Pete Mella
Getting there...
What about mink in areas where water voles are threatened? Or rats on rare seabird colonies?
-
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.
Ruddy Duck cull continuing (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter PeeJay
- Start date
What about mink in areas where water voles are threatened? Or rats on rare seabird colonies?
arniemonkey
Well-known member
killing birds in england obviously saves birds in spain..i get it now!!!!! and responding to another ,,.,agreed i messed up slightly with foot n mouth and mad cow but i believe they were both just scare tactics from the government/media..just a question ..anyone here be willing to shoot the ruddies ..or is it a case of letting someone else do it...
knotsbirder
Well-known member
happigumble
Active member
I think that culling should be the absolute last resort when all other efforts have failed. If I remember rightly, there was a campaign to trap and relocate the hedgehogs on Uist instead of trapping and killing them. What about the impact of discarded plastic on rare seabird colonies? Surely we need to look at what else we are doing that has an impact on populations of birds and animals rather than relying on culls (dare I mention the proposed Badger cull?)
If we are keeping animals or birds in the UK that would be devastating to the local environment if they escaped then shouldn't we discouraged from having them in the first place? My point in the previous post was that if culling is always used to mop up our mistakes but we are not learning from the mistakes that we make, it doesn't say much for our evolutionary process does it?
I know I sound like a bunny-hugger and I probably am....so I bid you all good-night. :hippy:
Hi John,
Maybe you are in a position to answer a couple of questions that have interested me.
Primarily, how many actual cases of interbreeding have there been? Has it also documented how many times Ruddies have occurred alongside WHD without interbreeding?
And if the answers to the previous are known, has any (perhaps inverse) relationship been noted between WHD density and cases of interbreeding where Ruddy Duck has occurred? And finally, since I'm on the questions, where in relation to the range of WHD have cases of interbreeding occurred?
Thanks.
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
I've no idea of the total number of cases of hybridisation recorded, but the data from Carlos Gutierrez (Henderson 2009, BB 102(1)) show that 70+ Ruddy x White-headed hybrids were culled in Spain in the period 1991-2007.
John Cantelo
Well-known member
Yes, I am so at least I'm being consistent!
Thank you for the explanation about the habitat....good to know.
I do understand the argument for a cull and luckily for me, I can sit here and exercise my right to disagree as I am not the one who has to make the decision or pull the trigger.
It was mentioned in an earlier post that unless we stop people from keeping exotics then this type of situation will just keep happening again. So we cull the Ruddy duck but we still have collections of exotic birds, mammals etc in the uk which could result in problems with invasive species. If I have to concede that a cull is necessary then surely something has to be done to ensure that the problem doesn't keep happening. Culling wild birds/animals just because we can't stop making a mess of things does not seem like a reasonable plan to me.
Good to see that we share some common ground here. I absolutely agree that there should be much firmer rules on keeping exotic pets. Not only in terms of the welfare of native fauna should they establish themselves as feral animals but also in terms of the impact collecting has on fauna elsewhere. With a good range of 'established' pets that breed well when 'domesticated' I can't understand why so many 'animal lovers' feel thay have to have the latest exotica as pets. I'd also agree that, in an ideal world, we'd prevent exotics establishing themselves in the first place. Hence along with a programme to remove Ruddy Duck and also ban keeping them in captivity in the UK (and indeed were it possible outside North America). And I suspect had I been a vegetarian I might well have inclined more towards your views.
"Arniemonkey" - I assume your point was meant to be facetious. The problem is, of course, facetiousness is generally only effective when arguing from a position of having superior knowledge. In this instance I don't think this is the case. Ruddy Ducks were reaching Spain (as Richard notes) and interbreeding with WHD. It would be perverse to think that these birds originated anywhere other than Europe's largest feral population here in the UK. The real weakness of the pro-cull argument is whether those feral Ruddies that found their way to the continent are also being vigorously culled. If not we're wasting our time and resources.
Jos - excellent questions all. It's kind of you to have such an inflated view of my knowledge or rather my capacity to call to mind the details and/or the articles wherein I have read them. I recall reading a short English digest of a detailed article in Spanish on such matters, but don't recall where. Richard K. has kindly gone some way to answering your points and I'm sure the better organised here will furnish more deails anon,
Pete Mella
Getting there...
