Mink vs Otter

[stigofthedump]

When did you hear this? As of May 2010 there were no such problems.

I have an email here from; Malte Iden, Recreation Ranger, Kielder Castle. Dated 08/05/2010 On this very subject. No issues, indeed a sighting of a Red Kite at Kielder was, I can check back if you wish, a very infrequent occurrence.

Vince

[STYRBJORN]

Oh don't be so literal minded all the time. I was taking up RKB's own point about thrushes decline due to blackbirds due to Sparrowhawks due to . . . It just ain't as simple as some would like.

[RKB]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Oh don't be so literal minded all the time. I was taking up RKB's own point about thrushes decline due to blackbirds due to Sparrowhawks due to . . . It just ain't as simple as some would like.

But that was a full-blown scientific study, and I'm afraid that in this climate of SongBird Survival, that's what it takes when the mud starts flying

[STYRBJORN]

[quote=RKB;720054]But that was a full-blown scientific study, and I'm afraid that in this climate of SongBird Survival, that's what it takes when the mud starts flying [/QUOTE

In this climate of mink vs otter can't you cut me a little slack?

[stigofthedump]

Pm sent Ric.

[RKB]

[quote=STYRBJORN;720057]

Originally Posted by RKB

But that was a full-blown scientific study, and I'm afraid that in this climate of SongBird Survival, that's what it takes when the mud starts flying [/QUOTE

In this climate of mink vs otter can't you cut me a little slack?

Wot, and just agree with you that Red Kites are harming populations of other things, just on your say so? Sorry, no, because it's almost certainly not true, and there are people who want to shoot them based on such ideas, so I'm not gonna load their guns for them.

[STYRBJORN]

[quote=RKB;720075]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Wot, and just agree with you that Red Kites are harming populations of other things, just on your say so? Sorry, no, because it's almost certainly not true, and there are people who want to shoot them based on such ideas, so I'm not gonna load their guns for them.

I did say that it was anecdotal. There is no evidence of which I am aware that the story is any more than hysterical claptrap at best. The only people who put any faith in it are HWD supporters and surprise surprise local landowners who make money from game bird shoots. Like most hunters I am flatly against killing any raptors except under very rare circumstances, and a special licence should be required, with strict limitations. Sadly our present government has a lot of members and big money supporters who own game bird shoots.

One claim is that the kestrel population has dropped. Post hoc ergo propter hoc raises its ugly head again.Even if the balance of raptors has altered so what? The kite is a reintroduced native and the balance is returning to what it was before man wiped them out.

I am completely open about the fact that I shoot for pest control and the pot. Please don't assume stereo type me with your assumptions. Hunters are not all blood-thirsty slavering maniacs who get a hard on when their victim dies.

Edited to add.
I cited the, shall we say, fable, as an example where strict evidence gathered over several years would be required. The Anglo-Saxon code of justlce is based on the presumption of innocence. The Red Kite should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and guilty of more than knocking a few quid off Lord Fauntlery's profit margin by eating the odd pheasant or grouse.

YIS
Ric

[Putorius]

Whilst I appreciate the importance of the point that RKB makes (with considerable regularity) regarding scientific study, anecdotal evidence from a source that is regularly immersed in the outdoors is certainly worth further consideration/investigation.

Not the anecdotal evidence spouted by bar stool or sofa dwelling ecologists of course but rather that from people that may well find themselves in situations where the likelihood of the opportunity of observing wildlife/behaviour is not unlikely. Foresters, gamekeepers, ferreters, fishermen, farmers etc are good examples.

Admittedly, to take fanciful anecdotal evidence from unlikely and unrealistic sources as gospel would be extremely unwise. However, to simply dismiss anecdotal evidence from people that do spend more of their time out amidst the diversity of life, (rather than in the sterile office environment, punching away at keyboards beneath flourescent strip lights that an alarming number of proffessional "ecologists" do) as pure bunkum with out consideration of the possability of further investigation, would also be an incredibly illiberal and somewhat bigoted attitude to adopt. So close-minded and limited an approach to life leaves a very narrow channel of discovery.

There is then a very distinct danger of, despite the most scientific approach and methodology being applied, missing the truth by a mile.

[RKB]

Originally Posted by Putorius

Whilst I appreciate the importance of the point that RKB makes (with considerable regularity) regarding scientific study, anecdotal evidence from a source that is regularly immersed in the outdoors is certainly worth further consideration/investigation.

Not the anecdotal evidence spouted by bar stool or sofa dwelling ecologists of course but rather that from people that may well find themselves in situations where the likelihood of the opportunity of observing wildlife/behaviour is not unlikely. Foresters, gamekeepers, ferreters, fishermen, farmers etc are good examples.

Admittedly, to take fanciful anecdotal evidence from unlikely and unrealistic sources as gospel would be extremely unwise. However, to simply dismiss anecdotal evidence from people that do spend more of their time out amidst the diversity of life, (rather than in the sterile office environment, punching away at keyboards beneath flourescent strip lights that an alarming number of proffessional "ecologists" do) as pure bunkum with out consideration of the possability of further investigation, would also be an incredibly illiberal and somewhat bigoted attitude to adopt. So close-minded and limited an approach to life leaves a very narrow channel of discovery.

There is then a very distinct danger of, despite the most scientific approach and methodology being applied, missing the truth by a mile.

So at what level would you 'admit' this anecdotal evidence? Would you cull/not cull badgers based on it? Would you change farming policy based on it? Would you eradicate/leave Ruddy Ducks based on it? Would you convict someone based on it? How can you test that an anecdote is actually the truth? All you can do is believe it or not. Whereas in a scientific study, you have controlled statistical evidence on which to base that judgement. If you can't base any judgements on anecdote, then it isn't much use, is it?

It's not just about what you see, but how you interpret it. And how you interpret things affects how you actually see them. For example, there is plenty of anecdote that Sparrowhawks kill small birds and are responsible for the decline in songbirds. Lots and lots of farmers will tel you that, having spent their life in the countryside and seeing the increase in Sparrowhawks, predation on small brds, and the decline of Skylarks etc. Is that the truth? How can you tell? People often 'see' an anecdote through the prism of their own prejudices, whereas the point of science is that it is as objective as possible and controls for the 'human factor'.

[Putorius]

Thank you for the prompt response RKB.

Who said anything about admitting evidence? You did! I shall repeat myself once more; "anecdotal evidence from a source that is regularly immersed in the outdoors is certainly worth further consideration/investigation."

All the best,

P