‘Targeted control of problem species is only one part of a complex mix of factors that can influence populations’
Defra response to Gavin Gamble’s e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting.
This is what targetted control looks like in twentieth century UK:
Please sign the e-petition to which Defra was replying to show them how wrong they are.
[registration_form]
Come on Guardian or Canary you know this is a great headline for an article.
“DEFRA calls protected bird of prey, ‘problem species'”
No it doesn’t. Read it again, without the influence of what Mark Avery is suggesting it’s telling you.
Sorry Mark but I think you’re intentionally distorting what has been written for added ‘spin’. The section you’ve taken issue with “Persecution of British raptors AND OTHER WILDLIFE” clearly aims to address the issues raised in the petition regrading illegal raptor persecution AND perfectly legal control of foxes, stoats, corvids etc. Given the new paragraph starting when discussing ‘problem species’, along with the context of the actual piece written, it’s plainly obvious that section is meant to deal with the issue of ‘other wildlife’, not the illegal persecution of raptors.
“Targeted control of problem species is only one part of a complex mix of factors that can influence populations. Maintaining the balance between biodiversity and the numbers of each species is important. Defra monitors populations of a number of rare or vulnerable species where human intervention is thought to be a contributing factor in their decline, and ensures appropriate action is taken to keep their populations out of danger. “
Bara – your track record of reading what has actually been written isn’t actually very good, judging by your previous comments on this blog. And thanks for accusing me of bad faith.
It is appallingly written – maybe we should let Defra clarify what they meant. After all they had over three weeks to put their response together. I’d never have let something as badly written as that out of the door when I had a say in things elsewhere. But you have given Defra an escape route if they’d like to rewrite their response… I’d be happy to see them rewrite many other parts too!
But your suggestion doesn’t make sense. No other wildlife are mentioned and your theory doesn’t fit with the third (of three) sentences in the paragraph. Moreover, you’d have thought that Defra, of all people, would have written ‘Persecution of British raptors, and other wildlife’ if they hadn’t meant ‘Persecution of British raptors and other wildlife’.
The only way you could persuade me you are right is by telling me that you wrote it yourself – you didn’t did you?
By suggesting bad faith on Mark’s part and an inability for his readership to make up their own minds about the offending sentence you are simply insulting to all concerned. Like others, I’m sure, I read the offending sentence in DEFRA’s response before reading Mark’s comments on the matter and drew exactly the same conclusion. In the context, it is hard to see the words “problem species” as a reference to anything other than protected birds of prey. If something else was meant then it’s an extraordinarily sloppy use of English although even so one has to wonder whether such a slip, if such it was, actually betrays a worrying attitude behind the civil service gloss.
Mark’s refusing to post comments which do align with his interpretation of something, so I don’t expect this will get past his ‘moderation’. If you read the headline at the top of that section, then that section addresses “Persecution of British raptors AND OTHER WILDLIFE”, then at some point the response relates to a specific point in the petition. At some point in that section “”Persecution of British raptors AND OTHER WILDLIFE”, it will address “OTHER WILDLIFE”. Given that all of the preceding paragraphs in that section deal with raptor persecution, and more importantly DEFRA’s claimed view of illegal raptor persecution, then a final paragraph has to be discussing “other wildlife”. Every other single point of the petition is specifically addressed at some point in that reply. Try and work out where the issue of fox. stoat, mountain hare is addressed. Could it be in the section headlined “”Persecution of British raptors AND OTHER WILDLIFE”?
Bara – try to be accurate and polite. You’ve missed out a ‘don’t’ in this comment in your excitement to say again the thing you said before and I haven’t refused to post any comments on this post – even though yours are repetitive. So you do think that Defra regard legal predator control as ‘persecution’.
And the response does not specifically address ‘flood risk’, nor does it specifically address ‘water pollution’ nor does it specifically address ‘environmental damage’ – in all cases the reader is left guessing whether the response does deal with them and if so where and with what words.
Mark, you’re intentionally leaving my comments out and then posting others that were submitted later – the natural thought process to that would lead one to the conclusion you’re intentionally not posting them for some reason or another. If there’s an alternative reason to your methodology then I’m all ear. It might be an idea to lay off the ad hominem to replies that don’t always align with your interpretation of things (not isolated to this particular blog piece, I might add).
