In the Sunday Times yesterday Rod Liddle writes about Songbird Survival and interviews one of their trustees Nick Forde.
You have to pay Rupert Murdoch to read it or watch the video but you might just find it worthwhile.
Liddle tests Forde on his songbird identification - with, it has to be said, some pretty tricky species (meadow pipit, corn bunting and lesser whitethroat - and he fails. But he can recognise a pheasant.
Angela Smith MP, who is a doughty defender of birds of prey, is interviewed by Liddle on camera.
Songbird Survival's plans are to cull crows etc and see whether songbirds increase in numbers - it is possible that they will. But if they don't then Songbird Survival does not have a good record of taking on board the results of research which they have funded.
Liddle quotes the BTO very revealingly. The BTO, a politically neutral research body, said Songbird Survival had asked it to carry out research into “a supposed link between high predator numbers and a decline in songbirds. We discovered that there is pretty much no link whatsoever, and as a consequence they rejected our research”.
Let's be clear, it is interesting that Songbird Survival appears to have close links to the shooting community and previous blogs here have highlighted that. But shooting and nature conservation can rub along together most of the time. We have no beef with legitimate field sports and we work closely with organisations who have shooting interests. Not all conservationists are good people - the same goes for shooters. But where vocal or prominent Songbird Survival supporters have shooting interests and are anti-raptor then it seems fair to question whether it is love of corn buntings (even if one doesn't know what they look like) or love of pheasant bags that is the motivation for their pronouncements.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
"I would find it odd if this future research had a different outcome."
Hello Bob, while not wishing to second-guess the results, so would I.
I would hope that any plans for the future in regards conservation management would involve a thorough review of all research, and reach a consensus view based on solid science and the majority findings of the various research studies. In saying that, I do feel that the research needs to carried out.
To be perfectly frank, I am not too concerned that it is Songbird Survival that is paying for the research, or the intricacies of their motives, I am happy that G&WCT is doing the research and know they will produce good solid research, without bias. Also, their results will be published, open to peer review and add to our knowledge of songbird / predator interaction.
As you pointed out, I said in the other forum,
........"In conclusion, I am sure that the G&WCT will find in this particular research that while predator control results in an initial increase in songbird productivity in the immediate research areas, this will not be sustained in subsequent breeding seasons. ( Indeed G&WCT research has already shown that, in relation to other areas ) Also, that it will only be through the judicious use of habitat improvement, combined with limited and localized predator control where needed, that the optimum conditions will be achieved.
==============
Investigating the effects of predator removal and habitat management on nest success and
breeding population size of a farmland passerine: a case study"
Article first published online: 21 AUG 2008
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../full