I'm with you 100% on the badger cull, but that's killing native wildlife for economic reasons, rather than escapes for conservation reasons, so quite a different matter.
Absolutely spot on! As others have said the exotic pet trade is something that should probably be more tightly regulated in a number of species, considering the problems and expense escapes and deliberate releases can cause.
I find it hard to disagree with the sentiment behind this, but those messes still need mopping up, sadly. I agree culling is a nasty business, but so is risking biodiversity and endangering entire species because some people can't pinion their pets properly or decide to let voracious alien predators loose in river ecosystems.
Farnboro John
Well-known member
Yes it is. However, the position with respect to Category C species is doubtful to say the least.
Can anyone explain how it can be legal to release thousands upon thousands of Pheasants and Red-legged Partridges into the wild each year if they would count as non-native species?
I was assuming that once the Ruddies are gone they will revert to fully non-native for legal purposes. Of course, a Cat A Ruddy Duck would enjoy protection, wouldn't it? (And with the feral birds gone, we might be able to pick one out...)
John
ChrisKten
It's true, I quite like Pigeons
Sort of thinking out loud here.
Something that's always confused me, and that I think is relevant to the Ruddy Duck Cull, is the difference between natural and unnatural. What's the difference between a Bird transporting a seed or insect to another Country, and humans introducing Ruddy Ducks into the UK? We are just another Animal, isn't it all "natural"? Isn't it how Nature works (and always has worked), so to speak?
I'm not necessarily arguing that we do nothing about what we see as our mistakes, but that perhaps what we do (or don't do) isn't actually that important. A case of cull or not cull; it's all good|=)|
Something that's always confused me, and that I think is relevant to the Ruddy Duck Cull, is the difference between natural and unnatural. What's the difference between a Bird transporting a seed or insect to another Country, and humans introducing Ruddy Ducks into the UK? We are just another Animal, isn't it all "natural"? Isn't it how Nature works (and always has worked), so to speak?
I'm not necessarily arguing that we do nothing about what we see as our mistakes, but that perhaps what we do (or don't do) isn't actually that important. A case of cull or not cull; it's all good|=)|
Pete Mella
Getting there...
There have always been instances where animals or plants colonise areas of their own accord, and there are probably many instances where this has also been catastrophic to some species or another. But while (staying with the ruddy example) it is possible for ruddies to reach Europe under their own steam, the chance of enough doing so to create a breeding population is very low.
The difference with humans is we have the power to transport animals across the entire globe pretty much limitlessly. But this brain power that allows us to do that should also allow us to realise the consequences of doing this, and know the actions that will undo it.
Yes we are just another animal, but that excuse could be taken to extreme to say that anything that humans do is natural because we're animals. Housing estates? Natural, because they were made by animals. Nuclear power stations? Natural, because they were made by animals. The argument basically gives us carte blanche to do what we want because, hey, whatever we do we're just a force of nature. But are we still a force of nature when we're self-knowing about our actions? A hurricane wouldn't be a force of nature if it knew what it was doing, it would be a total and utter bastard.
Yeah, we're just evolved apes, but we're also the first species (that we know of) on this planet to have evolved the mental capacity to not only change the natural environment so strongly, but also to reason and know what we should do to stop it. With great power comes great responsibility, as Spiderman once said.
Anyway, the "aren't the actions of humans natural because we're just animals aren't we?" argument is for philosophers, not conservationists.
Last edited:
chowchilla
Well-known member
On the subject of prohibited pets, here in Queensland, it is illegal to keep as a pet: Rabbits, hamsters, gerbils, squirrels, stoats, weasels, foxes, tortoises, monkeys and pretty much any species of non-native reptile or amphibian as well as a whole heap of other stuff.
Quite frankly the list isn't long enough! It's quite simple; if the species poses a threat to native wildlife should it escape or be 'liberated' then it should be illegal to keep it, it isn't rocket science.
Quite frankly the list isn't long enough! It's quite simple; if the species poses a threat to native wildlife should it escape or be 'liberated' then it should be illegal to keep it, it isn't rocket science.
