Guilty until proven innocent: social media and bird photography

[myotis]

I think you’ve covered most but I think food concentrated in a small area (bird table or feeder) may encourage the spread of diseases and possibly (rather topically in a pandemic ) between species . I have no evidence this happens but it seems likely, there may be some. This wouldn’t apply to isolated baiting though.

You are certainly meant to be fairly rigorous at keeping your bird table and feeders clean. I can't remember the advice on this.

I don't feed the birds here anymore, except in very bad weather when I think the risks of starving to death are greater than being eaten by one of our local cats or resident sparrowhawk.

 

[sphexx]

You are certainly meant to be fairly rigorous at keeping your bird table and feeders clean. I can't remember the advice on this.

I don't feed the birds here anymore, except in very bad weather when I think the risks of starving to death are greater than being eaten by one of our local cats or resident sparrowhawk.

Sparrowhawk very active in my garden (probably due to tall trees it/they can lurk in. I put a hanging seed feeder on a ‘washing line‘ but also attach some old lily flower stalks above and position it not in a open area. It would be tricky for the hawk to strike a bird anywhere close.

 

[RedRobin]

There are some risks with baiting birds for photography, how serious these risks are depends on circumstances and some people have very strong views about it.

Short term baiting might attract birds into the open (better light for photographs) and make them at greater risk to predators. It might also encourage the birds to spend longer in the open and be less alert to predators. It may attract several individuals from the same species into the same space and encourage territorial or other aggressive behaviour. The energy lost during these types of dispute could, in bad weather, result in the death of bird. To counter this, the availability of food could also be valuable in keeping birds alive

Regular baiting can change the behaviour of individual birds and make them dependent on the food being provided, and spend less time defending their feeding territory, with possible serious consequences for individual birds.

There are other possible risks, but overall the risks are similar to putting food out on a bird table, and then stopping when you go off on holiday for three weeks. And sparrowhawks quickly learn that bird tables can provide a ready supply of small birds. The difference is that the bird table is for the benefit of the birds, and baiting is for the benefit of the photographer. But also good bird photographs can have value for bird conservation marketing, and some birds are almost impossible to photograph without some kind of baiting.

Baiting rare birds is seen as more serious offence, as it might have a more serious consequence for a small population of birds.

Personally, I don't have a big issue with responsible baiting but I think you need to understand the ecology and behaviour of the species you want to photograph to assess what is and isn't responsible. I'm not keen on tethering live goats to attract tigers (and its never worked for me in Somerset), or damaging trees to hide bait which will attract birds or mammals but not be seen by the camera, but scattering a few mealworms, in a spot a bird is coming to anyway, to encourage it into the "right" but still safe spot, seems fairly harmless to me.

.... The key to it is in your last paragraph : The word "responsible". As you say, a need to understand or rather to have direct firsthand experience of how different species behave and even observe and realise how different individuals behave. Where and how you offer food is part of that responsibility and becomes common sense.

Just beyond my wildlife garden there is 1.5 acres of absolute wilderness where I also spend many hours at a time. I put up 3 nestboxes a few years ago and they have been used by either Blue Tits or Great Tits. However, last year the local Woodpecker smashed his way into one of them and took the chicks < I do not accept anyone saying that putting up the nest boxes was consequently irresponsible - Predators have young they need to feed too and it's just part of Nature's circle of life and death. Sparrowhawks are like Cheetahs in that their kill rate is very low.

I have a problem with someone repeatedly referring to feeding as "baiting". It is simply offering extra food resources and photography is merely a bonus when you enjoy taking photos.

I have a bigger problem with the practice of netting and ringing wild birds.

The rest of what you are describing is someone over thinking it in my opinion.

 

[myotis]

I have a problem with someone repeatedly referring to feeding as "baiting". It is simply offering extra food resources and photography is merely a bonus when you enjoy taking photos.

I have a bigger problem with the practice of netting and ringing wild birds.

The rest of what you are describing is someone over thinking it in my opinion.

Feeding and baiting are two different things, if you put food out for the purpose of attracting animals for photography (or hunting) then you are putting out bait. If you are providing supplementary food for conservation purposes and take advantage of the animals it attracts to take photographs, then its offering extra food resources.

I used baiting very deliberately because I wasn't writing about people providing supplementary food, I was writing about people baiting for the purpose of photography. Although supplementary feeding has its own issues they are not the same as the issues with baiting, even if there could be similarities.

