• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Feeding at migration hot spots. (1 Viewer)

Deseo

Well-known member
I wondered what the opinion was on feeding birds as they come in from migration at coastal hot spots. My wife seems to think that it would be frowned upon but I don't understand why this might be. The birds are often starving, and feeding birds in your garden is fine so what would be the difference at hot spots? She may be way off mark with her comment but I just wondered what the consensus was. If you were sat with goldcrests on your hand eating mealworms, as long as it is on the bird's terms what would be the problem? (Not that other's opinions would sway mine, I am just curious)
Cheers
 
I wondered what the opinion was on feeding birds as they come in from migration at coastal hot spots. My wife seems to think that it would be frowned upon but I don't understand why this might be. The birds are often starving, and feeding birds in your garden is fine so what would be the difference at hot spots? She may be way off mark with her comment but I just wondered what the consensus was. If you were sat with goldcrests on your hand eating mealworms, as long as it is on the bird's terms what would be the problem? (Not that other's opinions would sway mine, I am just curious)
Cheers

I for one, would be most supportive of this level of ''assistance''...adult male Siberian Rubythroats in particular, would be much appreciated :)

Cheers
 
But what about the "all year feeding" like it´s common in the UK, Canada and US, Rafael? Do you know about any scientific research to this matter?
 
Grabbing a couple of quotes from the article Rafael has and trying to keep in context....
"the difference in fledging success we report between fed and unfed populations resembles
the level of variation in productivity observed between birds in urban and non-urban landscapes"

Urban areas are here to stay
Interestingly, further on, it is stated.......

"Florida scrub-jays living in suburban environments are believed to gain reproductive benefits due
to the abundance and predictability of anthropogenic food sources"

The piece offers compelling evidence that in more rural settings, winter provisioning is a determent.
But on the other hand, in urban settings, it may be beneficial.

It is darned if we do, and darned if we do not.
With the birds as usual, caught in the middle.
Here in the US, there is a more "holistic" approach in urban settings to landscape barren yard lots with native flora, and hopefully sustain the symbiotic relationships so essential.
It is moving slowly though.
 
Last edited:
I thought this was going to be a guide to cafes on British headlands.....

Migrant birds are not going to stay at coastal sites long anyway. Feeding them may actually mean they stay shorter as they gain weight more quickly - putting a premium on twitching them early in their stay.....

So it depends what your objective in feeding them is!

John
 
I thought this was going to be a guide to cafes on British headlands.....
John

I see that now. I apologize for veering so far off topic with my
above post. Towards that end, I respectfully ask the moderators here
delete my above post (#5), and this one(#7)
Bill
 
Migrant birds are not going to stay at coastal sites long anyway. Feeding them may actually mean they stay shorter as they gain weight more quickly - putting a premium on twitching them early in their stay.....

So it depends what your objective in feeding them is!

But feeding tired migrants without thinking things through properly might mean their stay is tooo short - if predators realise that tired migrants are being held in an area with insufficient cover for example.


Actually, it's likely this is happening already (general bird feeding) eg Portland bird Observatory planting up the fields they now own with bird fodder crops ...

(Can't comment on the cafe that used to be there - not been down for a long while).
 
I'd be very surprised, if migrant passerines (those that are biased particularly towards invertebrates), would form an orderly queue :)...or become rabidly attracted to copious amounts of ''freebie mealworms'', presented at a headland pit-stop...nice Idea though...especially if your a photographer!
 
the Blue Bell Cafe at Spurn
the Coastguards Cafe on St Agnes
the Pilgrims Coffee House on Lindisfarne

the list is long and interesting, thanks for the reminder, John
 
usually have to take sandwiches here...

i can't see a problem with feeding. feeding passerines would also keep the sparrowhawks fed up for their migration. they don't follow the flocks for nothing. i have 'seeded' for snowfinch in advance of birdwatchers arriving.

i don't think temporary feeding is harmful either - it's more when it becomes regular and then stops - i.e. the birds become accustomed to a site and then it stops when they need it most. feeding around now and into october would mean that by real winter they have gone back to their 'normal' routine and ofcourse the migrators have left...
 
But what about the "all year feeding" like it´s common in the UK, Canada and US, Rafael? Do you know about any scientific research to this matter?

