-
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.
Lancs Eagle Owls (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Farnboro John
- Start date
You're right, its about where you draw the line. For me its if they look and act like wild European eagle owls I would accept them (albeit with monitoring, just in case)
As I've said before, I think there are so many other factors which have changed our ecosystem from its natural state, that I'm not sure we do really have a "unique island ecosystem" in the true sense of the term. We are close enough to the mainland to make it inevitable that new species will colonise from time to time. The eagle owl could have colonised naturally and thats good enough for me.
As I've said before, I think there are so many other factors which have changed our ecosystem from its natural state, that I'm not sure we do really have a "unique island ecosystem" in the true sense of the term. We are close enough to the mainland to make it inevitable that new species will colonise from time to time. The eagle owl could have colonised naturally and thats good enough for me.
Brenty
Well-known member
I can't believe this still going on. Are they native are they not? Should we kill them or should we leave them.
We are overun with two notable introductions which have a considerable effect on our environment, namely Canada Geese and Grey Squirrels yet nobody is declaring war on them.Why?
Instead we seem to want to take the "intelectual " arguement about introductions. Lets come up with some extreme highly unlikely pseudo scientific scenarios to show how clever we are and use that to destroy a species like the policy of destroying Ruddy Ducks. We carry out this slaughter rather than dealing with patently obvious problems that Canada Geese and Grey Squirrels cause.
It reminds of the biblical parable about a man trying to remove a tiny splinter of wood from his friend's eye whist he has 6 foot plank in his own eye.
We need to focus on the real problems not invented ones.
We are overun with two notable introductions which have a considerable effect on our environment, namely Canada Geese and Grey Squirrels yet nobody is declaring war on them.Why?
Instead we seem to want to take the "intelectual " arguement about introductions. Lets come up with some extreme highly unlikely pseudo scientific scenarios to show how clever we are and use that to destroy a species like the policy of destroying Ruddy Ducks. We carry out this slaughter rather than dealing with patently obvious problems that Canada Geese and Grey Squirrels cause.
It reminds of the biblical parable about a man trying to remove a tiny splinter of wood from his friend's eye whist he has 6 foot plank in his own eye.
We need to focus on the real problems not invented ones.
Last edited:
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
is that why they're both on the quarry list, with an open season on squirrels and active eradication programs all over the country? Is that why they're trapped, shot and poisoned on a massive scale? is that why canada geese are removed form lakes, eggs pricked etc up and down the land. Is that why they have an open season? Is that why there is special dispensation to shoot canadas even on sundays, when all other wildfowling is banned in England? They're hardly cherished, mate.
And how do you think they became a problem in the first place? Oh yeah, some nugget thought they looked nice and would be a lovely addition to the countryside, or in their private zoo, so they imported some. Snd then some were released or escaped into an ecosystem that had never seen them before, and before you know it - bingo, they're a problem and we're wishing it had never happened.
Ring any bells? Sound familiar? Can you think of any other non-native creature that has recently been released/escaped by misguided fools and is now becoming established here? maybe a big feathery one with ear tufts, currently nesting in Lancashire?
Brenty
Well-known member
First of all Poecile I am not your mate!
Despite what you say about the curent control measures for canada Geese and Grey Squirrels none of them are in any way leading to such substantial reductions that we can look to a time when these pests will be a thing of the past.
Are you honestly suggesting that the current population of Eagle Owls is having the same detrimental effect on the environment as the current populations of grey squirrels and canada geese?
What I am suggesting is that we focus on those species doing the most damge not on those doing the least.
Despite what you say about the curent control measures for canada Geese and Grey Squirrels none of them are in any way leading to such substantial reductions that we can look to a time when these pests will be a thing of the past.
Are you honestly suggesting that the current population of Eagle Owls is having the same detrimental effect on the environment as the current populations of grey squirrels and canada geese?
What I am suggesting is that we focus on those species doing the most damge not on those doing the least.
martin kitching
Obsessed seawatcher
Poecile has obviously beaten me to answering this. If you had done some research into these two species before posting that comment, you would realise that the problem is being dealt with. Grey Squirrels are a threat to Reds. Where Reds are still prevalent the problem is being dealt with.