And yes there are also issues with ringing and netting, and weighing up the benefits to science and conservation vs the risks to individual birds is another discussion.

Not sure about the overthinking, it's a pretty standard list of the things to be considered if you were investigating the effects on birds from any activity with the potential to disrupt their natural behaviour. It didn't really require much thinking at all on my part.

Just because these are potential risks it doesn't tell you anything about how likely they are, or how serious they might be. Or which ones are the most likely to apply to which circumstances. But they all (and maybe more if I spent time thinking about it) need to be considered, if only to justify rejecting them.

 

[RedRobin]

Feeding and baiting are two different things, if you put food out for the purpose of attracting animals for photography (or hunting) then you are putting out bait. If you are providing supplementary food for conservation purposes and take advantage of the animals it attracts to take photographs, then its offering extra food resources.

I used baiting very deliberately because I wasn't writing about people providing supplementary food, I was writing about people baiting for the purpose of photography. Although supplementary feeding has its own issues they are not the same as the issues with baiting, even if there could be similarities.

And yes there are also issues with ringing and netting, and weighing up the benefits to science and conservation vs the risks to individual birds is another discussion.

Not sure about the overthinking, it's a pretty standard list of the things to be considered if you were investigating the effects on birds from any activity with the potential to disrupt their natural behaviour. It didn't really require much thinking at all on my part.

Just because these are potential risks it doesn't tell you anything about how likely they are, or how serious they might be. Or which ones are the most likely to apply to which circumstances. But they all (and maybe more if I spent time thinking about it) need to be considered, if only to justify rejecting them.

.... I agree - Baiting and supplementary feeding are very different and that was my point.

I wasn't accusing you personally of overthinking it but rather those whose ideas you described in your earlier post. I think that people, and scientists in particular, too often have a strong tendency to overthink subjects which don't need much thinking about at all and they do so just for the sake of academic studies.

 

[sphexx]

I think that people, and scientists in particular, too often have a strong tendency to overthink subjects which don't need much thinking about at all and they do so just for the sake of academic studies.

That’s just not true in general. Usually people say that when something they think is obvious is the subject of a study and turns out to be true. But things that are obvious very often turn out to be untrue when subject to analysis . Your statement might be one of those

 

[RedRobin]

That’s just not true in general. Usually people say that when something they think is obvious is the subject of a study and turns out to be true. But things that are obvious very often turn out to be untrue when subject to analysis . Your statement might be one of those

.... So sometimes something obvious turns out to be true and sometimes it turns out to be untrue. Analysis doesn't necessarily prove anything either way - An analysis or study is just someone's logical perspective. It's why scientists are often in disagreement about each other's theories and likewise between religions. No matter, this has gone waaay off the topic of feeding birds. It is what it is.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

An analysis or study is just someone's logical perspective.

Analysis is the process of obtaining accurate information from the available data. Done properly, it is objective and has nothing to do with subjective opinion.

 

[myotis]

No matter, this has gone waaay off the topic of feeding birds. It is what it is.

I did write a tediously long answer to your last post, and feel the need to respond to this one as well, but as you say we are way off topic and I have bitten my tongue.

However, I will summarise what I wrote and say, in a non insulting way, that the issue I have with both of your posts is that your descriptions of science, scientists, truth, proof and analysis isn't how science and scientists work.

 

[Cockney]

.... So sometimes something obvious turns out to be true and sometimes it turns out to be untrue. Analysis doesn't necessarily prove anything either way - An analysis or study is just someone's logical perspective. It's why scientists are often in disagreement about each other's theories and likewise between religions. No matter, this has gone waaay off the topic of feeding birds. It is what it is.

Analysis is the process of obtaining accurate information from the available data. Done properly, it is objective and has nothing to do with subjective opinion.

I did write a tediously long answer to your last post, and feel the need to respond to this one as well, but as you say we are way off topic and I have bitten my tongue.

However, I will summarise what I wrote and say, in a non insulting way, that the issue I have with both of your posts is that your descriptions of science, scientists, truth, proof and analysis isn't how science and scientists work.

I think it's still an interesting debate, mainly because there seem different views from people who all have the best interests of the wildlife at the forefront of their thinking.

 

[RedRobin]

I think it's still an interesting debate, mainly because there seem different views from people who all have the best interests of the wildlife at the forefront of their thinking.

.... Exactly. Different views and different beliefs about what the truth of the matter really is. Each point of view has its own truth and body of believers regardless of someone else scientifically applying their third-party analysis to it.

