Lead Ammunition Group Minutes of 13th (final?) Meeting

[wymberley]

To be fair (although in view of the conduct of Swift and cronies I don't see why I should be) the ground rules were such that no peer review was necessary prior to the report being submitted, but Defra could so order should it be decided this was required after they had examined the report.

[Whitebridges]

McSpredder. Sir i like your post and style.

 

What was needed in reflection was an advocate of science to chair the group and we didn't get him did we?

Edited October 14, 2015 by Whitebridges

[McSpredder]

To be fair (although in view of the conduct of Swift and cronies I don't see why I should be) the ground rules were such that no peer review was necessary prior to the report being submitted, but Defra could so order should it be decided this was required after they had examined the report.

I certainly intend to be absolutely fair to everybody. I just object to duplicity and bullying.

 

There are some LAG members who have spent the past few years decrying other peoples’ work as lacking scientific rigour, and demanding that their own opinions should be accepted in preference. And there are some who complained that publication of their opinions might be delayed if independent scientists were permitted to scrutinise the draft. Were they by any chance the same people?

 

The LAG website reveals that Mark Avery (RSPB), Rhys Green (RSPB) and Deborah Pain (WWT) have been particularly active in attacking the work of others scientists. There was the initial scathing attack by Avery and Pain on the work of FSA and VLA. Then there were repeated attempts to make John Harradine and Alastair Leake alter a draft report on the grounds that (a) the authors had followed the remit they were given, rather than changing it at the behest of RSPB and WWT, and (b) Rhys Green and Deborah Pain preferred a different method of analysis that would predict a greater impact on wildlife. (Just a time-wasting exercise, it would seem, because Green and Pain submitted an alternative report using their own favoured methods, after which the chairman of the sub-group noted that the two reports arrived at broadly similar conclusions).

 

Finally, I should perhaps make it clear that I have never had any contact with any of the people involved in the LAG, nor have I ever publically expressed an opinion on the use of lead shot. Honesty and fair-mindedness are what I look for, but they are sometimes hard to find.