When having a go at others it is best to be sure that you are on the moral high ground and not to sink into the depths. Please note, GWCT, YFTB and The Times.
Yesterday the GWCT published a blog on their website. It refers to a paper which has not yet been published, and is therefore embargoed, about heather burning. It seems that the paper, which has not yet been published and is therefore embargoed, criticises the RSPB. When the paper is published, and is not embargoed, I’ll tell you whether I think the RSPB deserves a damn good hiding over their behaviour, but since the paper is not yet published, and is therefore embargoed, it would be invidious to comment.
This hasn’t prevented the GWCT from writing their blog, though. I asked them (see comment on their blog) how I could find the paper which they say was downloaded from the Swansea University website. Their reply (which you can see on their website) says ‘Swansea University published the paper on their website this week (in their Open Access Repository). The author there confirmed it was supposed to be in the public domain – hence this blog (which was cleared with the author). The paper has since been removed by Swansea – expecting it back up in May – will be worth the wait.‘. So, to be charitable, the paper was published in error (although quite an embarrassing error, it would seem) but the GWCT wade in with both feet and make the most of an embargoed non-published publication. The GWCT ought really not to have published that blog, and they should now certainly remove it and explain why, and come back to the subject in May – but they don’t have the scientific decency to do that. I asked GWCT, this morning whether they were going to do this, and you can see that they don’t intend to (see comments on their blog).
When I asked GWCT whether they could send me a copy of the paper they directed me to the authors, so I asked whether the paper was embargoed (it clearly is) but as is sometimes the case these days you can’t get a straight answer out of GWCT and they told me, again, to contact the authors, so I asked them, again, whether the paper is embargoed (it clearly is!) but they have not yet replied; if they do, they will, no doubt refuse to admit that the paper is embargoed (which it is) and tell me to contact the authors (which I have of course, and had before GWCT suggested it – see blog at 7pm this evening). Late addition: the GWCT did get back to me and gave me this link – you won’t get the whole paper from it though, because it is embargoed!
YFTB issued a press release on the same subject and distributed the embargoed paper with the press release. The paper they distributed has ‘For Review Only’ written across every page which is a clear indication that it is not for publication – it might not, for all I know, even be the final version of the paper. I know this because I have seen it – but because it is embargoed I won’t tell you anything about the paper (although a part of me is itching to – but I can resist some temptations) because that’s how one is supposed to behave. It’s not how GWCT and YFTB behave though.
In Today’s The Times ‘newspaper’ there is a piece by the environment editor Ben Webster, headlined ‘RSPB ‘twisted data’ in campaign against grouse shooting‘. If only the RSPB did have a campaign against grouse shooting – I think they should! The piece quotes the great ecologist and statistician, Sir Ian Botham. I guess The Times may not have realised that the paper was embargoed – but if they had read it (and it was attached to the press release), rather than just reproducing chunks of the YFTB press release, then they might well have seen ‘For Review Only’ written across every page which might have given them a clue. The Times appears to be the only newspaper to have run with this story – maybe the Daily Mail tomorrow? That would be par for the course.
Now, if the RSPB has behaved badly then it deserves to be criticised – but it does deserve the criticism to be transparent and available for others to evaluate. The alacrity with which the GWCT and YFTB leapt on this subject is rather unedifying – but then, this is the grouse industry.
For another angle to this story, come back at 7pm.
See also George Monbiot’s article on this issue here and Andrew Gilruth’s comment on Martin Harper’s blog here and now The Shooting Times is joining in. What a mess!
You have to wonder when the RSPB Council will realise that they are not great mates with grouse shooting and begin to take some action. I know, why don’t they have a campaign against grouse shooting?
[registration_form]
“0.68% of heather moorland in Britain is burned each year on an average rotation of 147 years”
What?
I’m well used to the long-suffering Andrew G’s difficulties wrangling data but he claims that’s a quote from the paper. If it is, what on earth does it mean? Average of what? The small amount of heather under regular (8-30 years is suggested elsewhere) burning, combined with all the heather that has never been burned? I don’t think that’s how you do statistics. It’s an utterly meaningless number. If that’s the level this paper is operating at, I wouldn’t give much credence to the rest of it.
I think heather burning on an actual 147 year rotation would count as forestry, if not rewilding.
Mark did mention that the terrible times …. piece quotes the great ecologist and statistician, Sir Ian Botham, so maybe that explains the quality issue, too many toxic lead butties on burnt moors?
John – I expect these leading independent scientists might appreciate your valuable insight. They may also appreciate the hysterical views of the RSPB’s former Conservation Director – that the RSPB should respond to criticism of its press releases (for bearing only a passing resemblance to scientific findings) by running a campaign against grouse shooting. Priceless.
Andrew – you are shocking. Get that blog down and play nicely.
Thanks for your thoughts Andrew. I will endeavour to contain my initial perplexity and wait for the official publication of the paper to see if the authors have managed to couch that surprising and confusing figure in rather more context than you were willing to.
The case for the RSPB to campaign against driven grouse shooting is comprehensive and compelling, and utterly unrelated to any criticism of RSPB press releases. The RSPB’s PR should, of course, always operate to a high standard of accuracy, professionalism and proper treatment of scientific literature. As should the GWCT’s.
Who funded this research?
Looks as though George Monbiot must have breached the embargo. Does he deserve a damn good hiding?
Lazywell – you’re suggesting that GWCT should behave badly and everyone else should then behave like a doormat aren’t you? Given your closeness to the GWCT, how do you think they have behaved?
No, Mark, I’m not suggesting that.
Monbiot had clearly got hold of a copy of the paper somehow – perhaps a Review one – and sought to get his vituperative attack in early, and well before publication. You seem strangely sanguine about that. He’s also been going hammer and tongs with Matt Davies on Twitter, as I’m sure you’ve seen.
The GWCT’s blog, on the other hand, is a balanced commentary on this emotive topic. I commend it.
Britain’s beautiful heather clad moors were created thousands of years ago!! What a load of rubbish. Why in Roman times where Red Grouse so rare and as I proved in my book where so easy to catch as they are to day. The dominant game bird was Black Grouse which does not need these heather moors and was quoted by an archeologist ‘ Commoner than chicken bones’ in Roman digs.
These grasslands were created by the British tribes using large herds of pones used for war and eating just like the habitat being created on part of the Geltsdale reserve today using Exmoor pones.
A case of ‘the pot calling the kettle black’ – I think of you Mark Avery as the chief exponent of murky underhand activities.
And anyway, answer the question this report poses (embargo-ed or otherwise) – has the RSPB, and you, twisted the facts around burning? Unquestionably ‘yes’ in your case.
Mark – welcome to this blog and thank you for your opening very rude comment.
You seem to be suggesting that the paper criticises me for something – have you read it (I have)?
And no, you seem to be missing the point – whatever it says, it says it when published. The type of snide remark made by you here is rather more difficult to make when the paper can be read and assessed by all (which is one reason why embargoes exist).
The lead author Davies used to work at GWCT if you check affiliations on his earliest papers. Probably just a coincidence that they were all over it first…
Averywatcher – welcome. interesting name! Yes, I knew that. I believe he has also worked with RSPB and probably lots of other folk too. I wouldn’t read anything into that myself.