 

[RedRobin]

I did write a tediously long answer to your last post, and feel the need to respond to this one as well, but as you say we are way off topic and I have bitten my tongue.

However, I will summarise what I wrote and say, in a non insulting way, that the issue I have with both of your posts is that your descriptions of science, scientists, truth, proof and analysis isn't how science and scientists work.

.... Yes I realise that scientists work in certain ways, usually very disciplined and rigid and that's exactly what prompts me to challenge their process. If the accuracy of their base information is inaccurate, then their whole theory built on it fails.

Just because I read somewhere that scientists have 'discovered' that birds behave like this or that and have produced a study on the subject, doesn't necessarily mean I will believe them. They are sharing the truth as only they see it. Scientists and creators of studies often set out with a set goal in mind to prove something in particular < That process can easily suffer from not being fundamentally objective. It's like BBC's Panorama typically presenting someone's view as fact when it isn't so.

When scientists start telling me how I should behave to protect animals, that's when I have an inclination to ignore them. For me the way to understand the animal world is to tune in to it. They have a lot to teach us if you have a very open mind. Reach out and connect to them and many will connect to you if you give them time.

Your post's content suggesting how birds will be at risk in certain conditions is what I challenge. Every second in every life of a creature in the wild is a risk and taking risks is both necessary and healthy. Everything predates on something else. Exercising adrenalin is healthy. All IMO.

I'm off into my 'BackYard' wilderness soon to see what insects I can connect with and allow me to photograph. The Dragonflies are beginning to emerge.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Just because I read somewhere that scientists have 'discovered' that birds behave like this or that and have produced a study on the subject, doesn't necessarily mean I will believe them.

That's a truly amazing coincidence!

I apply the same approach to many postings I come across on the internet,..

 

[mex]

There's also the bit that says baiting and feeding wild birds actually aids conservation. Red kite feeding stations throughout mid-Wales for example, have been active for as long as I can remember, ( IIRC Tregaron was one of the earlier ones, I went there in the early 80's with Glamorgan naturalist society, although not to photograph them back then ). Primarily set up nowadays as paid-for 'photo opportunities' with feeding kites ,they have without much doubt helped bring back the kites from the brink of local extinction. I visited a paid hide in Somerset recently with the intention of photographing Kestrels, having spoken to the owner and others there, they have stated that due to the cold/wet spring we have had, feeding the kestrels there has made sure the parents and chicks had a steady, healthy supply of fresh food. In my opinion its a win-win.
As an aside, anyone else noticed the lack of cuckoo's this year? maybe just around here, but there's not many at all.

 

[RedRobin]

There's also the bit that says baiting and feeding wild birds actually aids conservation. Red kite feeding stations throughout mid-Wales for example, have been active for as long as I can remember, ( IIRC Tregaron was one of the earlier ones, I went there in the early 80's with Glamorgan naturalist society, although not to photograph them back then ). Primarily set up nowadays as paid-for 'photo opportunities' with feeding kites ,they have without much doubt helped bring back the kites from the brink of local extinction. I visited a paid hide in Somerset recently with the intention of photographing Kestrels, having spoken to the owner and others there, they have stated that due to the cold/wet spring we have had, feeding the kestrels there has made sure the parents and chicks had a steady, healthy supply of fresh food. In my opinion its a win-win.
As an aside, anyone else noticed the lack of cuckoo's this year? maybe just around here, but there's not many at all.

.... I agree.

But I think that 'bait' is entirely the wrong term for anyone to use in this context as it means to entice as prey rather than beneficially feed for welfare.

I heard my first Cuckoo this year last Sunday on Somerset Levels.

 

[sphexx]

has made sure the parents and chicks had a steady, healthy supply of fresh food. In my opinion its a win-win.

Though it’s lose lose for whatever these well fed kestrels will prey on if their (the kestrels) numbers have been artificially kept up through the Winter . It’s swings & roundabouts. I think it’s only justifiable if the species is endangered but I‘m not knocking them for doing it — just a general observation .

 

[mex]

Though it’s lose lose for whatever these well fed kestrels will prey on if their (the kestrels) numbers have been artificially kept up through the Winter . It’s swings & roundabouts. I think it’s only justifiable if the species is endangered but I‘m not knocking them for doing it — just a general observation .

