Dr Coffey’s reading list (3)

12 Replies to “Dr Coffey’s reading list (3)”

1. ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results‘ – and so with writing to Dr Coffey, I’m with Einstein

   1. Filbert – I knew someone would say that! But we haven’t actually written to Dr Coffey before in the same way! And the political climate is definitely changing.

2. That list isn’t surprising, but gawd its depressing.

   Its quite impressively stark though (in a really bad way). If there’s a way to give this list a much higher level of public exposure that would be well worthwhile.

   How about updating it and appending it to every press release from every conservation organisation about every missing raptor from now on?

   Other/better ideas welcome.

   1. Annual memorial service for raptors destroyed and missing, every August 12th?

3. That’s an appalling list of illegally slaughtered birds which is probably just a small percentage of the total. It really is time the government agencies got to grips with this on-going criminality! And also, really time for our conservation NGOs to be more robust in bringing this issue to public attention.

   1. Sandra – it is the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

4. For balance:

   Dr Tingay’s report was commissioned and published by the league against cruel sports and shows no sign of any review process

   http://www.andywightman.com/docs/LACS_Grouse_Report_2015.pdf

   Much of its evidence is extracted from rspb publications, many of them published during Dr Avery’s time at the rspb, none of which appear to have been peer reviewed, which are heavily caveated by the rspb itself:

   ‘The views expressed in Birdcrime are not necessarily those of the RSPB or PAW.’

   ‘The figures in annual Birdcrime reports may vary from other published reports, because data sets compiled for different purposes, using very different methods, are unlikely to be directly comparable.’

   Dr Tingay’s appendix includes as examples of raptor persecution satellite tagged birds that have disappeared. DEFRA makes it clear why these birds are so often not discovered:

   The satellite tags have a 10hrs on/48hrs off tag transmission cycle so the bird usually dies during an off cycle many kilometres from its last known position. If the dead bird is either in long vegetation or lying on its back, the solar batteries will never recharge and the bird will not be found.

   The DEFRA evidence also indicates that, since it is young birds that are tagged (raptor mortality very high during first year from natural causes: sometimes only 10% survive http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ibi.12355/full), they frequently fall prey to avian or terrestrial predation.

   https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hen-harriers-tracking-programme-update

   The evidence also includes incidents listed as ‘nest shot out’, disturbance, attempted shooting etc.

   Autopsy evidence to support claims that birds have been shot is not cited. The only autopsy results that I have seen cannot categorically state that the bird has been shot.

   Evidence from elsewhere indicates that raptor breeding success is cyclical, whilst persecution is not, so natural factors are clearly the main factor in breeding success and it is there that a solution to any lack of breeding success will be found.

   http://www.countryside-alliance.org/future-hen-harrier/

   [edited by Mark, shortened, to try to keep the comments relevant to this particular post rather than making points that would be better made on other relevant posts]

   1. Tim – as a ‘persecution denier’ you find the almost undeniable facts of widespread wildlife crime almost undeniable – but you still have a go. You didn’t comment on the previous post about Peregrines on grouse moors, I notice.

      Nobody who is a serious player in this debate actually believes that raptors aren’t killed in massive numbers on grouse moors – Hen Harriers, Peregrines, Golden Eagles and more. By maintaining your ‘persecution denier’ response you demonstrate how irrelevant are your views. You cannot undermine the wealth of evidence on this subject. It’s undeniability is why Defra avoids talking about it rather than denies it.

      But, Dr Tingay’s evidence was not commissioned by LACS, and in any case you can see from the blog that she is a highly respected and experienced raptor expert.

      Your quote from the Newton et al paper is hardly relevant is it? This one would be ‘Those raptors that are predators of game birds or racing pigeons have long been subject in Britain and elsewhere to shooting, poisoning and other forms of persecution (e.g. Etheridge et al. 1997, Whitfield et al. 2004, 2008, Newton 2013).’

      1. Tim – I’ve edited your comment below to remove matters that aren’t relevant to this post. I’ve also removed a few of your comments from this post and a couple of mine. This is not because I am stopping you having your say but because these comments are getting hopelessly confused and straying from the subject of the posts on which they appear.

         So, you’ll have to start again commenting here and I will be looking very hard to keep these comment strings relevant to the posts on which they sit.

         Sorry about that – I don’t blame you (much) for straying off topic a lot, particularly when your arguments are a bit ropy; it’s really my error in letting you get away with it too much.

   2. “If such a solution can be found, it has the potential to benefit …” That would have been my position until about 5 years ago. Efforts to find a compromise solution have been going on for decades now, but it is clear that one side had and still has no intention to negotiate in good faith. My view now is that such an approach is long past its sell-by date, and a more robust strategy is needed.
      But congratulations on your “For balance” wheeze! It ‘justifies’ you continuing with your usual outrageous cherry picking, all in the interests of fair play!
      It’s a time-honoured tactic much used by other denialists, most notably the tobacco industry but also by the lead and asbestos lobbies as well as the climate change deniers.
      Fortunately Mark is a much nicer and more patient chap than me – I would be tempted (like several of the best climate change sites) to wield the editorial blue pencil.

   3. Several comments completely removed, censored, on a post about a debate in parliament under the highest standards of free speech! Standards?

      1. Tim – you poor thing. Start again. And stick to the subject. And I removed my responses too remember – brilliantly crushing though my responses were. The post is actually about raptor persecution.

Comments are closed.