Brenty said:
Can you provide examples of these 'highly unlikely pseudo scientific scenarios'? Nobody needs to produce clever arguments. We have a deliberately/accidentally introduced top predator which has no place in our ecosystem. We also have a species with an extremely threatened population (how it reached that point is thoroughly irrelevant in the current discussion) that is unlikely to be able to withstand additional pressures other than the ones it already faces. It's not a clever argument. It's common sense that requires little more than a basic grasp of ecology to understand.
martin
ColinD
Well-known member
Canada Geese and Grey Squirrels have reached plague proportions. Add to that the fact that at least in the case of Grey Squirrels they are loved by most of the (ignorant) general public and there you have the reasons why they are so difficult to erradicate.
Your suggestion seems to be that we ignore the Eagle Owls and allow them to multiply whilst we attempt the almost impossible task of removing Canadas and Grey Squirrels? Then, when the Owls are entrenched in our countryside and many of our native species decimated, we can look at removing them? You defeat your own arguement. One of the reasons why the Eagle Owls should be removed now is so that we don't repeat the problems that we created in the past, when we introduced Canadas and Grey Squirrels.
Eagle Owls can be removed now and very quickly. Removing them now would require a fraction of the effort and money that will be required in 20 years time, would help save our native species and actually, would involve harming a lot less Eagle Owls.
But once again you are treating them as if they are from another continent, or even from the far side of our continent! They live naturally in all countries around us! They may have been resident here in the past, they may occasionally turn up as vagrants, and they may colonise naturally in the future! Surely this makes them an entirely different kettle of fish to canada geese and grey squirrels in terms of their potential threat to our wildlife.
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
No, but there was a time when there were only 100 or so Canada geese, and 100 or so Grey Squirrels. Don't you just wish that someone with a bit of forethought had won over the sentimentalists who were saying "let them be, there's only a few, they aren't causing any problems!" and actually did something about them to halt their spread?
Right now, there are 100 or so Eagle owls. I wish that someone with a bit of forethought would d soemthign to halt their spread, because we could be letting outselves in for one more massive headache. There's one thing we know about introduced non-native species (and especially those on islands), and that's that they are almost always very bad news.
So, yes, it's probably too late to eradicate Canada Geese or Grey Squirrels, at least not at enormous effort and expense. But it is NOT too late to halt the spread of another introduced non-native species - the Eagle Owl.
They might look nice, but so did mink, canada geese, grey squirrels, etc. at the beginning. It might even seem like they'd fit in well, maybe even be beneficial somehow, but that's also what they thought about hedgehogs on Uist.
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
In that case, I'll pay your ferry fare if you wish to take a sack load of woodpeckers, tawny owls, marsh tits, nuthatches etc etc etc to Ireland. Or maybe come back into Dover with a sack of Black Woodpeckers, Crested Larks and icterine Warblers?
But that would be irrational, wouldn't it? It would be interfering, it may upset the balance of the ecosystem in Ireland or Britian, it would be plain wrong to do it. But they exist in counties all around Ireland/Britian, so why not?!
Eagle owls have never been here. they are only here now becuase idiots have relased them, just like the idiots who released hedgehogs on Uist (they exist in counties all around it!). Ouur ecosystem has never had them, so it has therefore developed differently (yes, even after all the modification, it is STILL different from Holland, Norway, Germany). EO only exist in Holland because of quarrying and introductions - hardly 'natural'.
martin kitching
Obsessed seawatcher
We're not actually a part of continental Europe, we're an island with an island ecosystem; and island ecosystems are particularly fragile. For that reason, whether they live in countries on the near-continent or not is largely irrelevant; they don't live naturally in either Scotland or Wales, the two countries with which we share land borders.
martin
ColinD
Well-known member
Well actually wild Canadas do turn up here annually, so potentially they could breed.
There are many differences between Britain and Europe, even our closest neighbors. Lots of species which occur just across the channel are very rare vagrants to Britain, including Black Woodpecker and Crested Lark.
No-one is talking about doing it deliberately. It has happened accidentally.
All those other species you mention may well colonise Britain/Ireland at some point, and as with the EO's I doubt they would upset the balance if they got established, by accidental or natural means.
