Thanks! I think I might end up writing a separate post on palatability issues, to be honest :)
On the intervention front, the movement of WAW folks is turning now to interventions in at least some cases (in WAI’s case, rodenticide fertility control is something they’re trying to fundraise for, and at NYU/​Arthropoda I’m working on or fundraising for work on humane insecticides and bird window collisions). I just meant that perhaps one reason we don’t have more of them is that there’s been a big focus on field-building for the last five years.
For field-building purposes, there’s still been some focus on interventions for the reasons you mention, but with additional constraints—not just cost-effective to pursue but also attractive to scientists to work on and serves to clarify what WAW is, etc., to maximize the field-building outcomes if we can.
I’m not familiar with the examples you listed @mal_graham🔸(anticoagulant bans and bird-safe glass), are these really robustly examples of palatability? I’m betting that they are more motivated by safety for dogs, children and predatory birds, not the rats? And I’m guessing that even the glass succeeded more on conservation grounds?
Certainly, even if so, it’s good to see that there are some palatability workarounds. But given the small-body problem, this doesn’t encourage great confidence that there could be more latent palatability for important interventions. Especially once the palatable low-hanging fruit are plucked.
Thanks! I think I might end up writing a separate post on palatability issues, to be honest :)
On the intervention front, the movement of WAW folks is turning now to interventions in at least some cases (in WAI’s case, rodenticide fertility control is something they’re trying to fundraise for, and at NYU/​Arthropoda I’m working on or fundraising for work on humane insecticides and bird window collisions). I just meant that perhaps one reason we don’t have more of them is that there’s been a big focus on field-building for the last five years.
For field-building purposes, there’s still been some focus on interventions for the reasons you mention, but with additional constraints—not just cost-effective to pursue but also attractive to scientists to work on and serves to clarify what WAW is, etc., to maximize the field-building outcomes if we can.
I’m not familiar with the examples you listed @mal_graham🔸(anticoagulant bans and bird-safe glass), are these really robustly examples of palatability? I’m betting that they are more motivated by safety for dogs, children and predatory birds, not the rats? And I’m guessing that even the glass succeeded more on conservation grounds?
Certainly, even if so, it’s good to see that there are some palatability workarounds. But given the small-body problem, this doesn’t encourage great confidence that there could be more latent palatability for important interventions. Especially once the palatable low-hanging fruit are plucked.