ChrisKten
It's true, I quite like Pigeons
I don't really know enough about this to agree or disagree; I'm just someone who likes to watch Nature, but I'll try to respond to some of what you've typed:
I agree, but it wouldn't have been catastrophic to all species; the non-native species would probably have thrived. Wouldn't such events have happened often in the distant past? And didn't some (or most?) of the native species start as non-native?
But not impossible. So are we certain that none of the Ruddy Ducks got here unaided by us?
And yet we keep making the same "mistakes". It seems a never ending cycle of "mistakes", followed by some action to try to correct them. And it always seems to cost a great deal more in money and lives-lost to correct those mistakes, than it did to make the mistakes in the first place. Couldn't the money be better spent on other projects? Or would it still end up spent on correcting other "mistakes"?
I agree, but I'm not so sure that we are aware of our actions on a longer time-scale. What if in a few 100 (or 1000) years from now the Ruddy Duck population in the USA gets wiped out by a virus/disease. And our UK Ruddy Ducks were the only ones left? They would come in handy for the USA.|=)|
True, but I'm not sure that we really know what we're doing.
True again I guess.
Like I said; I know little of all this, which is why I've posed more questions that I don't know the answer to. Hopefully I'll know a bit more soon|=)|
I agree, but it wouldn't have been catastrophic to all species; the non-native species would probably have thrived. Wouldn't such events have happened often in the distant past? And didn't some (or most?) of the native species start as non-native?
But not impossible. So are we certain that none of the Ruddy Ducks got here unaided by us?
And yet we keep making the same "mistakes". It seems a never ending cycle of "mistakes", followed by some action to try to correct them. And it always seems to cost a great deal more in money and lives-lost to correct those mistakes, than it did to make the mistakes in the first place. Couldn't the money be better spent on other projects? Or would it still end up spent on correcting other "mistakes"?
I agree, but I'm not so sure that we are aware of our actions on a longer time-scale. What if in a few 100 (or 1000) years from now the Ruddy Duck population in the USA gets wiped out by a virus/disease. And our UK Ruddy Ducks were the only ones left? They would come in handy for the USA.|=)|
True, but I'm not sure that we really know what we're doing.
True again I guess.
Like I said; I know little of all this, which is why I've posed more questions that I don't know the answer to. Hopefully I'll know a bit more soon|=)|
I am not sure the term "non-native" can be used when animals naturally colonize an area. For example, I don't consider Cattle Egrets to be non-native to the Americas for the simple reason that they got here on their own accord.
In the distant past, invasions of animal species into new continents has been absolutely catastrophic for the original inhabitants. The Great American Interchange is a good example of this, whereby North American mammals invaded South America and replaced a large proportion of that long isolated fauna with cats, dogs, horses, camels, bears, etc. However, this event was caused by geology (land bridge) and not by humans bringing in these species.
One could argue that our invasion of each continent outside of Africa precipitated the massive megafaunal extinctions that occurred immediately after humans start showing up on that continent's fossil record. Yes, as the invading species, we benefited but a lot was lost. Continuing by your logic, yes, rats invading islands in the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean benefitted the rats, but also caused the extinction of an entire host of strange and beautiful birds.
It is a widespread and abundant species throughout North America. They also breed well in captivity. I'm sure keeping Ruddy Ducks in Europe won't be a necessary "reserve population," just in case.
I am finding it so strange that so many individuals feel that it is so cruel to shoot or eradicate a non-native species to benefit a much rarer (native!) bird. Does no one think it is cruel to allow a species to be threatened because of our mistake? Perhaps the thought process would be different if a breeding population of White-headed Ducks was inside the UK? If it isn't a bird found in my country, who cares?
What if instead of genetic swamping of White-headed Ducks by cute and cuddly Ruddy Ducks, we would be discussing something more dramatic such as an accidental introduction of a new non-native predator spreading rapidly and devouring all the tits, thrushes, and finches in the UK? Would we still be talking about "let evolution take its course?"
Carlos
ChrisKten
It's true, I quite like Pigeons
Firstly; what's strange and beautiful got to do with anything? That's just from a Human perspective; surely that's irrelevant, except that we tend to favour the "cute/cuddly/strange/beautiful" creatures.