I accept that there is a small risk that eagle owls will upset the balance here, so why don't you accept that you don't know for sure that "eagle owls have never been here" Unless both sides admit that there is a grey area, the debate will keep going round in circles.
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
You sure? i think deliberate releases are strong suspected.
what's stopping you going and introducing them now then, like someone has with EOs? Why not go and get some crested larks? Your argument is that they and EO may get here soon enough anyway, so why not do for the larks what someone has done for the owls? Doesn't sound like a good idea, does it?
Because I am 100% confident that they have not been here in a natural state, other than possibly as an extremely rare vagrant akin to Scops Owl or Hawk Owl. They have never bred here naturally, they have never colonised, they have never had a population. Just because one bird may have been sat on a Suffolk dune for a few hours one misty October morning in 18-whatever, it doesn't make it native!
It's not a grey area at all - there is zilch evidence for it! Ask the BOU!
ColinD
Well-known member
I don't know if Eagle Owls have been here before or not, and I suppose they could reach here naturally in the future and begin breeding, though I think that the chances are very small. So yes there is a grey area there, at least for me.
However, what is black and white (to me) is that introduced species have a long history of causing big problems all over the World. You say there is a small risk, I think it's a big risk, but even if you are correct, it's unacceptable for us to allow an introduced species to spread and be any kind of threat to our native species, especially when the introduced species is a top predator.
well theres probably a bit of both, but they weren't deliberately introduced by people who want them in the wild. They were most likely released by people who could no longer be bothered to look after them properly.
No evidence doesn't mean it hasn't happened I'm afraid! No-one can say for 100% sure that one of these Lancs birds isn't a natural colonist. You can be 99.999% sure, but not 100%.
Edward woodwood
Member
This is a hopeless argument
relevant science has been posted on EO and the problem of introductions has been explained and any first year ecology student knows the problems well. If people wish to ignore potential problems, all well and good but don't dress your opinons up as anything other than what they are - and that's 'I like Eagle Owls, me.'
Anyone who says things shouldn't be monitored is nuts.
Anyone who says action shouldn't be taken if there are adverse consequences is nuts
Tim
relevant science has been posted on EO and the problem of introductions has been explained and any first year ecology student knows the problems well. If people wish to ignore potential problems, all well and good but don't dress your opinons up as anything other than what they are - and that's 'I like Eagle Owls, me.'
Anyone who says things shouldn't be monitored is nuts.
Anyone who says action shouldn't be taken if there are adverse consequences is nuts
Tim
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
I'd go further. I think that any nests found should be pricked, or young removed, and adults caught if possible. I think monitoring alone will be little better than watching the horse as it actually bolts the stable, rather than running for the door.
Amarillo, your 0.001% probability would not be accepted by any scientific body, any court of law, any man in the street or any chimp that can count. There's probably the same possibility that the Loch Ness Monster is real and that crop circles are not made by drunk men with ropes. You can never prove a negative, only assess the probability. In this case, it's safe to say that it's small enough to set aside. That's the BOU panel's opinion, and they've reviewed all the evidence. It's also my opinion. You're entitled to yours, but please don't ever get yourself in charge of conservation policy!
Edward woodwood
Member
most of your posts contain phrases like:
can't be sure
probably
maybe
may well
i doubt
could have
the problem, andf it might be a very big problem, is if you're wrong. The precvautionary principle should of course be invoked. I bet there are a few rather worried people sitting around tables in certain offices wishing this wasn't happening...
If I was in charge of conservation policy I would do exactly what the BOU are doing - leaving them be, but monitoring the situation. If they are of the same opinion as you, why are they not advocating immediate removal?
I'm not sure how my arguments have suddenly been twisted to mean that I am happy to leave them without monitoring their impact. I have said all along that I think their impact should be monitored carefully. I have simply been countering the arguments likening their introduction to those of species from halfway round the world and countering the likes of Poecile's failure to accept that eagle owls might ever get here of their own accord. I hardly think a bird crossing the english channel is as improbable as a mythical monster!
Tim - I thought you said earlier that you would also let them be, with careful monitoring of the situation?
Similar threads
