CornishExile
rydhsys rag Kernow lemmyn!
Seeing as we seem to be addressing a few mildly controversial topics at the moment (windfarms, GM food, gamekeeping) it seems we might as well go for the really controversial one as well - Songbird Survival. I've been doing a little research, and they seem to still be an active group.
For those who don't know who they are, and what they do, the following is a fair short precis - they're a registered charity who purport to be concerned about the decline of passerine species in the UK. Whilst they identify several factors that have contributed to this indisputable fact (habitat loss, pesticides, domestic cats etc), the main thrust of their arguments are firmly anti-raptor. Their activities are largely publicity-based - they or their supporters write to local papers, national magazines etc raising the profile of their organisation and firmly pinning the blame for declining songbird numbers on raptors and their particular bete noire, sparrowhawks.
Read all about it on their website, http://www.songbird-survival.org.uk/index.htm
They are clearly and worryingly getting their message across. Search the internet and you'll find many summaries of them on the search / info engines, such as the following:
Google : Songbird Survival Action Group - http://www.songbird-survival.org.uk/
A site dedicated to making the UK public aware of the decline in songbird populations.
or
UKDirectory : 12. SongBird Survival
Due to the reduction in population of small birds this group of ornithologists campaign for the protection of songbirds in the UK.
The impact of this goes from the (clearly not) sublime to the ridiculous... the pro-cat lobby as epitomised by the website http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/html/cat_predation.html seize on a 'paper' published by Songbird Survival, which serves to demonstrate what a clearly defined agenda this charity has:
"“Cats – Love them or Hate them!” ©2003 Songbird Survival (UK) “Cats are frequently singled out as the primary reason for the disappearance of Britain's songbirds. But is this label really justified? SongBird Survival thinks not!… If we compare the predation rates of cats and sparrowhawks on birds alone, this highlights some very interesting facts. For example, Britain's population of 10 million cats is said by the CPL to be responsible for killing 55 million songbirds each year - an average of 5.5 per cat. Yet by comparison, and calculating from the predation rate quoted by Dr Ian Newton in his book The Sparrowhawk, the UK's estimated population of 100,000 sparrowhawks will slaughter in excess of 100 million songbirds during the same period - an average of 1,000 'kills' per sparrowhawk. This strongly indicates that sparrowhawks are responsible for killing almost DOUBLE the total number of songbirds predated by cats. And on a 'one-to-one' basis, each sparrowhawk kills the same number of songbirds as the total taken by 180 cats!” If you have trouble with the above link, please copy and paste this web address directly into your browser: http://www.songbird-survival.org.uk/cats.htm 10/31
When presented to the caring but environmentally naive, this sort of argument must have a certain compelling logic about it. I wonder how much momentum they are generating?
I seem to recall a short correspondence in one of the UK birding magazines a few years ago between a Songbird Survival representative and a more grounded-in-reality reader - I forget the exact details of their exchange, but ethics aside I'm sure there was a reference to an agenda behind this anti-raptor body - the implication being that the p-word lobby were driving this. I wouldn't on the basis of what I know say this actually was the case - however, Peter Bryant of the Royal P Racing Association attended a trustees meeting of Songbird Survival in 2001, and said,
"...an article that appeared in the Birdwatching magazine that alleged that this group was nothing more than a cover for disgruntled p fanciers and it had a hidden agenda. Well, (and I hope the author of that article is reading!) there are 2 p fanciers who are also bird lovers on the board, plus me. In addition there are several ornithologists, a farmer, a farmer’s daughter and a wildlife issue campaigner who are all cheesed off with the line taken by other agencies over the decline of our songbirds. Yes, the raptor issue will have a direct influence on p racers but it also had a direct and catastrophic effect on grouse moors, gardens and the countryside." http://www.rpra.org/view_from_the_reddings/vftr_2001/vtfr_2001_02_x1.html
Given the relatively small numbers of p keepers in the UK, 3 board members from their ranks seems a little disproportionate. However, in fairness this may not be the case now in 2004. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
At this juncture some sort of disclaimer seems appropriate. This is not a thread intended to stir up the debate-we-shall-not-have about p's. The above serves simply to illustrate the story behind Songbird Survival to date. This thread is intended to explore the ethics / justification / science behind the raptor control argument espoused by Songbird Survival, and indeed see what we think of that organisation itself, and it's potentially deletorious effects. As such the thread is a continuation of one touched on in the gamekeeper thread currently running alongside here.
