There's been a flurry of publicity for Songbird Survival over the last week - mostly in The Times. This organisation, which I always think as being more anti-predator than pro-songbird, and anti-raptor in particular (but maybe I have got them wrong), may be funding the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust to cull some crows and see whether songbirds flourish. Good luck to them - but I hope they take more notice of this research than they did of the research that they commissioned from the BTO which went some way to exonerate predators from being the cause of songbird declines. That study doesn't seem to have altered Songbird Survival's views at all.
The Chair of Songbird Survival is Lord Coke. Lord Coke hails from Holkham Hall. The head gamekeeper at Holkham Hall was charged with several offences, including some under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, last week. This has led to some interesting comments in some places (see here for example). Lord Coke's father, the Earl of Leicester, is not the biggest fan of birds of prey, nor indeed of the RSPB. As I say, interesting.
The article in the Independent makes the link between the head 'keeper being charged and the fate of the Holkham National Nature reserve. That's an interesting point too.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
essex peasant - welcome back. But you never answered the question you were asked about whether you accept that there are fewer birds in the countryside now than there used to be. I can check the exact wording for you if you like?
There are plenty of 'countrymen' and quite a few 'country women' too in the RSPB.
Gamekeepers' jobs depend on the numbers of birds available to be shot in the autumn - so every single bird lost to a magpie or fox is one fewer potentially available to the guns. That's not the business I am in - we depend on the number of pairs each spring and that is predominantly (not solely) determined by habitat factors such as nesting sites and food.
There are circumstances where predators can drive down nesting densities - but it doesn't happen all the time. And if it did, then it's nature! It's only when someone's economic interest gets threatened that we get het up about it. So we aren't as adamant as you state.
And let's base this discussion on the science. The recent Songbird Survival funded study published earlier this year didn't suggest much of a problem.
And then there is the fact that all raptors are lumped in together. I've been told that white-tailed eagles would reduce songbird numbers - ehh? And that buzzards are major predators of songbirds - ehhh? Some of the proponents of the 'raptors are a problem' view are just anti-raptor - and rather ignorantly so in my opinion. If they represent 'countrymen' then it's a pretty poor level of knowledge. And it's interesting that SongBird Survival has a strong representation of shooting interests amongst its trusteees.
Now I know that when you and I start discussions it can go on all night but I have to say that I need to be off in just a few minutes so I won't be swapping arguments all evening - sorry about that.
And do you believe that there are fewer birds in the countryside than there used to be? Because if not then you clearly don't think that raptors are having an impact because nothing is.