Hi Roman,
sorry, I didn't subscribe to this thread (usually I don't) and ended up not seeing your reply/question. The paper I've thrown in was just an attempt to broaden the discussion, and to point out something that is not really obvious to most (it wasn't for me). I was aware of said paper as I know the author(s) and was privileged to enjoy some discussions on that specific subject before the paper submission. However, It's really not my area of work and can't answer your question without doing some internet digging which unfortunately I have no time for right now, sorry. I'd guess that that is an underexplored area, in need of further research...
My personal opinion on that, not based on any data, is that it depends on the case and objectives of it. It is on any case maintaining an artificial situation, which might be beneficial... or not (usually very subjective stuff). For example, Stitchbirds in New Zealand only survive (out of Little Barrier Island) due to all year feeding. So, in that case that was a necessity for the survival of a whole species. If we are talking about all year feeding of wildfowl for keeping high numbers for hunting purposes, there will still be a lot of pro arguments (and con as well). It really depends on the case (species involved, period of the year, length of feeding, regularity of feeding, etc) and on the purpose of it I guess. The full effects of it might not be the most obvious ones and that is why research is important to understand any planned actions (at least large scale...).
Cheers
 
Last edited:
For me anything that helps the birds on their journeys has got to be a good thing - reading some other threads on here shows how difficult it is for them by some peoples actions and general hazards!

A lot of the flash pools and reserves are just larger versions of feeding stations anyway...
 
For me anything that helps the birds on their journeys has got to be a good thing - reading some other threads on here shows how difficult it is for them by some peoples actions and general hazards!

It might be so, but probably not always that straightforward. You should take into account factors such food quality as well. There is a lot of how perception influences one's opinion on this subject. You rarely know the outcome for a bird that has been artificially fed on its migratory course and it would be extremely difficult to know the effective impact for migrants of any additional food. I guess it would be ok with occasional feeding, but not if it's intended to be done systematically. A food source should be, IMO, reliable and predictable, for it to be beneficial for migrants. But maybe that's not what was being talked about in the OP. Maybe the idea was just to attract numbers of birds so that they could be easily observed at feeding spots. However the consequences of such action should be though of, I believe (even if in the end it's concluded to be beneficial).
As I said, artificial feeding has been fundamental for a number of declining species, such as all vultures in Iberia, that benefit from the existence of feeding stations. But usually those are specific situations. In the case of the vultures it didn't represented a change in diet. On the other end of the spectrum I can recall a Common Scoter being fed bread in order to get it come closer. Open air dumps, artificial feeding as well, were partially responsible for the White Stork population boom in Iberia (many hundreds at a single tip in Portugal sometimes), or for Black Kite population increase. However, they were also one of the main causes for large gull increases throughout the Northern Hemisphere, with serious indirect consequences (negative) for other species.

A lot of the flash pools and reserves are just larger versions of feeding stations anyway...

I think habitat management should not be confused with the artificial feeding issue. Food is reliable, of good quality (as it is natural) and predictable. Ideally a self-sustainable situation. Don't see how both can really be similar.
Cheers
 
migratory feeding of common cranes is common in northern and eastern Germany. Also geese overwintering get fed regularly either with pellets or by land management projects working closely with local farmers. The Dummersee is a good example of this. Where much of crop agriculture comes is the form of monoculture in massive fields, once the crop is harvested, resown, the land becomes a virtual desert till the following spring, no food, no cover, etc. So in areas which lie in a Naturschutzgebiet, a conservation area, it is important to give migrants and overwintering species a fair chance. These oasies go some way to help. Obviously, when land usage is altered, including reverting to wetland, for example, everybody including wildlife can benefit if it is done correctly. Water levels are controlled to suit both wild life and farmer, wetlands are important breeding and overwintering grounds, grass meadows are kept short by cattle during the summer and geese in the winter providing fertilizer. Crop fields aren't being replanted till spring, so there is enough food left on them for overwintering birds and they get fertilized for free. Because of the huge numbers of cranes that migate through Mecklenberg-Vorpommern in NE Germany, the farmers and biological stations there feed them at suitable locations not too far from where they spend the night in shallow water. The birds appear to do well, the birding community are delighted and tourism increases, win/win.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top