and you as an ex-lawyer should be aware that you have potentially breached Data Protection rules by reproducing part of an email without the express position of the author. I doubt the RSPB will take action against you out of not wanting to waste charitable money but your breach is in two ways - a, you specifically and personally named your source. b, you reproduced just a portion of the email, therefore you misrepresented the reply and you certainly ignored its specific contents. Incidentally, if the RSPB did choose to take action against you, did you know that they can present a case to court forcing BF to reveal your identity, particularly if you have sent any private messages or emails with Sam Stokes' name in them?
Anyway, do your best GP but be ready for the next BF and Facebook revolt if you get any of this nonsense anyway near to recommending any culls.
Note on edit: Robin has already answered your point about anonymity but you are welcome to search Ian + Peters + any term of your choosing.
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.
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.
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.
Arent the vast majority of charities exempt from the Freedom of Information Act?
is it morally wrong for a charity not to publicise information or views from outside the organisation that contradict the organisation's own policy?
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.
And a founding pastor; Clive R. Hickman (MDiv 1996) to Coastlands Church, Peacehaven, East Sussex, Great Britain, as founding pastor. So now we have it, a christian who doesn't like one of God's own creatures defecating on his church.
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.