Tim Bonner: RSPB research reveals assumption and bias

A recently-published paper by RSPB scientists looking at perceptions of gamebird release by land managers is revealing as to how people come to conclusions about shoot management. The paper confirms the sad divide between those employed by conservation NGOs, government, and non-departmental bodies, who were more likely to perceive negative impacts of gamebird release, and those from farming and game shooting estates who were more likely to perceive positive ones. However, the most revealing findings were how those groups came to their conclusions.

Farmers, keepers and others related to game shooting based their conclusions about the impact of gamebird release, both positive and negative, overwhelmingly on the basis of direct observation i.e. they had personally seen and experienced the effects. Those employed by conservation NGOs, government, and non-departmental bodies were much more reliant on reports from others who had reported impacts and especially by the assumption that impacts have occurred, even though they have not observed them directly. This was particularly true of perceived negative impacts where the majority of those employed by conservation NGOs, government, and non-departmental bodies were not basing their views on direct experience. Put simply this group made assumptions about negative impacts of game shooting which it does not have the evidence or experience to justify.

These findings support the contention that there is an element of groupthink attached to the attitude of those working for NGOs, government and agencies about activities like shooting. Importantly, those who responded to this research were people who were directly involved in management of nature reserves and other protected sites so they would have had the opportunity to develop perceptions based on evidence and experience. If those employees are so reliant on assumption then their colleagues in press offices and in policy and political teams can only be more so.

With this research in mind, it is easy to understand how some of the ridiculous conspiracy theories about issues like shoot management come about. A classic example is the suggestion that releasing gamebirds increases the number of predators such as foxes. This is a claim that organisations like the RSPB have promoted, even though there is little evidence to support it and the practical experience of most land managers is that the exact opposite is true. Fox control on shoots tends to be thorough and effective. Indeed, if you had told a huntsman prior to the hunting ban that he was more likely to find a fox on a shoot he would most likely have laughed at you. Yet negative assumptions, often shared in the echo chamber of social media, have generated a false truth which has been adopted even by organisations which claim to be neutral and led by the evidence.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the RSPB’s scientists do not dwell long on what would seem to be an important finding from their research and instead focus on the wide disparity in perceptions about impacts of game management between people from different sectors. This is a real concern, and the research shows one of the reasons such a disparity exists. If we are to tackle that chasm of understanding it will not be by ignoring the role that assumption plays in confirming the bias of those working for conservation NGOs, government and agencies.