The Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association has recently published its autumn magazine. It’s full of quite remarkable material, as you might expect. We’ll be blogging about some of the articles in due course but thought we’d start with the ‘Chairman’s Column’, written by Alex Hogg.
He writes about a few issues but of particular concern to us is what he wrote about goshawks. Here’s an excerpt:
“My local newspaper has just published an article on ringing chicks at a goshawk nest on forestry commission ground. In the article, gamekeepers are criticised for persecuting goshawks, without any attempts at providing proof, journalistic balance or an attempt to look at the history of the goshawk in Scotland. For the past 35 years I have lived with goshawks on my doorstep. I strongly believe the goshawk never was indigenous to the United Kingdom and there is absolutely no hard evidence to suggest otherwise. Those that illegally released this species into the British Isles could legitimately be charged, therefore, with a wildlife crime. These nests in the article are in commercial forestry where there is nothing whatsoever for the poor chicks to eat. What happens then? The young make their way out onto keepered ground, managed at significant cost and time to create a richness in biodiversity. Our local red squirrel population is now under severe threat and much of this can be put down to predation by the goshawk. Most raptors will eat what they kill. The goshawk will kill over and over again. The largest number of pheasant poults I lost on a stubble in one strike was 35. God knows what this could mean for our poor Curlews and Lapwings, teetering on the brink. Balance must surely be considered before we lose more precious species“.
Hogg’s display of ignorance about this species is quite staggering. The history of the goshawk in the British Isles, including its indigenous status, has been very well documented in many scientific papers and books, as have the effects of the relentless persecution it has suffered and continues to suffer, as well as its varied diet which changes according to latitude and habitat (he should try reading this and the references listed as a basic introduction).
Such is the concern about ongoing goshawk persecution that the species is listed by the National Wildlife Crime Unit as one of the ‘priority species’ to focus on, along with golden eagle, hen harrier, peregrine, red kite and white-tailed eagle. Every single one of these species is suffering population-level effects thanks to the illegal persecution carried out by those with game-shooting interests. As a participating member of PAW Scotland and PAW Scotland’s Raptor Persecution Group, Hogg should be very well aware of the pressures already facing this species.
For somebody in his position to be writing such unsubstantiated nonsense about an already significantly-threatened raptor is completely unacceptable. There will be some readers of the SGA magazine who will assume that Hogg’s information is reliable and credible and could use it as justification to persecute the goshawk.
Hogg should be hauled over the coals by the PAW Scotland group for such ignorance and irresponsibility.
We’ll be returning to the issue of goshawk persecution by gamekeepers in the very near future…..watch this space.
Raptor Persecution UK 
This is scary. From someone in his position, it can only either be willful ignorance or deliberate misinformation.
“The young make their way out onto keepered ground, managed at significant cost and time to create a richness in biodiversity.”
Well call me old-fashioned but I thought gamekeepers were paid and employed to manage the ground to preserve game for their employers, paying punters and employers’ chums. The work is completed with the ruthless extermination of any creature deemed prejudicial to game.
I totally agree with your last two paragraphs RPS! Mr Hogg needs to be put under the spotlight for those comments!
As someone lucky enough to monitor Goshawks under licence this is ridiculous talk and the SGA should be reviewing what there chairman publishes!!
Once again shocked!
Really? And he’s the Chairman?
Seems like it’s not the ‘poor chicks’ you need to feel sorry for – they were anyhow far too busy tucking into grey squirrels, wood pigeons, crows, and jays, as a matter of FACT – and instead save your sympathy for that creaking ship, the ‘poor SGA’ which appears to have been lumbered with such a wooden figurehead at its fore!
Hi there!
Mr Greer Hart, Scottish Tree Trust here.
On Sunday 15 September I attended a meeting organised by the RSPB to coincide with the LibDem conference in Glasgow, at the Hub.
I should not have gone! We were asked to fill in a form setting out the question we would like to ask. The aim of the conference was to examine the threat to Nature, as exposed in a multi-conservation-organisation study as being very serious. My question was – What is the threat? Who or what is the enemy? I intended to use the John Muir Trust Journal of Spring 2013 (no. 54) with reference to an article by Alan McCombes “Unfinished Business”, in which he pointed out that sporting estates covered one third of the Scottish landmass, and how the shooters had created an ecological nightmare. He went on to mention the powerful economic interests and the way they can get away with hill tracks and the 4 x 4’s tearing up the environment. The overstocking of the land with Red Deer was another point. Raptor Persecution Scotland data was ready to be broadsided.
