I have permission to use this image of a Red Grouse by Tim Melling. The Countryside Alliance does not.
Tim Melling is wondering where he should send his invoice please? He tells me that £500 would be an appropriate sum and that he’d like it to be a donation to Birders Against Wildlife Crime, perhaps to fit more satellite tags to raptors.
Didn’t the Countryside Alliance have any images of shot grouse they could have used?
The Countryside Alliance rant and my analysis of why they are so rattled.
Note added at 17:10: the CA have taken down Tim Melling’s photo – I expect their cheque is in the post to BAWC.
[registration_form]
It’s a shame this blog doesn’t have laughing face icons, Mark. I’d have posted a long row of them.
CA likely had plenty of their own trophy images but only of birds that had been shot.
You mean they didn’t ask first?
That’s probably because the last time they did the photographer told them to do one.
LOLS
Can we not ‘crowd fund’ to support Tim M. to help him take a Small Claims Court action against the Countryside Alliance? Maybe a small advert in an appropriate newspaper asking for the money would get the CA’s attention.
John, like that idea a lot. I’d certainly donate to that cause.
I wish I could ‘like’ this post.
I shall have to stay up late tonight in order to have time to do an adequate amount of laughing.
Has anyone received one of their invitations, mentioned in the Stokes spin piece, to visit a grouse moor?
Perhaps we should write and ask for a group outing?
If they were robust in their evidence based approach, why are there no references quoted or studies cited?
Then again, it read rather like a first years essay not a serious paper ….
In their latest blog, the CA’s Adrian Blackwood has made the ground-breaking discovery that Hen Harriers eat voles. I decided to take a look at the data from which they’re basing their conclusions on Hen Harrier numbers.
They say their plots are from data “provided by Natural England”.
Comparing the data in Figure 1 of NE140 “A future for the Hen Harrier in England” (publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/81030) with the data in the CA’s bar chart of Hen Harrier breeding attempts and chicks fledged:
Year; breeding attempts (NE); breeding attempts (CA); chicks fledged (NE); chicks fledged (CA)
2002 10 6 21 10
2003 21 12 28 12
2004 10 10 28 28
2005 19 15 34 23
2006 20 11 34 20
2007 21 15 40 30
2008 18 14 28 25
Take 2002 as an example, the CA assert that 10 chicks fledged from 6 breeding attempts while Natural England’s figures indicate that 21 chicks fledged from 10 breeding attempts.
Alternatively, consider 2007: NE say that 40 chicks fledged from 20 attempts while the CA’s figure suggest that 30 chicks fledged from 15 attempts.
Shurely shome mistake? I think the CA need a new abacus.
Yes, it’s richly funny. But they should pay. The breach of intellectual property rights is on the face of it unlawful. Shame on them, does it perhaps show up their claims to be upholders of the law on other matters?
Certainly they should pay. And think of the satisfaction of the ‘Countryside Alliance’ donating to BAWC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can’t see why a donation to BAWC should be a problem? As The CA say in their press release “There can be no tolerance of criminality, and the sector is coming together with government and conservation charities to stamp the last vestiges out altogether”.
Surely you believe them?
Martin – exactly. We’re all on the same side – the rule of law, against extremists, love hen harriers to bits, want more of them, blah, blah, blah
The CA have a history of this. They used an image of Sparrowhawk with a Red Leg Partridge as prey of mine asking if “is it time time to cull predators”. No permission asked and when they took down the offending article ( not just picture) I sent a request for payment which was ignored. I kept requesting payment they eventually sent a email denying the article existed. So I emailed them back with a screenshot of the article and demanding payment. They then sent quite a rude email saying they were ‘victims’ of fraud as they’d paid the person whom they sought permission from to use the image. I told them I couldn’t give a… They’d use an image of mine which is copyrighted and it’s their responsibility to make sure they had sought correct permission before use. I them got an email from their lawyer. So I then used my lawyer and a week later I got a cheque for £75. I emailed them back saying £75 covers the cost of using my lawyer but I want £160. My lawyer eventually got £160 plus costs in 2009
Thieves the lot of them