-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Black Swans in UK (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter w.oody
- Start date
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
They don't 'count' at the moment, as despite the number knocking about, they haven't established a clear feral population yet. Might not be long though before there's enough of them . . .
geoffw1946
Well-known member
I expect that the government will start a cull if numbers go up.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Why would they cull them, they haven't culled Muskovies and they only culled Ruddy Duck for their threat of hybridisation with the endangered, European White-headed Duck?
Andy
lazza
Well-known member
I still don't understand why Muscovy ducks aren't on the UK list...?
Farnboro John
Well-known member
Because JNCC vetoed it. BOU revealed by admitting that they had to ask JNCC if they could add the Muscovy Duck to the List that they are not an independent scientific keeper of the British List but a politicised tool of Westminster that needs governmental approval to put birds that meet the criteria for Category C onto the British List. That's why I don't take all that much notice of their decisions.
I would prefer to revere them as a relevant, independent organisation dedicated to the advancement of ornithology through good science. But they aren't and I can't.
John
Mark Lew1s
My real name is Mark Lewis
Have you got any evidence for this? I'm not saying it's not true - it just doesn't really sound like the sort of thing JNCC would do.
Paul Chapman
Well-known member
Ibis (2005), 147, page 810:-
"Meets criteria for Category C4: alert JNCC"
All the best
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Muscovy Duck
But the ABA Criteria for Determining Establishment of Exotics are arguably more sensible...
Dudley 2005 (Changes to Category C of the British List)...
...and no subsequent progress.
But the ABA Criteria for Determining Establishment of Exotics are arguably more sensible...
Last edited:
Mark Lew1s
My real name is Mark Lewis
But that's not evidence that JNCC vetoed anything!
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Agreed. I wonder whether BOURC ultimately considered Dudley's proposal to be ill-judged...
Mark Lew1s
My real name is Mark Lewis
No subsequent progress, and a veto, are very, very different things!
Paul Chapman
Well-known member
The request was for 'any' evidence.
Dudley (2005) meets criteria & alert JNCC.
BOU 37th Report (2008) states outcome 'suspended to allow further research'.
Dudley (2010) states population has already overcome one culling attempt by local authority - presumably not possible if admitted to list without additional red tape - and not admitted to allow further research.
It sounds like what was envisaged as a result of the consultation in 1997 on the review of Category C:-
http://www.bou.org.uk/british-list/maintaining-the-british-list/
"In 1997, the BOURC worked in liaison with the government's Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and others to revise the categories used in the British List to give them more relevance to conservationists and policy makers. The main revision included the sub-division of Category C (birds introduced by man) which was further updated in 2005."
So who else suggested that the BOU review their earlier published conclusions?
That is some evidence. Your threshold was not particularly high.
It is not no further progress. It looks like deliberate mothballing.
All the best
Mark Lew1s
My real name is Mark Lewis
I don't see any evidence of a veto there. You've provided some evidence that JNCC were involved in the discussions.
Xenospiza
Distracted
Surely those feral muscovies should be culled for the sake of aesthetics...
Black Swans make their lives hard and keep their numbers sensibly low by (mostly) breeding in winter, in line with their Antipodean heritage. They can actually hybridise with Mute Swan, but this would be a far-fetched reason to propose a cull.
Black Swans make their lives hard and keep their numbers sensibly low by (mostly) breeding in winter, in line with their Antipodean heritage. They can actually hybridise with Mute Swan, but this would be a far-fetched reason to propose a cull.
Paul Chapman
Well-known member
Mark
Fair enough. For me, when A says - 'I believe X and I am going to talk to B about it' - and then says - 'I no longer am sure about X' - I tend to believe that B has influenced the decision. Of course, it may have been a spontaneous uninfluenced event to reverse its decision.
The population was first referred to in BB 86: 605-614 when in 1993, because it dated from the early 1980s with the first broods noticed in 1987, it was considered 'too recent'. Twelve years later that bar had disappeared.
:cat:
All the best
dantheman
Bah humbug
+1 :t:
The other volunteers at Stithians even feed the visiting Muscovy by hand when they see it ... what?!!
re Black Swans - not a government cull but one was 'removed' (perhaps to a collection??) locally as it was hassling the local Mute Swans/other birds. Could that have been any different if it was considered a number of our actual official avifauna perhaps?
Farnboro John
Well-known member
From the BOU website (abridged only to spare the reader a lot of reading), comments in italic are mine, text in bold emboldened by me:
Maintaining the British List
SINCE 1879 THE BOU HAS MAINTAINED A LIST OF BIRDS THAT HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN BRITAIN (AND FORMERLY FOR IRELAND).