My question was really one, but exposing a collection of threats by a host of enemies with inordinate power with politicians and the legal hierarchy.
My question was the only one not given a chance to be asked. What we got was a dithering collection of LibDem supporters asking those on the stance (Baroness Kate Parminter etc from the LibDems), about global warming or schools education programmes for wildlife. None touched on the real issues.
Being a raw and uncouth, but educated and compassionate, Glaswegian, I cannot be in the company of such genteel people for long, and felt like exploding over the blandness of the whole affair. RSPB did not excel itself, indeed, I am contemplating not supporting any more of their appeals. I had earlier in the year withdrawn my membership over RSPB using Hopetoun House as a venue for its annual Birdfayre.
Two of my friends from the animal welfare organisations, Animal Concern and Scotland for Animals, attend the quarterly animal welfare meetings at Holyrood, and are not happy with the dominant presence of Countryside Alliance type characters being there. It is obvious to them that those at Holyrood are hand in glove with those involved in activities with animals/birds.
Finally, it is my belief that there must be a coming together of the core/determined people in Scotland who want to increase the legal action against the perpetrators of the destruction of our wildlife, particularly the birds of prey. It is an animal welfare and conservation issue.
Yours – Greer Hart 0141 649 2462 – you can my details on to anyone you wish
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:43:03 +0000 To: greerhart42@hotmail.co.uk
Of course keepers would never release any non indigenous birds would they. Pheasants, red legged partridge etc. excepted.
Curiously the Scottish Raptor Group note you cite omits one significant piece of recent research which highlights the impact of predation by goshawks on black grouse. This was the four year study undertaken at Lake Vyrnwy in Wales between 1999 and 2003. During the study, scientists investigated rates of survival and reproductive success in black grouse and discovered that of the 39 full-grown black grouse that were radio-tagged as part of the research, only one was alive at the end. Mostly the birds had been killed by predators. It is considered that 64% of the black grouse were killed by raptors, probably either goshawk or peregrine and 36% by red foxes. (Bowker, G., Bowker, C. & Baines, D. 2007: Survival rates and causes of mortality in black grouse Tetrao tetrix at Lake Vyrnwy, North Wales, UK. – Wildl. Biol. 13: 231-237). There was also a lot of persuasive evidence about the extent of predation by goshawks on black grouse chicks and juveniles.
Incidentally, the RSPB opposed the re-introduction of the goshawk by falconers in the 1960s, since when the population has increased by 16% per annum. Not exactly endangered at a population level, therefore.
Well surprise surprise, you’ve managed to cherry pick some research that fits your agenda. Well done. And how about the broader spectrum of research that shows great variety in the effects (or not) of goshawk predation, particularly on gamebirds?
Re: your claim of 16% increase per annum. To which population does this figure refer?
Thank you. I’m not cherry picking; I’m filling in the gaps you left to suit your own agenda.
Here’s some more, this time from Finland: “Most black grouse mortaility is caused by predation. Depending on the region, this can be mainly from raptors such as goshawks …” http://blackgrouseresearch.jyu.fi/survival.html (University of Jyväskylä).
Black grouse are game birds. But if you’re referring to, say, pheasants, try this: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3807921?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102657676407
Disturbing last sentence in the abstract, incidentally: “Red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) were the most frequently taken prey [by the 43 goshawks being studied].
Our population of goshawks has increased 16% per annum nationally. Do you agree?
You are cherry picking, despite your protestations. Nobody is denying that goshawks take gamebirds – of course they do, along with many other species. A very good paper from 2003 (Petty et al in Ibis) showed the following results from a long-term study of goshawk diet at Kielder Forest (1973-1996):
Pigeons (50.7% biomass); Corvids (18.6% biomass); Gamebirds (17.4% biomass); Raptors (2.5% biomass); Other birds (2.5% biomass); Mustelids (0.1% biomass); Other mammals [170 rabbits, 97 red squirrels, 61 field voles, 3 brown hares, 1 common shrew, 1 pygmy shrew) (8.2% biomass); Amphibians and reptiles (0.1% biomass).
