Beefy Blasts RSPB

I'm afraid that 'Sir Ian' is not doing himself or anyone involved in shooting any favours here. Three of the four male harriers on Bowland have vanished within a few weeks. It stinks. Sure, some birds may be predated, but adult males have a relatively high annual survival - about 75% I think and this not concentrated during the breeding season, but more common in winter. I believe that someone is killing them and the RSPB along with local raptor groups are trying to stop this. If the spokespeople for grouse shooting interests had any PR sense, they too would be throwing their full weight behind catching whoever is responsible (you never know - it could even be someone with a grudge against shooting trying to stir up rage: Tin foil hat now off). Botham suggests that keepers would do a better job of protecting the birds, presumably by shooting predators, but I'm not sure that nest robbers come under AOLQ.

Despite impressions of some to the contrary, the RSPB is not, at the moment, vehemently anti shooting. Indeed, it's frequently attacked by other conservationsists for being too reticent. We have to remember that it is a membership organisation with (as we're repeatedly told) over a million members. This makes them politically powerful. This kind of abuse and criticism will just drive them into a more entrenched position and harden their opposition to shooting. Idiotic.

Hold your friends close....
 
Here we go again.

Quote

Hen harriers are England's most threatened breeding bird of prey with only four successful nests in the whole country last year, two of which were on United Utilities Bowland Estate.

Unquote

Bull**it - as previously posted Ban Driven Grouse Shooting ePetition

We're still doing ok in N Bedfordshire.
 
Last edited:
Fact or Fiction Sir?

Please tell for the good of us all?

I believe.....

I'd be extremely pleased to be proved wrong. I wish it was an Eagle owl swooping down on them, or they'd all decided to have a long stag weekend in Prague, but I can't convince myself that these are the answers. Instead, my belief is based on probability, as is most science. Here's my working:

Adult HH typically have a 75% chance of surviving a year. Therefore, there is about a 1/4 chance they will die naturally each year (for any reason). Let's assume that this probability of death is evenly spread over the year, although in reality, its most likely they will die over winter when conditions are worst for both their prey and their predators will be most desperate, but I'm being conservative here in my calculations. Each month, a bird has 1/4 x 1/12 chance of dying. For two birds to die within a single month (if you're not going to specify the month), there is a 1/48 chance. For an additional third bird to die in that same month there is a 1/48 x 1/48 chance. That works out as a one in 2304 chance. In science, a probability of 1 in 20 is considered to be significant. The probability of 3 adult HH dying naturally within a month is more than 100 times less than that. Hence, I believe that their deaths were not natural and a likely cause of non-natural death is someone killing them. As I said before, I accept that the killers may not be keepers - they could be some perverse antis, but I stand by my belief that those 3 hen harriers have been killed.

I truly hope to be proved wrong. If you know of an alternative explanation, let me know.

I've never shot driven grouse, but have done a little walked up shooting and it was some of the most fantastic shooting that I've been fortunate to have. I don't want further restrictions on grouse or any other UK bird shooting. However, this kind of baiting of the RSPB and bunker mentality is only going to end in one way. It's rather like the SAS taking on the Chinese army. If you play the numbers game and conduct a full on frontal attack, you're doomed. Strategy, tactics and some intelligence is in order and choose the battles carefully on ground you know you can win. Suspicious deaths of charismatic raptors is not that battlefield.

Now, what do you believe, and what is your justification?
 
I believe.....

I'd be extremely pleased to be proved wrong. I wish it was an Eagle owl swooping down on them, or they'd all decided to have a long stag weekend in Prague, but I can't convince myself that these are the answers. Instead, my belief is based on probability, as is most science. Here's my working:

Adult HH typically have a 75% chance of surviving a year. Therefore, there is about a 1/4 chance they will die naturally each year (for any reason). Let's assume that this probability of death is evenly spread over the year, although in reality, its most likely they will die over winter when conditions are worst for both their prey and their predators will be most desperate, but I'm being conservative here in my calculations. Each month, a bird has 1/4 x 1/12 chance of dying. For two birds to die within a single month (if you're not going to specify the month), there is a 1/48 chance. For an additional third bird to die in that same month there is a 1/48 x 1/48 chance. That works out as a one in 2304 chance. In science, a probability of 1 in 20 is considered to be significant. The probability of 3 adult HH dying naturally within a month is more than 100 times less than that. Hence, I believe that their deaths were not natural and a likely cause of non-natural death is someone killing them. As I said before, I accept that the killers may not be keepers - they could be some perverse antis, but I stand by my belief that those 3 hen harriers have been killed.

