James Delingpole suggests potting a few of the most gorgeous (and protected) birds in the country.  And he has the RSPB in his line of fire too!

What do you think?

 

 

A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.

Parents
  • Sooty,

    No, I don't have any agenda, hidden or otherwise. The comparison between you and Delingpole was merely that in both cases unsubstantiated claims were made about the effects of larger raptors on the Kestrel population. No further similarity intended.

    I am sure that RSPB staff have, in general, better things to do than to correct every minor claim made in blog comments, even those on RSPB staff blogs. To suggest that something must be true because the RSPB haven't challenged it is bizarre logic, to say the least. It wasn't even as if the issue concerned RSPB policy.

    I'm not saying you're wrong about Kestrel remains in Buzzard nests, just that it would be better to have a more reliable source than the word of an anoymous person. It occurred to me that (some of the) Kestrel remains in nests could (possibly) be from dead birds (e.g. roadkill) scavenged by Buzzards. Not saying this is the case, just that it's a plausible alternative explanation.

    I think the Norway paper quoted was perfectly relevant - the same two species involved and in general I suspect the ecology would be reasonably similar.

    Regarding the poisoning, I have no wish to see any birds poisoned at all, either intentionally or as a consequence of rodent control. The 70% figure quoted by Meconopsis referred to dead birds containing rat poison, not killed by it. It would be interesting to know what proportion of birds were carrying enough poison to have significant effects on their survival or reproduction, although clearly the impacts must be less serious than the severe effects of organochlorine pesticides in the past.

Comment
  • Sooty,

    No, I don't have any agenda, hidden or otherwise. The comparison between you and Delingpole was merely that in both cases unsubstantiated claims were made about the effects of larger raptors on the Kestrel population. No further similarity intended.

    I am sure that RSPB staff have, in general, better things to do than to correct every minor claim made in blog comments, even those on RSPB staff blogs. To suggest that something must be true because the RSPB haven't challenged it is bizarre logic, to say the least. It wasn't even as if the issue concerned RSPB policy.

    I'm not saying you're wrong about Kestrel remains in Buzzard nests, just that it would be better to have a more reliable source than the word of an anoymous person. It occurred to me that (some of the) Kestrel remains in nests could (possibly) be from dead birds (e.g. roadkill) scavenged by Buzzards. Not saying this is the case, just that it's a plausible alternative explanation.

    I think the Norway paper quoted was perfectly relevant - the same two species involved and in general I suspect the ecology would be reasonably similar.

    Regarding the poisoning, I have no wish to see any birds poisoned at all, either intentionally or as a consequence of rodent control. The 70% figure quoted by Meconopsis referred to dead birds containing rat poison, not killed by it. It would be interesting to know what proportion of birds were carrying enough poison to have significant effects on their survival or reproduction, although clearly the impacts must be less serious than the severe effects of organochlorine pesticides in the past.

Children
No Data