The authors of that paper suggested that goshawks might be responsible (in that area at least) for the decline of the kestrel. Do you hear conservationists calling for a goshawk cull? Of course not – intraguild predation is natural. With 43 + million non-indigenous gamebirds released into the environment every year, and an estimated total of 500 pairs of goshawk, are you suggesting that goshawks are at such a level that they could have any sort of national impact?!
The diet of goshawks is well known to vary depending on altitude, amongst other things. All you are doing is throwing out papers that support your agenda.
Re: your claim of an annual 16% increase in the national goshawk population – I neither agree or disagree because I haven’t seen the data. Do you have a copy? Although to be frank this supposed increase, if accurate, is only meaningful when put into context. For example, if three pairs of hen harriers attempt to breed in England next year are you going to claim a 50% increase in the hen harrier breeding population?
I’m familiar with that research, but thanks for the reference again. I’m also familiar of course with the concept of intra-guild predation. No, I have not heard conservationists calling for a goshawk cull. I do seem to remember SOME conservationists or birders calling for a localised cull of the Bowland Eagle owls a few years ago. And if the level of impact on kestrels were replicated at a national level, to the extent that their population were seriously threatened, then I would expect calls for some kind of intervention, if only diversionary feeding in the first instance, say. (Not that that worked terribly well with kestrels themselves when it was shown that they were having a major impact on little terns).
I was happy to limit my contribution to the impact of goshawks on black grouse at Vyrnwy. For some reason you have broadened the topic to include released gamebirds. But for the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that goshawks are having a national, rather than local, impact on gamebirds.
The impact of goshawks on the black grouse at Lake Vyrnwy was really serious – however hard the RSPB tried to deny it at the time. That is why Severn Trent commissioned the study.
My 16% figure for the annual increase in the goshawk population came from an impeccably independent source: http://www.gwct.org.uk/about_us/news/473.asp
As regards hen harriers, I would welcome an increase in the English population. You will doubtless have seen my exchanges with Mark Avery on the subject on Twitter.
Thanks for the info on the source of your claimed 16% increase per annum (although I wouldn’t call the GWCT ‘impeccably independent’. Independent from what? Certainly not from the game-shooting industry!
Anyway, I haven’t read the paper you refer to so I’ll have to have a look for it. I can’t imagine, given the title of the research, that their methods included a national goshawk survey so either they’ve gleaned the 16% figure from another source (in which case it will be referenced in the paper) or else perhaps they’ve just made it up?
Just had a quick search for the Bowker et al paper and found this very interesting news article about it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8408156/Birdwatchers-lose-RSPB-defamation-case.html
Yes, Bowkers notoriously litigious, and establishing malice on part of RSPB was always going to be doomed. But their paper (with joint author D Baines of GWCT) was peer reviewed, published and stands as sound science.
Still haven’t read the original paper (but very keen to do so) but have read the RSPB’s critique of it – they called it ‘unconvincing science’:
Click to access Bowker%20v%20RSPB%20%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%20737%20(QB).pdf
I would treat everything the RSPB says about Lake Vyrnwy with great caution. Their management there – including of black grouse – has been lamentable.
Lazywell, you criticise the RSPB’s account of the Lake Vyrnwy situation, yet you are prepared to believe everything and anything that the shooting lobby will spout about. What a surprise!
On reading the RSPB’s opinions documented in the court judgment, it would appear that the original unpublished report for STW was altered and adapted by a Mr Baines, who just happened to be an employee of the GWCT.
Unfortunately, this issue will remain unresolved unless the unpublished report is made available, but it would be most interesting to see how much has been used, ignored or manipulated by the GWCT staff member.
[Ed: Marco, Lazywell has, how shall we say, very close links to GWCT so undoubtedly he has seen the unpublished report. Do you think he’ll elaborate on how much information was used, ignored or manipulated for the scientific paper?]
I’ll guess the answer to that question will be a resounding no!
Very well said!
Grouseman, are you referring to Lazywell’s nonsensical belief that a page dedicated to a species of raptor should hold information on the fortunes of a species relating to a completely different order, or RPS’s most successful annihilation of Lazywell’s argument?
But anyway, onto Lazywell’s claim that the Goshawk increases by 16% per annum since the 1960s, well that is just complete ignorance and nonsense. The current estimates suggest anything between 400 and 500 pairs in the UK, which would make it virtually impossible to have increased at the suggested rate.