I truly hope to be proved wrong. If you know of an alternative explanation, let me know.

I've never shot driven grouse, but have done a little walked up shooting and it was some of the most fantastic shooting that I've been fortunate to have. I don't want further restrictions on grouse or any other UK bird shooting. However, this kind of baiting of the RSPB and bunker mentality is only going to end in one way. It's rather like the SAS taking on the Chinese army. If you play the numbers game and conduct a full on frontal attack, you're doomed. Strategy, tactics and some intelligence is in order and choose the battles carefully on ground you know you can win. Suspicious deaths of charismatic raptors is not that battlefield.

Now, what do you believe, and what is your justification?

But, if you have a predator in a certain location that's locked on to a specific food source as an opportunity, then your probability calculations are a little bit flawed. Until that individual is culled, all the Hen Harriers in the vicinity are statistically far more likely to be killed by a fox than those living on an estate where the foxes haven't learned to kill them.
It's what makes predator control so important- removing the individuals who turn fleeting opportunities into a career.
 
You say that "there is about a 1/4 chance they will die naturally each year (for any reason)".

But there are a myriad of reasons which could be "natural".

When you say someone is killing them, what do you believe is the method, poison, shooting, pollution?

No bodies have been found of the male HHs, so no autopsies. The females have abandoned the nests due to starvation, but these have not been killed in the same manner.

So you think whomever has killed the males has been selective as between sexes?
 
But, if you have a predator in a certain location that's locked on to a specific food source as an opportunity, then your probability calculations are a little bit flawed. Until that individual is culled, all the Hen Harriers in the vicinity are statistically far more likely to be killed by a fox than those living on an estate where the foxes haven't learned to kill them.
It's what makes predator control so important- removing the individuals who turn fleeting opportunities into a career.

Possibly true - but how many foxes have home ranges covering at this time of year of basically the whole Forest of Bowland, and what is the chance of a single fox 'locking on' to male HH when there are only single digit numbers of them on the forest. Not much chance of making a career out of that.


It's easy to prove me wrong. If it's a predator - say a fox - then I expect that the bodies or feathers will be found fairly swiftly with bite marks on them. As I said, I hope you're right, but I fear not. Happy to eat humble pie.
 
Tamar, as has been intimated your calculations, whilst fine as far as they go, don't take the reasons for death into consideration. In any particular area a cause of death could well be such that it is likely to affect more than one bird. Predation is one cause that's been mentioned but that isn't the only one. Disease, overly inclement weather, a lack of food or other localised factors would affect all. Thus in circumstances such as these, the probability of three birds dying will be more akin to the mortality rate for one bird.
 
Yes - there are many reasons which are natural including predation by e.g. foxes. The calculations I made go beyond those 'natural' causes.

I've no knowledge as to the exact methods that may be used to kill the birds. I suspect (and I emphasise that) that they are being shot. Using poison/traps risks leaving baits around which could be easily stumbled upon and would confirm that there is killing going on. The fact that the bodies (if they've been killed) have not been recovered also suggests that if they were killed, the killer was on the scene at or close to time of death and so could remove the body. Bowland is a big place and a silenced rifle wouldn't be noticed in many places.

I suspect that the males were killed rather than the females because the female at this time is generally close to her nest which are closely watched by local raptor groups, whereas the male will be foraging further afield. It would be risky/stupid to kill the female near the nest site. Once the female has deserted because of starvation, the job is essentially done. No new chicks that year and no population increase. Why risk killing the female? Alternatively, if you buy into my 'Anti's dun it' conspiracy theory then they kill the males to get the publicity but stop short of killing the females because they may have a chance to raise young or renest (not a very convincing conspiracy is it:oops:)

As I repeatedly say - I'd love to be wrong.
 