Records of birds new to Britain are passed to the British Ornithologists' Union's Records Committee (BOURC) by the British Birds Rarities Committee (BBRC) after that committee has examined them. The BOURC Secretary prepares a file summarising each record. The file contains original descriptions and supporting documentation, including BBRC comments, correspondence from independent specialists, an analysis of the captive status of the species and its escape likelihood, and extracts from books and journals referring to migration and vagrancy patterns. Records are now circulated electronically and require unanimous agreement on identification and a two-thirds majority on categorisation. All files are archived for future reference.
No mention of consulting or alerting anyone else.
Information on feral populations is monitored, and reviews are undertaken of older records. Anyone can ask for old or rejected records to be reviewed by the BOURC if they provide fresh evidence to justify re-examination.
This is time-consuming work, particularly when it involves detailed research or discussions with experts who are often based abroad.
The ‘Official’ British List
The following organisations have indicated their support for the work undertaken by the BOU and its Records Committee in maintaining a list of birds recorded in Britain. They have indicated that the decisions on both status and taxonomy reached by BOURC are accepted by them as comprising the ‘official’ British List.
British Trust for Ornithology
Countryside Council for Wales
Natural England
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Scottish Natural Heritage
Scottish Ornithologists’ Club
Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust
The Wildlife Trusts
If true, I would say that constitutes a specific disclaimer by the listed organisations of any desire to take part in the decision-making process. Ergo, I would expect all of them simply to be informed of decisions post facto.
Publication of BOURC decisions
The BOURC publishes regular reports in Ibis, the BOU's scientific journal. As few birders regularly see Ibis, information is press-released to the main birding magazines, who also receive pre-publication copies of the Ibis reports. The magazines use some of this information as the basis for news items or articles, but much of the BOURC's work goes unreported. BOURC members occasionally write longer papers on species reviews and decisions for publication in birding magazines. Decisions are notified to appropriate recorders and/or the original observers.
The role of the British Birds Rarities Committee
The BOURC works closely with the British Birds Rarities Committee (BBRC). BBRC’s function is to collect, investigate and apply uniform standards to claimed records of rare birds in England, Scotland and Wales, and 'at sea' within the British Economic Zone, which now extends to 200 nautical miles (370 km). The BBRC publishes an annual report in British Birds which includes the essential details of the rarities seen in Britain in the previous year. The BBRC also assesses records from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, at the request of the birdwatchers and ornithologists there.
BOURC and BBRC - why two committees?
For records relating to new species for Britain (a 'first'), the BOURC looks at identification, taxonomy and the origin of the bird. Detailed investigations into racial and species identification, escape likelihood and vagrancy potential are undertaken to determine the validity of the record before admission to the British List.
The BOURC alone decides which species are to be admitted to the British List and how they are to be categorised. The BOURC also considers records of all major rarities, particularly those prior to 1958 (when BBRC was founded), monitors introduced populations for possible admittance to or deletion from the list, and reviews taxonomy and nomenclature in general. For 'first' records, the BBRC is concerned solely with identification. However, the BBRC also assesses large numbers of subsequent records of major rarities after 1958. The workload of both Committees is substantial, and complementary.
The BOURC maintains the British List on behalf of the BOU, legislators and the international birdwatching and ornithological communities.
"On behalf of" ought not to mean "under the instruction of", not least because there are bound to be circumstances in which legislators may be influenced by lobbyists and not guided by pure science.
In 1997, the BOURC worked in liaison with the government's Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and others to revise the categories used in the British List to give them more relevance to conservationists and policy makers. The main revision included the sub-division of Category C (birds introduced by man) which was further updated in 2005.
There is nothing in any of the above extracts from the BOU's official website that suggests for a moment that a bird species meeting the criteria for admission to the "Official" British List, to use the BOU's own exact term, should be treated in any other way than for the BOU as a pure scientific organisation to admit it to the List and notify the organisations and publications that have acknowledged that they are content for the BOU to act thus.
They acted differently. They permitted the JNCC to involve itself in what according to their website is within their sole authority. Their website is false and they are government poodles.
One can hope to stick to BOU taxonomy (although they have currently left us all up in the air as to what that is.)
One can hope that they apply rationality and sensible standards to the consideration of firsts for Britain - although many of us will have an opinion on one decision or another.....
But forsaking science for sleazy politics is unforgivable and I disrespect ya all, BOU!
John
Maintaining the British List
SINCE 1879 THE BOU HAS MAINTAINED A LIST OF BIRDS THAT HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN BRITAIN (AND FORMERLY FOR IRELAND).
Records of birds new to Britain are passed to the British Ornithologists' Union's Records Committee (BOURC) by the British Birds Rarities Committee (BBRC) after that committee has examined them. The BOURC Secretary prepares a file summarising each record. The file contains original descriptions and supporting documentation, including BBRC comments, correspondence from independent specialists, an analysis of the captive status of the species and its escape likelihood, and extracts from books and journals referring to migration and vagrancy patterns. Records are now circulated electronically and require unanimous agreement on identification and a two-thirds majority on categorisation. All files are archived for future reference.