If the reintroductions started as late as 1969 with only two birds, an annual 16% increase would result in more than 1300 birds, however considering that the reintroductions occurred earlier in the 1960s (and perhaps as far back as the 1950s) with far greater numbers than just two individuals, supplemented by further reintroductions in the 1970s, natural movements from mainland Europe and the occasional escapee, the annual 16% increase claim is clearly false. If we even take the initial reintroduction of just two birds back to 1965, an annual 16% increase would result in a total just shy of 2500.
So, Lazywell (and Grouseman, considering you agree with him), could you please explain to us all how you arrived at an annual 16% increase since the 1960s? Or will this be another question that will go unanswered?
See above.
So, because the GWCT issue the statement that Goshawks have increased by 16% per annum since the 1960s, without any evidence I may add, you believe it to be the truth? You really are gullible! This “impeccably independent source”, as you put it, is clearly nothing of the sort. The very page you have linked to has the following statement regarding the Black Grouse predation;
“Mostly the birds had been killed by predators. It is considered that 64% of the black grouse were killed by raptors, probably either goshawk or peregrine and 36% by red foxes.”
Not the most scientific of statements, is it? “It is considered that 64% of the black grouse were killed by raptors”, would lead me to believe that this was just a thought and not actual evidence. This is followed by the equally unscientific “probably either by goshawk or peregrine…”. So they didn’t actually know for sure? It all appears to be a biased account, lacking in evidence or morality.
But anyway, I’ll attempt to inform you again of why your ill-considered 16% per annum increase belief is wrong, going by the Goshawk’s current, maximum estimate of 500 pairs (1000 birds). A reintroduction of just two birds in 1969, increasing at 16% per annum, would account for 1371 birds in 2013. A reintroduction of just two birds in 1965, with a 16% per annum increase, would account for a total of 2483 birds in 2013. However, a 1962 reintroduction of just two birds (closer to the GWCT statement suggesting the early 1960s) with a 16% per annum increase would account for 3876 birds in 2013. The three totals, all exceed the current maximum estimate, so could you please explain the discrepancy? Furthermore, these figures are wholly reliant on the unlikely event that no Goshawks have died since the 1960s. However, we all know that illegal persecution has accounted for the deaths of many Goshawks over the years, and many will have died from natural causes, therefore any death effectively cancels out the 16% per annum increase totals given above.
But as I’ve already mentioned, the initial reintroductions would have consisted of more than two birds, there were supplementary reintroductions in the 1970s, and these populations will have been aided further by natural movements from continental Europe and the occasional escaped bird.
So, there you have it again. The current UK Goshawk population estimate falls far short of the least likely scenario of two birds being reintroduced in 1969, therefore the perceived 16% per annum increase is simply impossible, with evidence strongly pointing to the GWCT issuing deliberately lies and unscientific statements to further their own agenda. More proof that those involved with the shooting industry cannot be trusted.
If you look at one of my earlier posts here, I myself stated that D Baines of the GWCT had co-authored the Bowker paper; indeed his name features in the citation I quoted in my original post. Incidentally Dr Baines (sic) is widely acknowledged within the scientific community as one of the leading authorities on black grouse. He is also very familiar with the ecology of the Welsh uplands, including Lake Vyrnwy. For what it’s worth I too have been following the situation at Vyrnwy for many years, so when I criticise the management there it is my own assessment on the basis of what I have seen with my own eyes and data provided to me by the RSPB.
Yes, some of the original report prepared for Severn Trent didn’t make it into the published paper. That is what happens in the peer-review process.
Some of the quotations you criticise for not being very scientific were taken from a brief press release; the substantive paper is more detailed, as you would expect. As for the figure for the increase in the goshawk population, you asked me for my source and I provided it. I will try and get further clarification, though your tone is hardly encouraging. Quite the opposite: hurling allegations around to the effect that the GWCT has been deliberately issuing lies and unscientific statements is a dangerous game to play. As the editor has observed, I am indeed closely involved with the GWCT, and I can tell you that as a research charity it prides itself on the quality and independence of its peer-reviewed science, as well as its integrity. Furthermore, the GWCT is not itself a member of the shooting industry, although it acknowledges and proclaims the benefits that management for shooting can bring to other bird species and biodiversity generally.
The GWCT is a cornerstone of the shooting industry. It never publishes research which is adverse to shooting and its trustees circulate between the CA, CLA and BASC.