I'm not bothered to be honest if you do knock it, it's something I enjoy, although another (former?) member on here decided to kick off on Faceache at some shots I put on there, even though he did/does very similar himself. In fairness to Somerset wildlife hides (excuse the plug ) they have various feeding stations located around a farm and many species are recorded there throughout the year, it's no different IMHO to numerous organisations or societies or nature reserves putting feeders up everywhere around their visitor centres and indeed you and I putting feeders in our gardens

 

[sphexx]

I'm not bothered to be honest if you do knock it, it's something I enjoy, although another (former?) member on here decided to kick off on Faceache at some shots I put on there, even though he did/does very similar himself. In fairness to Somerset wildlife hides (excuse the plug ) they have various feeding stations located around a farm and many species are recorded there throughout the year, it's no different IMHO to numerous organisations or societies or nature reserves putting feeders up everywhere around their visitor centres and indeed you and I putting feeders in our gardens

Yes, I just think people should be aware of the ramifications of anything to do with wildlife. It’s almost never simple (as you know) but many think it is .

 

[RedRobin]

I'm not bothered to be honest if you do knock it, it's something I enjoy, although another (former?) member on here decided to kick off on Faceache at some shots I put on there, even though he did/does very similar himself. In fairness to Somerset wildlife hides (excuse the plug ) they have various feeding stations located around a farm and many species are recorded there throughout the year, it's no different IMHO to numerous organisations or societies or nature reserves putting feeders up everywhere around their visitor centres and indeed you and I putting feeders in our gardens

.... You are right and my opinion is that there is no need to draw a line between offering food to wildlife in a commercial hide environment such as Somerset Wildlife Hides (which I have also used for Kingfishers though unsuccessfully!) and from a hanging feeder/bird table in your garden. The important consideration for both is to do so responsibly so that visiting wildlife is not additionally endangered by your setup. Obviously Nature will take its course and one species may prey on another as it would do at every opportunity no matter where - Every carnivorous creature eats another creature. It's a cycle/circle of life and death which we should accept and not interfere with. Human beings always think they know best and interfere too much IMHO.

Solely photographically speaking (Talk Photography?), the downside of many commercial hides is that the operator is obliged to do everything to justify taking your money and setups invariably look artificial and consequently visiting photographer's images can easily look the same as each other's. Commercial hide operators tend to charge too much money for the work they do but that's just my opinion. I prefer the challenge of discovering wildlife in their own habitat - Although my extremely rough private wildlife garden has become their habitat for some because they nest there. My kitchen window is always open with a camo net curtain and small Jobu gimbal on the window cill.

You may have already viewed my wildlife garden album :

MY WILDLIFE GARDEN

Visitors & Residents including in my 'BackYard'

www.flickr.com

 

[Box Brownie]

I have been to a David Plummer kingfisher hide and AFAIK the hide is not/never used at the same place 2 years running.....he might even move it during any given year?

Granted it is a baited/feeding arrangement but as it is not fixed in place.......= lower to zero chance the birds will become "habituated" to it???

 

[myotis]

I've given up trying to write a full response, I can't get it short enough to post, so I'm just going to give some individual answers to your points from a couple of your posts, which is still very long :-(

As you say, a need to understand or rather to have direct firsthand experience of how different species behave and even observe and realise how different individuals behave.

Exactly, and that is the value of scientific publications as they allow scientists to share their first hand experiences with others, so we can all expand our personal, but very limited, first hand experience.

Avian scientists are the ones that spend thousands of hours in the field studying bird behaviour, they are the ones that record what birds are doing in a structured and objective way so the behaviour can be analysed. They are the ones that are sharing their data and experiences with thousands of other scientists so they can identify general patterns of behaviour as well as the variation in individual behaviour.

No avian scientist expects to exactly predict how an individual bird will behave in any particular set of circumstances but they will have a pool of knowledge from their own studies and the studies of others to draw upon when giving general advice.

For an individual issues, local knowledge becomes crucial. A local birder can bring a depth of knowledge about "their" local birds that the scientist can't hope to replicate in any reasonable time. Coupling this local knowledge along with the broader and more specialist knowledge of an avian scientist is the most effective route to answer or solve a specific bird conservation question/problem.

The rest of what you are describing is someone over thinking it in my opinion.

No need to overthink, in fact no need to spend much time thinking about it at all, you just need have some familiarity with the scientific literature on bird behaviour and be aware of how birds have reacted to similar interventions in the past.