No mention of consulting or alerting anyone else.
Information on feral populations is monitored, and reviews are undertaken of older records. Anyone can ask for old or rejected records to be reviewed by the BOURC if they provide fresh evidence to justify re-examination.
This is time-consuming work, particularly when it involves detailed research or discussions with experts who are often based abroad.
The ‘Official’ British List
The following organisations have indicated their support for the work undertaken by the BOU and its Records Committee in maintaining a list of birds recorded in Britain. They have indicated that the decisions on both status and taxonomy reached by BOURC are accepted by them as comprising the ‘official’ British List.
British Trust for Ornithology
Countryside Council for Wales
Natural England
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Scottish Natural Heritage
Scottish Ornithologists’ Club
Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust
The Wildlife Trusts
If true, I would say that constitutes a specific disclaimer by the listed organisations of any desire to take part in the decision-making process. Ergo, I would expect all of them simply to be informed of decisions post facto.
Publication of BOURC decisions
The BOURC publishes regular reports in Ibis, the BOU's scientific journal. As few birders regularly see Ibis, information is press-released to the main birding magazines, who also receive pre-publication copies of the Ibis reports. The magazines use some of this information as the basis for news items or articles, but much of the BOURC's work goes unreported. BOURC members occasionally write longer papers on species reviews and decisions for publication in birding magazines. Decisions are notified to appropriate recorders and/or the original observers.
The role of the British Birds Rarities Committee
The BOURC works closely with the British Birds Rarities Committee (BBRC). BBRC’s function is to collect, investigate and apply uniform standards to claimed records of rare birds in England, Scotland and Wales, and 'at sea' within the British Economic Zone, which now extends to 200 nautical miles (370 km). The BBRC publishes an annual report in British Birds which includes the essential details of the rarities seen in Britain in the previous year. The BBRC also assesses records from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, at the request of the birdwatchers and ornithologists there.
BOURC and BBRC - why two committees?
For records relating to new species for Britain (a 'first'), the BOURC looks at identification, taxonomy and the origin of the bird. Detailed investigations into racial and species identification, escape likelihood and vagrancy potential are undertaken to determine the validity of the record before admission to the British List.
The BOURC alone decides which species are to be admitted to the British List and how they are to be categorised. The BOURC also considers records of all major rarities, particularly those prior to 1958 (when BBRC was founded), monitors introduced populations for possible admittance to or deletion from the list, and reviews taxonomy and nomenclature in general. For 'first' records, the BBRC is concerned solely with identification. However, the BBRC also assesses large numbers of subsequent records of major rarities after 1958. The workload of both Committees is substantial, and complementary.
The BOURC maintains the British List on behalf of the BOU, legislators and the international birdwatching and ornithological communities.
"On behalf of" ought not to mean "under the instruction of", not least because there are bound to be circumstances in which legislators may be influenced by lobbyists and not guided by pure science.
In 1997, the BOURC worked in liaison with the government's Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and others to revise the categories used in the British List to give them more relevance to conservationists and policy makers. The main revision included the sub-division of Category C (birds introduced by man) which was further updated in 2005.
There is nothing in any of the above extracts from the BOU's official website that suggests for a moment that a bird species meeting the criteria for admission to the "Official" British List, to use the BOU's own exact term, should be treated in any other way than for the BOU as a pure scientific organisation to admit it to the List and notify the organisations and publications that have acknowledged that they are content for the BOU to act thus.
They acted differently. They permitted the JNCC to involve itself in what according to their website is within their sole authority. Their website is false and they are government poodles.
One can hope to stick to BOU taxonomy (although they have currently left us all up in the air as to what that is.)
One can hope that they apply rationality and sensible standards to the consideration of firsts for Britain - although many of us will have an opinion on one decision or another.....
But forsaking science for sleazy politics is unforgivable and I disrespect ya all, BOU!
John
Last edited:
Mark Lew1s
My real name is Mark Lewis
If you read what you've posted, it says the BOURC worked with JNCC and others in 1997. I'm not arguing that JNCC weren't involved - but you stated specifically that 'JNCC' 'vetoed' the decision. That's all I was asking for evidence of.
Although I guess your main point is that the BOU have worked with statutory nature conservation bodies and as such have somewhat compromised their scientific integrity in doing so.
Although I guess your main point is that the BOU have worked with statutory nature conservation bodies and as such have somewhat compromised their scientific integrity in doing so.
Influenced doesn't mean vetoed.
I wanted to go to Mc Donald's yesterday, I talked about it with my friend and she suggested I might find somewhere more healthy. I thought about it and went to some junky salad place instead. Influenced me yes, but she did not block my original idea (I still could have gone if I wished).