I still have a problem understanding what is "Natural", and should be left as it is, and what is "Unnatural", and is our "duty" to put right. For instance:
Say that I'm on an island that's close to another island. There are Rats on my island, but not on the other. I throw a plank of wood into the sea separating the two islands, as I just want to watch it float|=)|
Also in the sea is a pregnant female Rat that's gone out a bit farther than intended, and in time it would drown, as the distance is too far for the Rat to swim. Fortunately for the Rat, the plank of wood I threw in floats by, and the Rat scrambles onto the plank to safety. The Winds cause the plank to reach the other island, and the Rat survives, gives birth, and years later the island is full of Rats.
Who's fault was that? Did the Rats colonise the island unaided? Should we now kill all of the Rats on that island?
What if it wasn't me that threw a plank of wood in, what if a large tree branch fell into the water instead?
That's the situation now, but that might not be the case in 100s of years from now. What I was getting at was; how do we know that some of these "culls" won't be regretted in the future? I mean you can release something that you've captured, but you can't unkill it.
I don't think this cull is cruel, well no more cruel than cramming Animals that are later eaten into small spaces . If a Ruddy Duck is killed from a clean shot, well... I think it's probably been pretty lucky. Much worse happens each day to other Animals around the World, and no, I don't just mean due to us, Nature has it's own forms of cruelty, at least from our perspective.
And as for "tits, thrushes and finches"; it really isn't about particular birds (or animals), it's about whether what we are doing actually matters. And whether we are really doing the right thing. How long will we be correcting our mistakes? And who will do it after the Human Race is long dead? And if you think that there'll be no problems to be corrected, as it's us that's the problem; what about that tree branch that the Rat climbed onto?|=)|
(As you've noticed; all totally unscientific, but I'm just a member of Joe Public)
Robin Edwards
Well-known member
Does anyone know if there have been any cases of individuals prosecuted for inadvertant release of RD in Britain ? DEFRA might know where the 59 or so birds are that they would like to cull but do they know of all of the "captive" birds that are owned by collectors?
It so happens that my next-door neighbour keeps captive RD amongst many other exotics but I think it would be difficult to prove that any of his juvenile birds have jumped their fence to join the Mandarin & RCPochard that become more commonplace in the surrounding area. Do DEFRA not carry out prevetative checks to ensure all captive wildfowl are ringed and traceable to their collections?
I'm not being particularly sentimental but I don't see much interest in premptive activities being taken up as opposed to bringing guns into environments where protectied species might be disturbed.
As an aside, I saw on the BBC one Show programme a week or two back, a wildlife rescue centre somewhere releasing Grey Squirrel after recovering to full health. Why wouldn't this act fall under the same W&CA as an illegal act?
Andrew Rowlands
Well-known member
As far as I'm aware, re-releasing Grey Squirrels is illegal.
Pete Mella
Getting there...
But most of the time species move relatively short distances into ecosystems that aren't so dissimilar to their own. Theoretically this can be bad news, but it won't be quite the same of us introducing species from completely different parts of the world. Ecosystems are tight knit communities that can be thrown into turmoil when alien species are introduced - not all non-natives do bad things (I've yet to see an argument against Mandarins) but we don't know for sure until it happens.
Yes, as James says. We know that very certainly. I was speaking hypothetically that they could. But it's very unlikely. The fact is we can pick up a breeding population of any species in the world and plonk it down anywhere else. The chance of a viable breeding population of an American species reaching Europe is very very small indeed.
I fail to see your point. It would be much better all round if mistakes weren't made in the first place. But they were.
But the White-headed Duck is in threat now. So why is that less important than some hypothetical and unlikely situation where a very common US species is wiped out? Sorry, but that's a silly argument.
We're eradicating a relatively small population of an internationally unthreatened non-native duck that there is scientific evidence is threatening a globally threatened species. It's hardly rocket science. I have issues with the effectiveness, if it's being done cost-effectively, if the best people are doing the job, if the PR's been done in the right way... but it's not a difficult decision.
Seriously, if you want to argue against culling invasive species read the history of Australian wildlife, or that of south sea islands and see if you still agree. This book is a good general introduction to some of the issues of the causes of extinction (and can be bought for 1p on Amazon!) http://www.amazon.co.uk/encyclopedia-vanished-species-David-Day/dp/0947889302