.... Yes I realise that scientists work in certain ways, usually very disciplined and rigid and that's exactly what prompts me to challenge their process.
Just because I read somewhere that scientists have 'discovered' that birds behave like this or that and have produced a study on the subject, doesn't necessarily mean I will believe them. They are sharing the truth as only they see it.

Scientists don't share truths,. They seek the truth, and hope to find part of, what might be, a "possible" truth, which they then share as evidence supported scientific opinion.

How close a study provides an insight into the truth is judged by other scientists who scrutinise the quality of the data collection, the appropriateness of the data analysis and how plausible the interpretation of the analysis is. I can understand you challenging how well individual scientists adhere to the scientific process, and the process isn't perfect, but it’s still the process that should encourage confidence in scientific opinion, not challenge it.

While not all studies are of the same quality, and you are correct to not automatically believe the conclusions. But, the idea that scientists are sharing truths as they see them, or that they engineer studies to prove a theory, is just wrong. I'm not say it doesn't happen, but the entire scientific approach is designed to prevent it.

Starting with an easy one, If you have scientific theory you want accepted, you don't design a study to prove it correct, you design multiple studies to try and prove it wrong. You test the theory to destruction, only if it survives these tests will it be accepted by other scientists.

When a scientists "discovers" some new aspect of bird behaviour they will design a study to test if it really is new behaviour and not just some random event, they will also search the literature to check it really is new.

An early step is then to develop a study design. This lays out the data collection methods, and includes the measures being taken to ensure the data collection is objective and unbiased, and how you are ensuring that you are measuring what you think you are measuring. The deign will always include discussion with other scientists, and often (but not often enough) a statistician. The study design is always published and open to scrutiny.

The study design is a key stage, as your entire study relies on getting this right, and not all studies do. We were once asked to analyse data collected from a £600, 000 (yes really, 600,000) monitoring programme which had so many flaws in the study design that we had to turn down what would have been a lucrative contract.

The second stage is the analysis, and although there are multiple ways of analysing the same data, and there is a real possibility of getting this very wrong, again this is published, and increasingly the original raw data from studies are downloadable. This allows other scientists/statisticians to check the analysis and try alternative approaches. But the numbers you get are the numbers you get and those are the numbers published.

The third stage is the interpretation and conclusions, This is the opinion bit, this where the scientists explains, using the data and the data analysis in the paper as evidence, how their work contributes to our understanding of the world, how it contributes to getting us a bit closer to the truth. his part also points out any flaws in the study, highlights any areas of the conclusions that should be viewed with particular caution, and where identifies the need for any further work.

This third part is is the only part where the scientists expresses their "truths" about the study, and its always done in a cautious and tentative manner. Scientist don't think in terms of truths only in terms of what is most likely, given the evidence.

Its also the main area of scientific disagreement. The data is the data, and done well, this part is objective. The analysis is the analysis, and done well, its objective. But the interpretation of the analysis relies on professional judgement. Some scientists don't even read this part, and just look at the data and the data analysis parts

You are correct to be sceptical, but not as dismissive as you appear to be, about scientific opinion, as it's far from perfect.

However, given this opinion is usually based on evidence through published work, given that the entire structure of scientific study is to allow scientific opinion to be checked and tested by other scientists, and that science and the scientific method is rooted in ensuring an objective and unbiased approach, I would argue that scientific comment and advice is still likely to be the most reliable we have.

Scientific opinion shouldn't be blindly accepted, of course, but with a little effort you can usually find out enough about the science behind the opinion to assess its validity. This is particularly useful when scientific opinions are presented by the media, government or pressure groups, as I think, I have never found a scientific finding accurately reported. We used to do this as a class exercise, find the scientific paper behind a headline and see how close the newspaper (or government) report matched what the scientific paper had actually said

When scientists start telling me how I should behave to protect animals, that's when I have an inclination to ignore them.

Why?
Avian scientists are totally immersed in their work, spend thousands of hours personally studying birds, spend thousands of hours reading papers from other scientists who spend thousands of hours personally studying birds, and spend thousands of hours working with conservation managers, zoos, game parks, developers etc working together to solve real world animal; protection problems.

Scientists bring a massive amount and breadth and depth of understanding on how animals might, not might not, need protected, far more than the average individual could possibly have. I think your inclination is the wrong way round. I would be inclined to start off believing them, and then check out their advice.

For me the way to understand the animal world is to tune in to it. They have a lot to teach us if you have a very open mind. Reach out and connect to them and many will connect to you if you give them time.