Lazywell, it doesn’t matter if the quotations were taken from a press release or the full paper. The fact stands that the quotations fail in a scientific context, and are therefore unsound. The statement “Mostly the birds had been killed by predators. It is considered that 64% of the black grouse were killed by raptors, probably either goshawk or peregrine and 36% by red foxes” is a clear demonstration that evidence has been ignored in favour of guesswork. If you take the excerpt “probably either by goshawk or peregrine” this suggests that all certainty is lacking – it could have been Goshawk, it could have been Peregrine, it could have been both, or it could have been another or a mix of species! To be taken seriously as a scientific paper, the author(s) must be sure of their findings and not provide prejudiced guesses, which appears to have happened in this case.
Yes, you did provide your source for the supposed increase in Goshawk numbers, and I proved beyond doubt that this claim is wrong. You can go back and get further clarification all you want, but the 16% per annum increase statement is wrong, always has been wrong and always will be wrong. In fact, you can check every day for clarification if you really want to, but to save you the hassle I will offer you a piece of advice – get a calculator and work it out for yourself.
My tone is hardly encouraging? What the hell is that all about? Should I just accept that whatever you and the GWCT issue as fact, regardless of how inaccurate or false the statements are? Has it now reached the stage that your belief in pro-shooting propaganda is so strong that others are not allowed to challenge your inaccurate information? Perhaps, others will fall for your misleading statements, but I much prefer statements to be factual, correct and truthful.
And while we’re on the issue of factual, correct and truthful statements, it is most interesting to note that you have chosen to alter one of my mine. I did not state that the GWCT was a member of the shooting industry, however I did mention that the GWCT is involved in the shooting industry, and clearly heavily involved in it. I am sure you will agree that trying to alter a statement is quite devious and manipulative, but only you will know if your act was a deliberate attempt to discredit me.
But anyway, there is clear evidence of this association and promotion of the shooting industry, but perhaps your opinion will differ. Game birds, game bird management and predator control are amongst the core of GWCT research objectives (game birds are bred to be shot, by the shooting industry – you do realise that?). Why get involved with the Code of Good Shooting Practice, why get involved with a joint statement on the use of lead shot and why create and issue the Black grouse identification guide for shooters? Why does the GWCT receive money from a shooting insurance scheme? Why is it, that the GWCT online bookshop has so many books on shooting or shooting-related activities, yet next to nothing on conservation? Why does the GWCT online shop have an entire section called “Shoot Day Items”? Why does the GWCT have a Shoot Sweepstake Scheme? What about Gun Draw 2013? There is quite clearly a pro-shooting agenda behind that. Then there are the Grand Grouse Draws, where it would appear that the GWCT are making money from shooting-related activities.
Then there is the GWCT e-directory, where you can search for various companies or businesses under such titles as Arms Manufacturers & Distributors, Gun Suppliers, Firearm Dealers & Fishing Equipment and Shooting Instruction & Corporate Days, amongst others. Shall I offer up more evidence?
Incidentally, when you carry out a search for “shooting” on the GWCT website, it provides you with 403 separate hits. Compare that total of 403 with the sole representative when “persecution” is entered. Yes, that’s correct. If you do a search for persecution, there is only 1 result.
As you couldn’t help yourself from mentioning that oft-repeated message of “the benefits that management for shooting can bring to other bird species and biodiversity generally”, I will counter that with the fact that management for shooting can have a devastating impact on other bird species and biodiversity generally.
And in response to your “hurling allegations around to the effect that the GWCT has been deliberately issuing lies and unscientific statements is a dangerous game to play” statement. Is that a veiled threat? You clearly don’t want to accept basic, hard facts. Well, here we go again – if you issue a statement without any scientific basis and knowing or believing it to be false, then you are deliberately lying.
Lazywell, did it ever cross your mind that the SRSG Goshawk research material would be restricted to articles that concentrated on that particular species? The SRSG page is about the Goshawk, yet the article you mention is about the Black Grouse. It’s the same with the Osprey page. If you choose to look at this page, all the articles relate to Ospreys. You will note that there are no specific articles on Pike, Trout or Flounder. Can you understand the basis of these pages?
Quote:
“Incidentally, the RSPB opposed the re-introduction of the goshawk by falconers in the 1960s, since when the population has increased by 16% per annum. Not exactly endangered at a population level, therefore.”
If this was the case why were they heavily involved in round the clock protection of Goshawks nests near Ladybower in 1971-72, I was part of a group which included the local RSPB who involved in that successful watch.
