Double standards?

Last Wednesday (19/9) Bert Burnett wrote a comment piece on the Scottish Gamekeepers Association's news pages, read it here. It was much discussed in the office. He raises some interesting points.  Whether there really is a bias in what's permitted in conservation work or not and whether the authorities allow behaviour by conservation workers which would have members of the public (gamekeeper or not) under investigation is a tricky area.  Does it come down to the ultimate aim and the (certified?) skills of those involved?   Experts not listening to local / on site knowledge is up for discussion another day and is far more wide ranging than wildlife conservation!

The quoted example of ringing young birds in the cold and wet was concerning. I know tasks have to be done when staff and transport are available but surely some common sense could be used to ensure that the chicks are not unduly threatened and perhaps ringing could be left for a better day.  Only this year it's been seen how extremes of weather threaten chick survival and were it not for the swift actions of the team at Dyfi after much heart searching one nest of osprey would almost certainly have been lost,.  Having said that I have for years been concerned by the proximity of monitors and public viewing stations to nests but without watching all nests at varying distances how can we possibly know how much of an impact we're having in either the short or long term?
Some conservation activities by necessity cause significant disturbance to the species involved. Without a doubt translation work for species on development sites saves individuals and is carried out with the aim of creating minimum disturbance and to give the best 'new start' to the animals involved. In this case the risk of damage done is the lesser of two evils, better shaken up than squashed!

How much disturbance are we prepared to risk to allow study of species?  Do we really know how much of an impact we're having? In January 2011 it was reported by the BBC that French researchers had found king penguins had 40% fewer chicks if they were banded (wearing flipper tags), and lived shorter lives. Like us you've probably followed the BTO's cuckoos with great interest, they are providing a wealth of information that very well may just help us to save the species but the risks to the individual birds are known and understood as highlighted by the decision not to retag Idemili once she recovered from her injuries. Only today the information provided by a satellite tag has been shown to be invaluable only this time in a much different way, the data from a tagged golden eagle may be vital in providing proof that it was illegally trapped and left to a slow death.  The classic was Anders Moller and his barn swallows (I'm sure like me you had to read, learn and inwardly digest his animal behaviour studies, but just in case you didn't), by artificially lengthening the tail feathers of male swallows he was able to prove that tail length was a sexual selector but he also showed it was damaging to the bird with his artificially lengthened birds having substantially shorter tails in following years thus failing to breed. Yes, he proved something but in so doing damaged his birds, when we're working with rare and critically endangered species is that a risk we can afford to take? How important is it that we understand the minutiae of their lives, it maybe interesting but does it really add to our knowledge and ultimately our efforts to protect or save the species?  Where do we draw the line?
We don't know but it was the general feeling that perhaps it's time to look more closely at some of our scientific studies and perhaps to consider less invasive and potentially damaging techniques.  

It's a knotty problem, one to which we don't have the answer.

As ever your comments are welcome but we'd request that if you're disputing the examples given in the SGA article to contact them not us!