Tamar, as has been intimated your calculations, whilst fine as far as they go, don't take the reasons for death into consideration. In any particular area a cause of death could well be such that it is likely to affect more than one bird. Predation is one cause that's been mentioned but that isn't the only one. Disease, overly inclement weather, a lack of food or other localised factors would affect all. Thus in circumstances such as these, the probability of three birds dying will be more akin to the mortality rate for one bird.

Fair point Pedro. Has it been an especially hard spring in the NW? I'm down in the SW and we've had a pretty mild spring and although birds are nesting late, they're being productive.

If you're correct, why might these conditions (disease, inclement weather etc) not have affected the females that remained on the nest and who typically undergo the highest energetic expenditure during the breeding season? Indeed, it sounds like they have brought off reasonable size clutches, so no indication of poor conditions for them.
 
@Tamar
It does seem you are starting with an assumption and then finding facts to prove it. How can this place be simultaneously big enough that one fox (or family- much of their hunting is learned behaviour) couldn't cover it yet also small enough that the feather of every prey item is freely on display for experts to find??
Big enough that Hen Harrier Assassins can wander freely popping off adults at will yet small enough that one tiny fox-tooth sliced feather would bound to be found??

The 'experts' didn't know this happened:

ec86f00a1dd8932b50d71c4d3445fea5_zpsndyq7hoa.jpg


Until they filmed it :)
 
Don't forget if you have a small sample (4 is a very small number statistically) you can't apply normal statistical tests. Also will someone please tell me if it is those nasty shooters who are doing it, why is it true that the RSPB's moorland have the worst levels of Hen Harrier survival. If no other cause is likely then someone is shooting them there as well! Not so likely is it. Please can we get away from the assumption that if we don't know what the cause is it must be nasty shooters. This is intellectually rubbish and very unhelpful. Just pointing the finger at a group you don't like might mean you miss the real cause and help lose species.

David.
 
Don't forget if you have a small sample (4 is a very small number statistically) you can't apply normal statistical tests. Also will someone please tell me if it is those nasty shooters who are doing it, why is it true that the RSPB's moorland have the worst levels of Hen Harrier survival. If no other cause is likely then someone is shooting them there as well! Not so likely is it. Please can we get away from the assumption that if we don't know what the cause is it must be nasty shooters. This is intellectually rubbish and very unhelpful. Just pointing the finger at a group you don't like might mean you miss the real cause and help lose species.

David.

You're right about the danger of small sample sizes. However, what I presented was just probabilities, not associated statistics, so these are robust to small samples, but they should be interpreted with care - hence me bending over backwards to say that is what I believe, rather than that is what happened. It's a question of burden of proof.

I could have taken a Bayesian approach, which would be more robust to small samples, and would have allowed me to include more prior assumptions, such as the history of local disappearance of raptors from the area, or time of year, sex etc. Perhaps if I've time, I'll have a crack at that. But I simply wanted to crudely illustrate why it seems to me most unlikely that these three birds all disappeared pretty much simultaneously purely due to natural causes.

I completely agree that HH (and indeed other bird survival) on RSPB reserves is poor, and often worse than on keepered moors. The problem is that where these male HH disappeared from is precisely those keepered moors where 'natural' survival because of better predator control is expected. Despite a high level of legal predator control in the area, the males STILL disappeared. Therefore, I could justifiably decrease the likelihood of survival in my calculation to account for this and it would just make the simultaneous disappearance even more striking. I assume that you're not suggesting that the birds all flew to the local RSPB site to be predated there?

You're very welcome to question the analytical approach I deploy, and I enjoy having holes poked in my attempts - this thread has been great for that with issues of non-independence of samples, prior values, spatial factors etc all being raised. To be described as 'intellectually rubbish' is actually fairly mild compared to some of the critiques I give and get when reviewing scientific papers. However, please don't presume that I am doing this to be 'unhelpful' (to the grouse shooting fraternity).