That may well be. But RSPB was originally against reintroduction, as confirmed to me by a current senior Director.
I was involved in recording the breeding activities of a number of Goshawk nests from the mid sixties to late eighties and I can assure you the RSPB were never against the slow but steady Goshawk recovery, many of which were wild birds and not falconers releases as some would like you to believe. The only problem the Goshawks ever had and still do have is persecution from gamekeepers, in one season alone in the late 70’s, 21 occupied nests were discovered and 19 of them were DONE, the majority of these were at the edge of grouse moors !!!
Lazywell, I’m not having a go at you, but as it has been suggested you are connected to the GWCT, and you have made mention of your experiences in the Welsh uplands, I would like some clarification on the predation percentage rates you cited. These rates were confirmed in a link to the GWCT website you provided, which sadly no longer works, but thankfully I was wise enough to save the page as a web archive file.
Anyway, the predation rates you mentioned (64% by raptors and 36% by foxes) provided the full 100%, yet another page on the GWCT (http://www.gwct.org.uk/research/species/birds/black-grouse/black-grouse-survival-and-reproduction/) which clearly relates to the same study, gives percentage rates as 61% for raptors and 33% for foxes, leaving 6% unaccounted for. Why have these rates changed so markedly in the space of a few weeks and what was responsible for the mysterious 6% loss?
“Richness in Biodiversity” Hogg speaks a lot of hogwash!
how can someone who calls himself a wildlife manager be so pig thick, the Goshawk’s main diet of wood pigeon, Rabbit, Squirrel and Corvids benefits farmers and foresters alike, it benefits our Songbird populations. read the facts Hogg! stop living in your own little make believe world, do everyone a favour and bloody resign
I know I’m being pedantic, but 35 poults in one strike? Really? 35? In one strike? This bird must have been the size of a passenger jet. Or it was the result of some wayward genetic experiment and its mutation/superpower was that it had twenty feet.
Hogg’s latest epistle of lies, misinformation and hypocrisy should see the SGA, this group of anti-predators, thrown out of PAWS, but then again PAWS is and has been a waste of time.
But 35? In one strike? The mind boggles!
This organisation, if you can call it that, should be gagged from spreading such absolute rubbish. It’s most worrying to think that there are people out there who believe him . . .
The SGA have a long history of putting out misinformation on the subject of UK’s raptors. Time someone tackled Hogg robustly on a public forum
The increase in Black Grouse in North Cumbria is happening even with Goshawks increasing. When a population declines due to predation it often means the habitat is not suitable for that declining species. As most Red Grouse moors are not suitable for Black Grouse this is often the reason for decline. Interesting enough the Black Grouse has never proved to be part of the prey of Eagle Owl in Cumbria even with the Black Grouse population expanding but Eagle Owls are supposed to control Goshawk numbers!. [if left alone to do so!] As for Red Squirrel you have to look at the world distribution map of Goshawk and Red Squirrel to see they are exactly the same which means it is a predator/prey relationship not one destroying the other. As Goshawks and Pine marten are the major reason for Grey Squirrel decline in the UK how can these uneducated people still kill such iconic species!
just read the GWCT article regarding ” one of our most threatened birds, the rare black grouse.”
The rare Black Grouse has a population of approximately 5,100 males, The Goshawk population stands at approximately 500 pairs.
Question 1) which is the rarest bird, the Goshawk or the Black Grouse?
question 2) Goshawks have the capacity to produce 3 or 4 young in a year. therefore a population of 500 pairs could easily increase by 100 to 200% year on year until a decent population existed, explain in as many words as required why the population has hardly doubled in ten years. remember the more ridiculous the excuses the more points you will score
Question 3) Peregrine populations have remained stable for the last ten years, however you find out that since the nineteen “FOURTIES” over seventy years ago the population has increased 140%.
Which figure is the most appropriate to use to best describe the present Peregrine population?
For the benefits of Shooting times readers who are unable to question anything that they might have read beforehand the answers are 1)Goshawk 2)Persecution 3) the last ten years
Lazywell – I finally tracked down the Bowker et al paper. I looked in the methods and results section for their primary data that showed “our population of goshawks has increased 16% per annum nationally”. I couldn’t find any. I did find this in the discussion section though:
“The goshawk, since its introduction in the early 1960s (Marquis [sic] 1981), has increased by approximately 16% per annum to 400-450 pairs in the UK (Stone et al. 1997)”.
