Gamebird research in North America and Europe: The way forward, a critique and a plea.

Abstract

Over the years, there have been many arguments over the pros and cons of pure versus applied conservation research amongst funding bodies. For far too long, we believe, theoretical or laboratory science has been valued high and hands-on conservation research valued low. It would not matter, of course, if conservation was not so urgently needed. As it is, we are faced with a steady stream of new evidence of declines in biodiversity: wildlife, including most species of gamebirds, adversely affected by developments of many kinds; developments that are driven by technological advances as well as by the cumulative aspirations of increasing human populations. When funds are diverted to conservation research it is all too often to deal with crises. Sometimes this leads to the bizarre situation where far more funds are appropriated for research on very local threatened sub-species than for equally pressed but very widespread species.
So, as gamebirds decline, is research on them adapting? Is the research on them proving useful in game conservation? This short paper addresses these questions by special reference to our experience in what many imagine must be a particularly applied field: gamebird research on farmed lands in North America and Europe. It might be expected that here we would find highly directed research producing more birds, after all, it is in the expectation of these birds that much of the research was, or could have been, funded. Instead, we found a situation in which most of the research is irrelevant to the conservation needs.