From: "David Jardine" To: "Ian Fisher" Cc: "Nick Rossiter" [all 3 email addresses deleted] Subject: Northumberland Honey Buzzard Records Date: 28 April 2004 20:20

Dear Ian

Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you on the Honey Buzzard (HB) records which your Committee wish reviewed; I have been very busy at work on my return and the field season is now upon us.

Thank-you also for updating me on the correspondence which has been taking place. That it is developing in this manner disappoints me greatly. The tone and nature of the debate reminds me of a celebrated botanical controversy which left the Heslop-Harrison records in doubt for many decades. (These are outlined in Karl Sabbagh's interesting book "A Rum Affair"). Please note that I cannot emphasise too strongly that it is the tone and nature of the correspondence which is similar and not the nature of the issues involved. Fortunately there are also great differences between this case and that of Heslop-Harrison and there is an opportunity for resolution which I hope that both the Records Committee of NTBC, and the wider ornithological community and Nick Rossiter will grasp. In the remainder of this email I will develop my thinking of how this can be taken forward. It is not my intention to rake over every individual description and give my (subjective) verdict on the evidence which is placed in front of me. Many have already done this, including a number whose field experience of HBs is greater than mine and therefore I do not feel that I can provide anything significant in this respect which may help take this matter forward. Rather I wish to sit back and reflect about where we are and how we might move forward.

We currently have two camps: Firstly there is Nick Rossiter and his colleagues (NR's team) who have presented their findings on HB in Northumberland. These are based on their experience and collection of evidence to substantiate their position. The nature of NR's team's evidence is based mainly on field sightings, descriptions, photographic evidence and some sound recordings. (I apologise if this is an incomplete summary). Their findings have been subject to peer review in the form of the NTBC records committee, which initially accepted their findings and is now reviewing them. There has also been a wider peer review which has taken place more publicly on an un-refereed website. The findings of NR's team have been challenged by the second group.

The other camp consists of a group of field ornithologists who have also worked on HBs, and some international commentators. They, like NR's team have worked on HBs for years. Their experience is based upon field observation which is used to find nests and then to follow the fortunes of these birds through the nesting season. They have published a series of papers on HBs in independently refereed journals and as far as I am aware have not had their work challenged.

Confirming the presence of breeding HBs in Northumberland

Thus we have a local team with their experience and results being challenged by a national (and international) view. It is not for me to judge which has more experience. There is, however, a significant difference between the two approaches being taken (as far as I can currently ascertain). This is that the national group has verified its findings through observation of the birds at the nest. As far as I am currently aware NR's team has not presented such evidence. This, I believe, has to be seen as the key to unlocking the way forward for this rather secretive raptor. It is imperative that NR's team provide indisputable evidence in the form of a HB nest / nests which are independently checked, for the wider ornithological community to be satisfied that HBs are nesting in Northumberland. To NR's team credit it appears that efforts are in place for this to be provided in 2004 as licences have been applied for and issued. Because of the unresolved (and possibly now unresolvable) difference in opinion in identification features of birds in flight (photographs etc) it may be that a search for every nest will be required to confirm the exact breeding population. There is a technical point which is worth making here, in that, even if the young birds are fledged, then the nest should be searched for and located, as "nest detectives" will be able to confirm which species has used it, from the location of the nest, the materials used in its construction and if in the winter following its use, the fragments of prey remains found at the nest. These pieces of evidence will be extremely helpful while differences in opinion on (flight) identification remain.

I would suggest that it is sensible to consider the terminology of the First Atlas in respect of HBs in Northumberland - are they confirmed breeding, probable breeding, possible breeding or not breeding at all (Sharrock, 1976, p17)? The controversy over identification leads me to suggest that, at present, there are grounds for setting aside the breeding records until the quality of evidence is improved (or is presented through the approach I suggest). On this next point I am hesitant as I do not wish to offend NR's team through lack of access to all their data, but it would appear that:

- there does not appear to be conclusive evidence of confirmed breeding (We really need a nest to be 100% sure, given the controversy over identification)

- there is a little evidence of probable breeding; the presence of (disputed by some) sight records of adults during the breeding season (giving displays which are under some dispute) and of (again disputed by some) sight records of fledged juveniles (and here the precise origin of these putative juveniles may not have been conclusively established)

- there is some evidence of possible breeding on the basis of sight records (which are disputed by some). It would be helpful if NR's team could consider their data and start to classify each site in terms of the quality of evidence for breeding at each site and be prepared to discuss the nature of that evidence with other parties.

The possibility of misidentification The two camps are in dispute over the identification features being used and there are signs that this will not be easily resolved. Nevertheless, a number of possible outcomes should be considered: - that NR's team's identification is 100% correct - that NR's team's identification is 100% incorrect, or

- that NR's team's identification is partially correct. At present, I personally have not come to a firm conclusion on which of these is likely to be the case, although the level of criticism of some of the identifications by respected and independently reviewed HB workers suggests that it may not be the first. The strength of NR's team's conviction on their observations and the detail of some of their sightings also suggests that the second is unlikely. This, however, for the Records Committee and the wider ornithological community leaves the hardest, that some of the records may not be correct. The approach I suggested above of seeking to identify the nests and nest sites of the birds, however, will help in this respect as the breeding population and their nest sites is actually the important element in this. In my opinion the correct or incorrect identification of single birds in flight is probably not that important, rather it will, for some, be a matter of a tick on a year list. Such things are trivial human foibles but are of little or no biological / conservation significance (and it is the latter which I think NR's team is trying to establish). A sighting confirmed (or disputed) does not in my mind constitute a breeding record. At best it is sign of a possible breeding record which needs to be followed up and therefore of only the lowest significance - to be scientifically rigorous NR's team needs to work steadily through each of the sites to classify the level of evidence that they have (acknowledging that there is some dispute over identification) and to work hard to bring each site into the confirmed breeding category through the tracking down of nests (which have some level of corroboration).

The weaknesses of providing written descriptions and their review have been tested by this situation, particularly where the review team (ie the NTBC Records Committee) is perhaps less involved in raptors (or any other particular group of birds) than the observer. Therefore it will be right in due course to ask the NTBC and its Records Committee to review what lessons can be learnt from this case. I am happy that for this email to be circulated to the various parties involved and hope that all find it a useful contribution to helping resolve this issue in a scientific manner. I have copied it direct to Nick for his information.

Regards David