A view shared by every animal scientist I've ever met, the difference is that they also want to objectively support their understanding.

Your post's content suggesting how birds will be at risk in certain conditions is what I challenge. Every second in every life of a creature in the wild is a risk and taking risks is both necessary and healthy. Everything predates on something else. Exercising adrenalin is healthy. All IMO.

The list was potential "additional" risks to those everyday risks you list. We can't realistically control those every day risks, but we can question whether adding unnecessary risks is justified.

If this was some sort of legal case i.e. animal welfare lobbyists arguing that baiting should be made illegal, then my list provides the sorts of things that would need to be considered by the courts or parliament, which in turn would need evidence from objective scientific opinion.

I've no idea whether the things on my list represent low or high risks to birds, and this will inevitably depend on specific circumstance, but they are all "potential" risks that would need to be evaluated.


I think I've said my piece now, and if you think this is long, you should see the post I never finished

 

[sphexx]

I've given up trying to write a full response, I can't get it short enough to post, so I'm just going to give some individual answers to your points from a couple of your posts, which is still very long :-(



Exactly, and that is the value of scientific publications as they allow scientists to share their first hand experiences with others, so we can all expand our personal, but very limited, first hand experience.

Avian scientists are the ones that spend thousands of hours in the field studying bird behaviour, they are the ones that record what birds are doing in a structured and objective way so the behaviour can be analysed. They are the ones that are sharing their data and experiences with thousands of other scientists so they can identify general patterns of behaviour as well as the variation in individual behaviour.

No avian scientist expects to exactly predict how an individual bird will behave in any particular set of circumstances but they will have a pool of knowledge from their own studies and the studies of others to draw upon when giving general advice.

For an individual issues, local knowledge becomes crucial. A local birder can bring a depth of knowledge about "their" local birds that the scientist can't hope to replicate in any reasonable time. Coupling this local knowledge along with the broader and more specialist knowledge of an avian scientist is the most effective route to answer or solve a specific bird conservation question/problem.



No need to overthink, in fact no need to spend much time thinking about it at all, you just need have some familiarity with the scientific literature on bird behaviour and be aware of how birds have reacted to similar interventions in the past.


Scientists don't share truths,. They seek the truth, and hope to find part of, what might be, a "possible" truth, which they then share as evidence supported scientific opinion.

How close a study provides an insight into the truth is judged by other scientists who scrutinise the quality of the data collection, the appropriateness of the data analysis and how plausible the interpretation of the analysis is. I can understand you challenging how well individual scientists adhere to the scientific process, and the process isn't perfect, but it’s still the process that should encourage confidence in scientific opinion, not challenge it.

While not all studies are of the same quality, and you are correct to not automatically believe the conclusions. But, the idea that scientists are sharing truths as they see them, or that they engineer studies to prove a theory, is just wrong. I'm not say it doesn't happen, but the entire scientific approach is designed to prevent it.

Starting with an easy one, If you have scientific theory you want accepted, you don't design a study to prove it correct, you design multiple studies to try and prove it wrong. You test the theory to destruction, only if it survives these tests will it be accepted by other scientists.

When a scientists "discovers" some new aspect of bird behaviour they will design a study to test if it really is new behaviour and not just some random event, they will also search the literature to check it really is new.

An early step is then to develop a study design. This lays out the data collection methods, and includes the measures being taken to ensure the data collection is objective and unbiased, and how you are ensuring that you are measuring what you think you are measuring. The deign will always include discussion with other scientists, and often (but not often enough) a statistician. The study design is always published and open to scrutiny.

The study design is a key stage, as your entire study relies on getting this right, and not all studies do. We were once asked to analyse data collected from a £600, 000 (yes really, 600,000) monitoring programme which had so many flaws in the study design that we had to turn down what would have been a lucrative contract.

The second stage is the analysis, and although there are multiple ways of analysing the same data, and there is a real possibility of getting this very wrong, again this is published, and increasingly the original raw data from studies are downloadable. This allows other scientists/statisticians to check the analysis and try alternative approaches. But the numbers you get are the numbers you get and those are the numbers published.

The third stage is the interpretation and conclusions, This is the opinion bit, this where the scientists explains, using the data and the data analysis in the paper as evidence, how their work contributes to our understanding of the world, how it contributes to getting us a bit closer to the truth. his part also points out any flaws in the study, highlights any areas of the conclusions that should be viewed with particular caution, and where identifies the need for any further work.