I am doing this not to be unhelpful, but because I DO NOT want further restrictions on grouse or other bird shooting in the UK, but the kind of amateur attacks made by Botham and others on the RSPB are only going to provoke them to harden their position and call for bans etc. If we genuinely want to protect shooting, then what is unhelpful is to refuse to entertain the possibility that someone is killing raptors, and instead openly throw effort behind trying to determine if indeed this is the case. If I was a grouse moor owner up in Bowland at the moment, I would be sending out my keepers with the explicit instructions to find the carcasses of those birds. A dead bird with clear predation marks or disease or poor body condition would be the quickest way to silence RSPB/Mark Avery/Raptor groups (and me!). Frankly, if I believed the birds had died naturally then for £10,000 I would spend 3 months trudging up and down the moors looking for remains of a dead bird and still end up better off than I am now, but I don't believe that I would find the carcasses. If anyone believes that the birds died naturally, I suggest that they go out onto the moors, find that evidence, claim the money from RSPB and stick it to them. It would be the best outcome I could imagine.

In response to your last point, refusing to accept one possible explanation (that these birds are being deliberately killed) might equally mean that the critical issue is missed and this would help lose not just a species, but grouse and game shooting in general.
 
There was/is no definitive proof that there was ever three male harriers, one mature male looks like it may have two females, fairly common, and a young male has been in the area for some time, no one can confirm they dissapeared becaus no one knew really how many were there in the first place!! The Forest of Bowland is rife with political infighting between local and national bird groups with the big wigs in the local group having their disturbance licences revoked and have been causing no end of trouble. I my experience the RSPB are not the most trustworthy organisation, Aye!!!! There's 3 cock harriers "supposedly" went missing!! Now, call me old & cynical, but is not "convenient" that the harries went missing JUST in time for it to get on the news the day before a general election?!!!! The RSPB hoped that if labour got in they'd licence grouse moors, you'd have to have all birds of prey breeding successfully before you'd get a licence to shoot grouse!!!! It looked likely this was going to happen!!! Now the Tories are in that's out the window!!!! Coincidence?.........my arse!!!!
 
There was/is no definitive proof that there was ever three male harriers, one mature male looks like it may have two females, fairly common, and a young male has been in the area for some time, no one can confirm they dissapeared becaus no one knew really how many were there in the first place!! The Forest of Bowland is rife with political infighting between local and national bird groups with the big wigs in the local group having their disturbance licences revoked and have been causing no end of trouble. I my experience the RSPB are not the most trustworthy organisation, Aye!!!! There's 3 cock harriers "supposedly" went missing!! Now, call me old & cynical, but is not "convenient" that the harries went missing JUST in time for it to get on the news the day before a general election?!!!! The RSPB hoped that if labour got in they'd licence grouse moors, you'd have to have all birds of prey breeding successfully before you'd get a licence to shoot grouse!!!! It looked likely this was going to happen!!! Now the Tories are in that's out the window!!!! Coincidence?.........my arse!!!!

Bloody hell, the RSPB sabotaged the general election! I've heard it all now. What was that newspaper that used to print stuff like Elvis is alive and living on Mars etc? If its still going some of you guys could have a promising career with them.
 
:tiphat: No "Fact" then Tamar, just "Fiction"that does no one any good but does us all lots of harm?


I think you (and others) may be missing the point of his argument. The first thing to make very clear is that Tamar is extremely pro shooting. Rabidly so. His argument is essentially:

1. To an objective outside observer there is enough evidence to suggest that something statistically unusual has happened.
2. Given the history of HH persecution on grouse moors, it is then reasonable to include deliberate killing as one explanation. It is also quite difficult (and rather contrived) to come up with possible 'natural' explanations.
3. Given this, and the close attention of a public who are increasingly hostile to and sceptical of grouse moors and their motives, the most sensible strategy would be to loudly denounce anyone suggesting HH persecution is currently acceptable, and to offer to do everything possible to find out what really happened.
4. Going on the attack has the unwanted effect of polarising opinion, and causing the RSPB and others to move to the other extreme, and take up an entrenched and immovably hostile position.

Botham has made himslef internally popular within the shooting world, but has done damage to its cause as a whole. Field sports in general needs to realise that what sounds good said to like- thinking mates in a pub or a forum is a PR disaster when bellowed at the world at large.

Personally, I agree entierly with Tamar - I BELIEVE that someone killed them. The grouse estates have routinely shown themselves unable to grasp the broader strategic need to be SEEN to obey the law, and have generally failed to understand that people really will notice when these things happen.
 
Back
Top