Regarding your questions as to whether DEFRA view the legal control of foxes etc as ‘persecution’, at the risk of having to repeat myself again, they also use the headline of “Subsidies to grouse moorland estates”, then go on to explain how that isn’t the case. Viewed objectively that would suggest they’re using the petition points as headlines, not their own personal view.
Bara – all your comments have been posted and all of them have had replies too. I regard it as a form of care in the community for you today. But I don’t think that |I need to drop everything that I am doing just to answer your questions so sometimes you might have to wait until I have a moment. So far you have made eight comments here today and they’ve all been posted. You seem rather needy – why is that? Or are you merely holding a massive sense of entitlement? You can take those remarks as ad hominem because they are – I think you are wasting my time here.
But when it comes to ad hominem remarks then you started this thread by accusing me of intentional distortion so you’ll just have to put up with getting a few back – seems fair doesn’t it?
Try not to be repetitive for a while, why don’t you?
It is self evident we are talking about Hen Harriers populations. The targeted control of problem species (Hen Harriers) is only part of a complex mixture of factors (foxes, meadow pipets, suitable habitat etc) that can influence populations (of Hen Harriers).
This is in my opinion acknowledgement on the part of Defra that satellite tagging data shows that much higher than 30 % of tagged Hen Harriers die from persecution on grouse moors. Data released so far shows that approximately 30 % of tagged Hen Harriers are illegally persecuted and killed on grouse moors. Which is why they are so reluctant to release it, ie it clearly shows that the partners in the Hen Harrier Recovery Plan are actively breaking the law or at least supporting those that do.
This data needs releasing ASAP.
The petition raises points regarding ‘other wildlife’ for instance – foxes, stoats, mountain hares (as highlighted in the petition). Given the headline of Defra’s response is “Persecution of British raptors AND OTHER WILDLIFE”, then at some point during that reply they’re discussing “other wildlife”. All of the preceding paragraphs specifically deal with raptor persecution, logic dictates at some point it will discuss ‘other wildlife’.
I’m not writing this to persuade you I’m right, I firmly believe you’re fully aware of the context of that final paragraph. I pointed that out in my initial post.
Bara – so you’re saying that Defra is calling legal predator control ‘persecution’?
Objectively, I’d say they’re responding to that which is suggested in the petition, not that they believe the control of ‘problem species’ as persecution. If you take the following headline ‘Subsides to grouse moorland estates’, it then goes on to explain how that isn’t the case.
Bara – it doesn’t explain, nor even claim, that there are no subsidies to grouse moorland estates because that clearly wouldn’t be true. What is says, go check, is that subsidies are not paid to farmers for shooting per se – we know that. But they are paid to shooting estates, and many of those estates are basically robbing proper farmers of funds that could be better spent elsewhere and that was what George Eustice suggested should happen last January.
None of your textual analysis holds up to scrutiny does it. That’s a rhetorical question.
Mark, I think you’re just desperately trying to cover up an obvious faux-pas on your part. I managed to work out what they’re saying in their reply quite easily.
My suggestion to you would be to contact DEFRA and ask them why they view Hen Harriers and other raptors as problem species. I’ll happily await their reply to you 🙂
Bara – it wouldn’t be a faux-pas even if I had done what you say I did but didn’t do.
So Bara, you find the sentence acceptable or appropriate from a Government Agency? I have cut & pasted the relevant section below which contains the sentence. Freestanding, with respect I offer at best it is badly written and at worst that it is dangerous, I sense you think Defra have written and provided a well considered response?
Targeted control of problem species is only one part of a complex mix of factors that can influence populations. Maintaining the balance between biodiversity and the numbers of each species is important. Defra monitors populations of a number of rare or vulnerable species where human intervention is thought to be a contributing factor in their decline, and ensures appropriate action is taken to keep their populations out of danger.
And yes, I’d agree that it’s telling you “Targeted control of problem species is only one part of a complex mix of factors that can influence populations.”
Are you suggesting that gamekeepers do not target / control problem species? What about the film of the shooting of a hen harrier etc. etc. etc.?
Nimby, the issue of raptor persecution is well documented and an abhorrent practice, and I will certainly not defend any individual who is guilty of persecuting birds of prey. Believe it or not I’m as disgusted by it as you are.
The point that needs clarifying (to some) is that, despite the headline grabber of the blog post – Defra are not claiming raptors to be ‘problem species’. That final paragraph of the “”Persecution of British raptors AND OTHER WILDLIFE” quite clearly attempts to deal specifically with “other wildlife”, which, rightly or wrongly ARE a problem species for grouse shoots, and ARE legally controlled.
