Anthony Morton
Well-known member
All too frequently some interesting and factual postings have a habit of becoming lost in the tide of 'squit' which ensues when a thread takes off. I believe an example of this is contained in the 'Hunting -v- Birdwatching' thread, which I have extracted as I feel it warrants further debate. For ease of reference, however, I have also included the relevant posting numbers on the original thread.
In Posting # 117, StevieEvans wrote that in Spring 2003 two Larsen traps were set on his farm. The target species was the large number of magpies which had emptied many songbird nests in previous years. Within four weeks the traps had accounted for 28 magpies and 1 crow, still leaving two pairs of magpies. Last year (2003) and especially this year (2004) a "huge boost in the number of songbirds" has been noticed.
In response to a query, he confirmed at the beginning of Posting # 179 that the trapping had done "... what we wanted and achieved the songbird results we wanted too." He also mentioned that he did not envisage having to trap the magpies again for the forseeable future.
In his Posting # 193, Ian Peters tells us that to have any effect on songbird numbers it is necessary to eliminate the predator population completely. He also mentioned that, when viewed from a mathematical perspective, a re-examination of population dynamics clearly showed that prey populations influence predator populations, and not the other way round.
These appear to be two opposing views. On one hand the evidence is based purely on first-hand personal experience, and on the other the scientifically-backed results obtained from previous studies. Which one is correct?
In Posting # 117, StevieEvans wrote that in Spring 2003 two Larsen traps were set on his farm. The target species was the large number of magpies which had emptied many songbird nests in previous years. Within four weeks the traps had accounted for 28 magpies and 1 crow, still leaving two pairs of magpies. Last year (2003) and especially this year (2004) a "huge boost in the number of songbirds" has been noticed.
In response to a query, he confirmed at the beginning of Posting # 179 that the trapping had done "... what we wanted and achieved the songbird results we wanted too." He also mentioned that he did not envisage having to trap the magpies again for the forseeable future.
In his Posting # 193, Ian Peters tells us that to have any effect on songbird numbers it is necessary to eliminate the predator population completely. He also mentioned that, when viewed from a mathematical perspective, a re-examination of population dynamics clearly showed that prey populations influence predator populations, and not the other way round.
These appear to be two opposing views. On one hand the evidence is based purely on first-hand personal experience, and on the other the scientifically-backed results obtained from previous studies. Which one is correct?