This third part is is the only part where the scientists expresses their "truths" about the study, and its always done in a cautious and tentative manner. Scientist don't think in terms of truths only in terms of what is most likely, given the evidence.

Its also the main area of scientific disagreement. The data is the data, and done well, this part is objective. The analysis is the analysis, and done well, its objective. But the interpretation of the analysis relies on professional judgement. Some scientists don't even read this part, and just look at the data and the data analysis parts

You are correct to be sceptical, but not as dismissive as you appear to be, about scientific opinion, as it's far from perfect.

However, given this opinion is usually based on evidence through published work, given that the entire structure of scientific study is to allow scientific opinion to be checked and tested by other scientists, and that science and the scientific method is rooted in ensuring an objective and unbiased approach, I would argue that scientific comment and advice is still likely to be the most reliable we have.

Scientific opinion shouldn't be blindly accepted, of course, but with a little effort you can usually find out enough about the science behind the opinion to assess its validity. This is particularly useful when scientific opinions are presented by the media, government or pressure groups, as I think, I have never found a scientific finding accurately reported. We used to do this as a class exercise, find the scientific paper behind a headline and see how close the newspaper (or government) report matched what the scientific paper had actually said



Why?
Avian scientists are totally immersed in their work, spend thousands of hours personally studying birds, spend thousands of hours reading papers from other scientists who spend thousands of hours personally studying birds, and spend thousands of hours working with conservation managers, zoos, game parks, developers etc working together to solve real world animal; protection problems.

Scientists bring a massive amount and breadth and depth of understanding on how animals might, not might not, need protected, far more than the average individual could possibly have. I think your inclination is the wrong way round. I would be inclined to start off believing them, and then check out their advice.



A view shared by every animal scientist I've ever met, the difference is that they also want to objectively support their understanding.



The list was potential "additional" risks to those everyday risks you list. We can't realistically control those every day risks, but we can question whether adding unnecessary risks is justified.

If this was some sort of legal case i.e. animal welfare lobbyists arguing that baiting should be made illegal, then my list provides the sorts of things that would need to be considered by the courts or parliament, which in turn would need evidence from objective scientific opinion.

I've no idea whether the things on my list represent low or high risks to birds, and this will inevitably depend on specific circumstance, but they are all "potential" risks that would need to be evaluated.


I think I've said my piece now, and if you think this is long, you should see the post I never finished

Thanks for doing that, I think it was worthwhile.

 

[RedRobin]

@myotis Graham,

Firstly let me say that your post explains scientific approaches and processes extremely well and was very worthwhile you spending time writing it. I applaud it. However ....

Scientists don't share truths,. They seek the truth, and hope to find part of, what might be, a "possible" truth, which they then share as evidence supported scientific opinion.

How close a study provides an insight into the truth is judged by other scientists who scrutinise the quality of the data collection, the appropriateness of the data analysis and how plausible the interpretation of the analysis is. I can understand you challenging how well individual scientists adhere to the scientific process, and the process isn't perfect, but it’s still the process that should encourage confidence in scientific opinion, not challenge it.

While not all studies are of the same quality, and you are correct to not automatically believe the conclusions. But, the idea that scientists are sharing truths as they see them, or that they engineer studies to prove a theory, is just wrong. I'm not say it doesn't happen, but the entire scientific approach is designed to prevent it.

.... For me personally the fundamental fact is that I will always challenge the scientific experts. This is based on the direct experience if me needing to challenge medical science in the High Court regarding my infant son who died and which also included me challenging the traumatic practices which they considered to be appropriate. Sorry but I absolutely cannot bring myself to trust scientists.

In the case of animal/bird/insect pursuances of science I disagree strongly with some of their practices. In particular the British Dragonfly Society for example.

I respect that most scientists believe that they are a force for good and I respect their attempts at good practice, but I simply don't trust them and will always challenge.

But again, I thank you for your comprehensive response to my earlier posts - I do very much appreciate your posts and their calm objectivity and not just in this discussion thread

 

[sphexx]

@myotis Graham,

Firstly let me say that your post explains scientific approaches and processes extremely well and was very worthwhile you spending time writing it. I applaud it. However ....



.... For me personally the fundamental fact is that I will always challenge the scientific experts. This is based on the direct experience if me needing to challenge medical science in the High Court regarding my infant son who died and which also included me challenging the practices which they considered to be appropriate. Sorry but I absolutely cannot bring myself to trust scientists.