Not all of the control of problem species is legal, traps which are set incorrectly are not legal even if the target species could be killed legally, there are far too many gamekeepers and estate owners which will do anything to get the ‘problem species’ done away with, just so that a few people can enjoy their outdated and abhorrent hobby, but the persecution of raptors IS illegal and MUST stop. If the only way to achieve this is to end Driven Grouse Shooting then it can’t come soon enough.
Still with the ad hominem I see Mark, rather than tackle the ball you’ll try the man. Sign of a failing argument you know.
Look forward to you posting up your response from DEFRA (as it’s you who seems to be struggling with the wording, it’s only right you get your clarification). Of course, if the clarification is as I expect it to be, we probably won’t hear anything more about it; will we? 🙂
Given that your opening salvo in this debate, Bara, was to claim that Mark was “intentionally distorting what has been written” I don’t think you’re in a strong position to complain about any “ad hominem” response. Far from complaining about being ill-treated, you should be grateful to Mark for being so tolerant of your insulting observations. Many would have blocked you long ago. The wording of the press release is clearly very sloppy and the interpretation that Mark (and others) put on the words used is and was perfectly reasonable.
BAra, as has been pointed out your interpretation doesnt make sense. You insist that the paragraph in question has moved on from the persecution of raptors and now must be talking about the other things that are controlled by gamekeepers (and referred to in the petition) i.e. stoats, foxes and crows. But if this is the case why does the paragraph (which you insist is about foxes and stoats) go on to say “Defra monitors populations of a number of rare or vulnerable species where human intervention is thought to be a contributing factor in their decline, and ensures appropriate action is taken to keep their populations out of danger”. Do you think that Defra considers foxes and stoats to be rare and declining species or do you think that just the first part of the paragraph was referring to foxes and stoats and Defra just forgot to tell us that, mid-paragraph, it had reverted to talking about birds of prey? I would suggest that neither of those two interpretations seems very plausible and that the only reasonable reading of the paragraph is that it all refers to the killing of hen harriers and other protected species.
Given that this is the case the phrase ‘Targeted control of problem species…’ is a deeply disturbing indication of the attitude of DEFRA and Dr Coffey to the problem of Hen Harrier persecution on grouse moors.
That wasn’t a gamekeeper and it wasn’t a Hen Harrier. In fact it wasn’t even filmed on Moorland. It was all done using CGI. It’s all spin to sully the reputations of the “custodians of the countrside” and generated by jealous townies. And as for the sat tags that are pre-programmed to stop working right in the middle of grouse moors, well that’s a bloody disgrace.
i suppose the 300 pairs of english Hen Harriers are missing due to CGI. Just carry on with your blatant idiocrisy
Sorry, I didn’t initially feel the need to point out that my post was indeed tongue in cheek. It was an ( obviously poor ) attempt to lighten the tone of the conversation and to emphasize the outlandish nature of claims made by the grouse shooters and their supporters.
Sorry, Bob, I’ve just disliked you before ( I assume !) spotting that your tongue was firmly in your cheek.
I posted this on an older thread, but let me repeat it here. If this ‘Targeted control of problem species…’ section doesn’t wake the RSPB from its current state of torpor on this issue, they should be ashamed of themselves. Let’s hope the scales fall from their eyes soon.
Alan Two, if we have a private individual like Gavin and others previously trying to solve Hen Harrier persecution and that has not embarrassed RSBB then probably nothing will.
With regret, I think you are right, Dennis. Why do I have this strong suspicion that the RSPB is too deeply embedded with the ‘keepering fraternity in some of its projects to enhance wader populations etc? A matter of not wanting to upset the status quo? I do hope I’m wrong.
Hi Sandra… I would just like to point out again that the Patron of the RSPB is the Queen. It gives the organisation its ‘Royal’ title. Therein, I believe, lies the RSPB’s difficult internal contradiction. Me? I’d dump the Queen and plump for the PSPB. I dare say some may think that doing that would make bad publicity and lose it influence? Regardless, I will remain a strong supporter of the RSPB. I suspect they hope that Mark, and all the others fighting raptor persecution, will win without a showdown with their own Patron?
Strangely, if that happened, I’d probably join! How one’s views change over time!
“Royal” or “Republican” – potential savings on reprinting stationery
I presume this is satire!