Sir – I was disappointed by Christopher Gray’s original article on birds of prey (Gray Matter, December 1) but actually more depressed by his reaction to the criticism he received for it (Goodness, how I ruffled feathers!, December 8). His response was flippant and made no attempt to address or clarify the issues raised.
Of course he did not answer the direct question I asked him and of course he did not take up my (unpublished) offer to run through the scientific evidence with him. Questions like the declines of small birds are not simply matters of opinion but of scientific evidence and the right answers are not always the immediately obvious ones.
It’s a bit like the question of whether the sun goes round the earth or vice versa — if you ignore the science and just rely on your own day-to-day observations, you get it totally wrong.
His choice of language was revealing. Rather than use neutral, scientific terms like “raptors” or “birds of prey”, he preferred to repeat the “killing machines” phrase and then went on to liken the return of the red kite to an infestation.
Worst of all, he actually seemed rather pleased with himself for having got things so wrong that people felt they had to write to correct him, at least proving that his column was still read. However, there is a difference between being “cutting edge” and just plain wrong.
Dr A. U. Larkman, Conservation officer, Oxford Ornithological Society
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here