In the case of animal/bird/insect pursuances of science I disagree strongly with some of their practices. In particular the British Dragonfly Society for example.

I respect that most scientists believe that they are a force for good and I respect their attempts at good practice, but I simply don't trust them and will always challenge.

But again, I thank you for your comprehensive response to my earlier posts - I do very much appreciate your posts and not just in this discussion thread

Challenging is OK provided it is reasoned but that’s not the same as disbelieving automatically .

What on earth can the British Dragonfly Society be doing?

 

[myotis]

@myotis Graham,

.... For me personally the fundamental fact is that I will always challenge the scientific experts. This is based on the direct experience if me needing to challenge medical science in the High Court regarding my infant son who died and which also included me challenging the practices which they considered to be appropriate. Sorry but I absolutely cannot bring myself to trust scientists.

I'm really sorry about your son, its always tragic when you hear of this happening, and, I can understand how this has affected your views. It's difficult to make generic/abstract arguments when I know you have had such a personal experience.

 

[RedRobin]

I'm really sorry about your son, its always tragic when you hear of this happening, and, I can understand how this has affected your views. It's difficult to make generic/abstract arguments when I know you have had such a personal experience.

.... I think that every single one of us is strongly influenced by our individual experiences in life and these experiences make us what we are. Dogs and Horses are a good example in the animal world.

Going back to what science might or might not contribute to how people interact with birds and other wildlife, I'm going to say that in my case I follow my gut instincts and don't listen to the scientists - Or rather, I listen but make my own mind up independently. I take what they say with a pinch of salt. With creatures of the animal world I believe that there can be direct communication with them in an abstract form of 'language' - It is far more spiritual than scientific. We have animal senses too if we tune into them. However, the vast majority of people are tuned out and don't have a clue. The scientists grasp at straws and are fettered by their own processes.

For someone who doesn't understand what I am saying, they may think I'm mad but my experiences are such that I cannot ignore them and I have never been too bothered by what other people might think of me.

@sphexx Richard, I don't "disbelieve automatically" but my default is to start off distrusting most man-made science.

 

[myotis]

Or rather, I listen but make my own mind up independently. I take what they say with a pinch of salt.

So underneath it all you are a scientist ;-)

Independent and critical thinking together with testing and challenging the views of other scientists, as well as your own views, is a fundamental aspect of being a scientist I used to give a lecture to my students which started with me telling them to never to take anything I taught them on trust.

With creatures of the animal world I believe that there can be direct communication with them in an abstract form of 'language' - It is far more spiritual than scientific. We have animal senses too if we tune into them. However, the vast majority of people are tuned out and don't have a clue.

Animal scientists experience this as well, I think anyone who spends a lot of time with animals experiences a bond or spiritual connection. And it's very often, maybe always, this bond or connection with the natural world that drives people to become scientists, along with an insatiable curiosity about things. To continue my teaching theme (but it's not my quote) I would also tell students that scientists should remove the mystery but retain the wonder. It's the passion for their subject that keeps scientists going.

I think my experience as a scientists studying animal behaviour has enhanced my connection with animals as it gives me some insight and a deeper understanding of why an animal might be behaving in a particular way,

The scientists grasp at straws and are fettered by their own processes.

Not sure what that means, if by grasping at straws you mean being meticulous at collecting all information that might be relevant to a particular study, then I think that's a good thing. Until you do the study, you often don't know what is and isn't relevant, so you use previous studies, personal observation and a bit gut feeling (professional judgement) to decide what data should be collected, which you can hopefully refine for future studies.

The only thing I can see fettering a study is the need to be honest, objective and unbiased, this is the ideological part of being a scientist which is must always be adhered to. I'm not sure of anything else in the scientific process that might fetter a scientist.

 

[Gremlin]

Going slightly off topic but still regarding social media and wildlife !

My local community FB group has just had a post shared from a National Trust page regarding a local deer park
telling people that fawns are being born and to keep dogs on leads and other advice about welfare of the deer etc.
It's the stuff that all wildlife people will know and adhere too, don't get too close, don't touch the fawns if you find
them in the long grass, mother will be back etc.
There will be notices at the entrances for visitors to read as well.

We have a lot of new houses built in the surrounding areas and I can't help thinking that this will encourage people
to invade the park this sunny bank holiday weekend trying to find the fawns

 

[Nod]

Mother may well be back with a vengeance!