The Stone ref is this: Stone, B.H. et al. (1997). Population estimates of birds in Britain and the United Kingdom. British Birds 90: 1-22.
I haven’t actually read the Stone ref, but I don’t need to to know that your statement “our population of goshawks has increased 16% per annum nationally” is misleading, at best.
The Stone paper was published in 1997. At that time, Stone et al estimated the national goshawk population to be 400-450 pairs. Now fast forward 16 years to 2013 and the estimated UK goshawk population is 500 pairs – just 50 more than had been estimated all those years ago.
So, in answer to your question of whether I agree “our population of goshawks has increased 16% per annum nationally” – NO, I most definitely do not agree.
I hope your arguments when you’re doing your day job (barrister, for those who don’t know) are not as leaky as the ones you present on this blog. I think it would be prudent to treat everything YOU say with great caution.
the only sense i hear spoken in the above exchange of blows (like kids in a playground) came from lazywell. i also find it a little concerning commenting on his day job which i dont feel has anything to do with the topic of conversation. the rspb has a long history of destroying bird populations on its reserves, they just hate to admit it publicly. (understandably) give me the BTO over the rspb any day!!
” the rspb has a long history of destroying bird populations on its reserves, they just hate to admit it ”
An absolutely priceless comment, do you write for Shooting Times? Could you give us some examples?
Beefsteak you need to put a beefsteak over your bloodshot eyes to reduce the swelling, then you might be able to open them just a little to research the tons of factual data out there just waiting to be read, then you can say for sure if you think Lazywell is talking sense or nonsense.
Beefsteak, if you want to accept mathematical inaccuracies, and if you want to completely ignore basic scientific procedures, then that’s entirely up to yourself.
I’ve read the comments trail on this rather belatedly having been working away but what is quite quite clear is that Alex Hoggs comments in his original article are WRONG, WRONG and again WRONG. He is either too lazy to look up and include real factual information, using his normal keeper prejudice (a professional requirement for all keepers along with xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx) or deliberately giving out misinformation. In his position both at the SGA and within PAW this ought to result in a public withdrawl of the original article, a public correction or he should resign. None of this will happen of course ( so he remains a hero to his fellows and a sad but dangerous laughing stock to the rest of us). Then we have the Lazywell contributions, sad, irrelevant tosh, he should know better, you are entitled to have a different opinion Lazywell, but your facts are just poor, poorly chosen or wrong, whatever the paper you quote says and GCWT are not impartial, they used to be under Dick Potts but not now, nor is all your published information peer reviewed.
Paul V Irving
[Ed: Thanks Paul – just one minor edit]
have i hit a nerve?? not surprising really when you dont like people speaking their minds. geltsdale?? how are the harriers doing?? infact how are any bird species doing?? abernethy how are the caper doing?? some of you people need to get your heads out the fluffy rspb cloud and realise what actually happens in the countryside
If you choose to read some of the other pages on this blog, you will soon realise that the RSPB has been criticised by many members of this site, much of it recently. But to briefly answer your questions, without going in to too much detail, Hen Harriers are doing quite well away from grouse moors, some bird species are increasing in number, some bird species have relatively stable populations and some species are decreasing in number. However, if you want certain details of population estimates, there are many websites where you can find this information. The BTO is one such organisation that freely publish this information, but as you are supposedly a supporter of this charity, you should know that.
Considering the original topic was about the SGA chairman’s ill-considered remarks about Goshawks, then Lazywell’s misleading and miscalculated account on the same species, I don’t understand why you would choose to bring the RSPB into the conversation. But then again, considering you have the ability to hear these typed conversations, I shouldn’t be surprised at your illogical response.
However, this does seem to be a recurring tactic whenever shooting industry lies, propaganda or illegal activities are brought to the attention of the public, and is a method usually employed by poorly-educated shooting supporters in a pathetic attempt to sway the discussion from their wrongdoings to the “bad RSPB”.
All the above is very heated, I have been a raptor researcher for more years than I care to mention’ and goshawks will never be allowed to thrive in our our green and pleasant land until game estates, learn to tolorate them, and one of the above needs to check their history as goshawks have been here since the last ice age, my favourite quote is who was here first the goshawk or the shotgun…
He lost 35 Pheasants in a single strike? He seems to have a very vivid imagination…