C
For those who don't know who they are, and what they do, the following is a fair short precis - they're a registered charity who purport to be concerned about the decline of passerine species in the UK. Whilst they identify several factors that have contributed to this indisputable fact (habitat loss, pesticides, domestic cats etc), the main thrust of their arguments are firmly anti-raptor. Their activities are largely publicity-based - they or their supporters write to local papers, national magazines etc raising the profile of their organisation and firmly pinning the blame for declining songbird numbers on raptors and their particular bete noire, sparrowhawks.
Read all about it on their website, http://www.songbird-survival.org.uk/index.htm
They are clearly and worryingly getting their message across. Search the internet and you'll find many summaries of them on the search / info engines, such as the following:
Google : Songbird Survival Action Group - http://www.songbird-survival.org.uk/
A site dedicated to making the UK public aware of the decline in songbird populations.
or
UKDirectory : 12. SongBird Survival
Due to the reduction in population of small birds this group of ornithologists campaign for the protection of songbirds in the UK.
The impact of this goes from the (clearly not) sublime to the ridiculous... the pro-cat lobby as epitomised by the website http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/html/cat_predation.html seize on a 'paper' published by Songbird Survival, which serves to demonstrate what a clearly defined agenda this charity has:
"“Cats – Love them or Hate them!” ©2003 Songbird Survival (UK) “Cats are frequently singled out as the primary reason for the disappearance of Britain's songbirds. But is this label really justified? SongBird Survival thinks not!… If we compare the predation rates of cats and sparrowhawks on birds alone, this highlights some very interesting facts. For example, Britain's population of 10 million cats is said by the CPL to be responsible for killing 55 million songbirds each year - an average of 5.5 per cat. Yet by comparison, and calculating from the predation rate quoted by Dr Ian Newton in his book The Sparrowhawk, the UK's estimated population of 100,000 sparrowhawks will slaughter in excess of 100 million songbirds during the same period - an average of 1,000 'kills' per sparrowhawk. This strongly indicates that sparrowhawks are responsible for killing almost DOUBLE the total number of songbirds predated by cats. And on a 'one-to-one' basis, each sparrowhawk kills the same number of songbirds as the total taken by 180 cats!” If you have trouble with the above link, please copy and paste this web address directly into your browser: http://www.songbird-survival.org.uk/cats.htm 10/31
When presented to the caring but environmentally naive, this sort of argument must have a certain compelling logic about it. I wonder how much momentum they are generating?
I seem to recall a short correspondence in one of the UK birding magazines a few years ago between a Songbird Survival representative and a more grounded-in-reality reader - I forget the exact details of their exchange, but ethics aside I'm sure there was a reference to an agenda behind this anti-raptor body - the implication being that the p-word lobby were driving this. I wouldn't on the basis of what I know say this actually was the case - however, Peter Bryant of the Royal P Racing Association attended a trustees meeting of Songbird Survival in 2001, and said,
"...an article that appeared in the Birdwatching magazine that alleged that this group was nothing more than a cover for disgruntled p fanciers and it had a hidden agenda. Well, (and I hope the author of that article is reading!) there are 2 p fanciers who are also bird lovers on the board, plus me. In addition there are several ornithologists, a farmer, a farmer’s daughter and a wildlife issue campaigner who are all cheesed off with the line taken by other agencies over the decline of our songbirds. Yes, the raptor issue will have a direct influence on p racers but it also had a direct and catastrophic effect on grouse moors, gardens and the countryside." http://www.rpra.org/view_from_the_reddings/vftr_2001/vtfr_2001_02_x1.html
Given the relatively small numbers of p keepers in the UK, 3 board members from their ranks seems a little disproportionate. However, in fairness this may not be the case now in 2004. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
At this juncture some sort of disclaimer seems appropriate. This is not a thread intended to stir up the debate-we-shall-not-have about p's. The above serves simply to illustrate the story behind Songbird Survival to date. This thread is intended to explore the ethics / justification / science behind the raptor control argument espoused by Songbird Survival, and indeed see what we think of that organisation itself, and it's potentially deletorious effects. As such the thread is a continuation of one touched on in the gamekeeper thread currently running alongside here.
C
Last edited:
