Songbird Survival (1 Viewer)

Yes make your own mind up by all means. Then look at the evidence, understand it, abandon common sense (it is often simplistic nonsense) and come to a sustainable evidence based conclusion.

As Rasbul understands pigeons he might be able to help me with a problem I have.

I have a flock of racing pigeons that sit on the roof of my next door neighbour's house all day and eat all the seed that we put out for garden (song) birds to help the song birds survive the winter (true, honestly). How can I control the numbers of racing pigeons, I already have two cats but the pigeons are too fast for them. Should I introduce a peregrine or maybe a Goshawk into my garden. I can't shoot the pigeons as it is against the law to discharge firearms that close to houses. I would like some advice as I am worried for the house sparrows that sit around my garden looking hungry.

rasbull said:

Does this site allow members to make their own mind up which may differ to the majority of others?

Click to expand...

Yes, and that is what is happening on this forum - you have posted views that are your opinion (and are considered incorrect by others) and you link to an article by 'Songbird Survival', an organisation that has been frequently discussed on this forum before. Now you are receiving the opinions from others.

As for the removal of the link, quite right. This is a forum for the enjoyment and protection of wild birds. Songbird Survival, in the frequent discussions that have come before, is considered by the majority of members on this forum as a front organisation for other interests at best, it does not serve in any way the interests of wild birds, so why should we as a community serve to further their goals by linking to a petition which (a) we believe to be based on tosh and (b) seeks to destroy what we love?

I think it's us Humans that need to be controlled not BoP as we are the biggest pests on the planet.
How did Song Birds survive for thousands/millions of years without us Humans 'controlling' BoP numbers ?

This is all FACT! John O'Sullivan writes

John o'Sullivan said:

I agree with Rasbul.

Before mankind came along to redress the balance, Lions ate all the Zebras and having ate all the Zebra's began eating themselves. Fortunately for Lions, in the absence of prey, Lions ( like other predators) breed very fast, on average 52 litters each year, this meant that there were always other lions to eat.

It was only when humans invented machine guns and killed most of the lions that they were able to re-introduce Zebra's from captivity ( Nelson Mandela kept some safe with him on Robin Island).

This is all FACT! Make no mistake.

Never trust a gamekeeper in conservationist's clothing (actually thinking about it they both dress the same).

Click to expand...

Some strange facts here.

How can a lioness produce on average 52 litters each year? That is one per week. What is the gestation period?

That's a strange story about Nelson Mandela. He was the prisoner of a repressive regime in high security prisons, so how could he keep some zebras safe with him in prison. Just to check if it is not April 1st I looked at various websites about his imprisonment and there was nothing about zebras. I suppose that I shouldn't have been surprised.

Allen

rasbull said:

Common sense is the only evidence I would like to produce.

Click to expand...

What you mean is your own evidence and opinions are all you want to go on, highly coloured by the fact that hawks have taken some of your pigeons. Please READ the scientific papers mentioned above that describe all the best evidence, and consider the evidence carefully. Another one which I think has not been not mentioned was work done by Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (a shooting charity) which found that sprawks have _no_ effect on grey partridge except where populations are so low that any death is a disaster.

You say you saw virtually no raptors when you were a boy. Nor did any baby-boomers. WE shouldn't consider that a normal situation. They had been decimated by years of persecution topped off with the introduction of pesticides which stopped them breeding or worse. It was not a natural state. You now advocate "controlling" raptors. How is that "achieving a natural state" as you ask ? The best way to improve the natural state is to encourage more natural habitat with a more diverse species mix.

I do wonder whether that lack of raptors might have made the prey species _more_ susceptible to other pressures. Consider - raptors probably manage to catch the weakest, least smart. slowest, - least "fit" (for survival) individuals, maintaining the quality of the gene pool. Remove the raptors and the quality slips, so that when other pressures come on (habitat changes) the population may be more susceptible, perhaps foraging efficiency has been reduced as birds don't need to get back to cover so quick.

I understand there was some work done on this on great tits, but when described, we couldn't understand what the results meant - probably not a big enough study to show anything clearly. Can anyone elucidate ?

As for your pigeons, maybe the raptors will improve your stock ? Don't tell me they always get the "best birds". Every pigeon fancier says that. Given that it is completely counter-intuitive, and is never presented with hard evidence, we gave up believing that decades ago. Can pigeons be insured by any chance ? or is it just a convenient story ?

Mike.

Raptors in selecting the least fit birds automatically police illness thus reducing spread of chronic conditions and improving the general health of populations.

The natural state is where pigeons take their chances along with everything else.

The only ways a raptor would take "the best birds" are:

a. Pitcher going to the well too many times cf 30 trip tour for bomber pilots in WWII set as giving 50% chance of survival.

b. Handler flying "best bird" when said bird is not in peak condition for reasons handler is unable to spot - heaven knows I can't always account for my dog's moods and I'm with her a lot more than a pigeon fancier is with their birds, so I don't pin blame on the handler for this. Its just one of those things.

John

Allen S. Moore said:

Some strange facts here.

How can a lioness produce on average 52 litters each year? That is one per week. What is the gestation period?

That's a strange story about Nelson Mandela. He was the prisoner of a repressive regime in high security prisons, so how could he keep some zebras safe with him in prison. Just to check if it is not April 1st I looked at various websites about his imprisonment and there was nothing about zebras. I suppose that I shouldn't have been surprised.

Allen

Click to expand...

Was I the only one who detected a hint of sarcasm in John O'sullivans post?

I think the point here is that anyone with an opinion can present it on here, and say 'I think this is true...therefore it IS true'. There was a similar thread not too long ago about birdsong, where the original poster absolutely refused to believe that he was wrong despite a huge amount of evidence contrary to his opinion being presented.

The OP in this thread is sticking to his 'I've seen it with my own eyes...therefore it has to be the truth' stance, despite being told politely that he is wrong.

So what's happening here? Is the OP reading the paper recommended? Is he reading it and not understanding it? Is he just so stubborn that he refuses to believe that he might be wrong despite the good science telling him he is? Or is he just desperately trying to get a dangerous petition signed by some genuine bird lovers to add weight to his cause?

I for one would endorse the removal of the petition. Permenantly.

And I mean no offence to the OP...you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. As are the people who sign the petition....but does this petition come with a health warning?....along the lines of 'you are about to support something that has been found to be almost certainly incorrect'.

Didn't think so....

Why hunters and pigeon fanciers don´t like birds of prey? The one mention them as blame for decrease of small game the other as reason why their pigeons don´t come back from some "travel".
I agree decades ago were more birds during wintertime in our garden, but what changed in this time? Environment! Nowadays people are building houses that even a spider is not possible to find some shelter under the roof! Where I used to walk on gravel roads near fields and pick some flower for my mother you find today just streets made from tar! Not a single flower! The whole community quest on the highest harvests without thinking what will be in the future.
In my childhood in nearly every stacked of bale of straw was some owl or raptor breeding. With the round bales of straw nowadays that is sadly history, not one nest!

So rasbull think about and be glad that you are able to see some BOP!

rasbull said:

I have studied reports, read letters, yes - witnessed attacks, and seen a decline with my own eyes. I have noted replies on this thread and if you took time to note my replies I have stated more than once I agree with many of the opinions and thoughts that people have mentioned. However, I still believe the BOP population is a major cause. As someone stated in an earlier reply, there have been numerous reports in the press within the last few weeks. I dont see a problem with allowing people to make up there own minds?

Click to expand...

The evidence that others have present comes from scientific studies and they do not agree with your anecdotal 'evidence'. Perhaps you should take the time to really read it all and then hopefully you'll understand what others on this thread are saying. Songbird Survival are a group with a very poor reputation I'd recommend finding out more about them before you start aligning yourself with them.

rasbull said:

I believe the hawk population is having a disasterous effect on the songbirds. I am a bird lover, and like all birds, including BOP. But natures balance is being disrupted by the protection they currently receive. The birds of Prey are now in towns and cities and surely this is because they are fighting for room in the country.

Richard Shepherd

Click to expand...

Even a very basic understanding of ecological behavior between prey -v- predator won't support the idea that 'hawk' populations 'wipe out' or have a 'disasterous' effect on prey populations. (Not sure which species you're referring to btw - only 'hawks' I'm aware of that take birds in the UK are Goshawk and Sparrowhawk!).

Sparrowhawks in urban areas are Canaries to healthy urban eco-systems - they are there because the passerine populations in urban areas are thriving - partly due I suspect to artificial feeding and a better understanding of 'wildlife gardening' amongst the general public. Despite longterm decline with some passerines due to a complex mix of causes, some 'typical' Sparrowhawk prey populations are in fact showing a steady reverse of earlier trends or have stabalised completely including Song Thrush and House Sparrows and some traditional farmland species such as Meadow Pipit and Skylark.

http://www.bto.org/birdtrends2009/key_findings.htm

As far as urban Peregrines go, cities are heavily populated by feral pigeons. Their populations were all but devastated by DDTs etc and loss of traditional coastal nesting sites with the increase of other cliff nesting birds such as Fulmar. The provision of nest boxes on man made structures helped with recolonisation but they will nest on any very high man made structure, especially near water. So, they do belong in cities because that's where the food is and the scrape sites are very similar to their 'natural' breeding sites in terms of structure.

Clive Watson said:

Exactly. Songbird Survival is a thinly-disguised front for pigeon racers who want one thing, and one thing only: to kill as many raptors as possible.

Click to expand...

I should imagine the one thing they really really want...is to race Pigeons!

Not exactly scientific, but where i live, I've noticed some inclines and declines in the bird population over the 10 years I've lived there. There's certainly more House Sparrows and Starlings breeding around the area. Not as many Green and Chaf finches (that maybe due to the diseases those species have been catching). Collared Doves have declined and i reckon the cats, Sprawk and windows are to blame - only a reckon mind. We still have at least 2 pairs of Blackbirds all year round and their numbers are bumped up over the winter period. Always heard a Song Thrush as the first real singer in the Spring. There's obviously been breeding Blue/Great Tit, Wren, Robin and Dunnock. But numbers have not changed too much in 10 years.
Our biggest success is with the House Martins. From only 2 nests on the houses 5 years ago, there were 8 last year and i did count 60 Martins in the air last Autumn as they were preparing to migrate. V nice

My opinion of SOS? Nah...they have got it wrong. If all the predators were so good at catching their prey, they'd soon run out of food and there'd be no predators left either. Nature does a good job of balancing things, it's us that bu**ers it all up.

*flips 2p in*

dave....

deboo said:

. Nature does a good job of balancing things, it's us that bu**ers it all up.

Click to expand...

There can be no doubt that we are the worst culprits by destroying habitats any any amount other things we do that have a negative impact but does it not then stand to reason that if we interfere with nature in a bad way the(which there can be no doubt) then its up to us to interfere in a good way as nature wont find a balance because we've messed that balance up?

I'm not for one minute saying killing raptors would be interfereing in a good way but i dont think its as simple as saying just let nature sort it out for its self as we dont allow that to happen with all the bad things we do.

I groaned inwardly when I saw this thread rising Lazarus-like from the remains of yet another ludicrous letter in the press. It doesn't seem to matter how many times it's pointed out to the 'Song Bird Survival' crew and their sympathisers that there is NO evidence to support their assumptions and plenty of evidence to suggest it's nonsense, they keep coming back like the many headed hydra of ignorance that they are. The SBS approach appears to be "let's ignore scientific evidence and go for unsystematic blind anecdotal prejudice"; sadly it evidently works for those without the sense to check out systematic scientific studies. Personally, I always feel that anyone who claims they're right on the basis of 'common sense' has just lost the argument. 'Common sense' told countless generations that the world's flat and that the sun whizzes round the Earth. I'm ancient enough to remember when Sparrowhawks were as rare as hen's teeth. I certainly don't recall a sharp increase in the numbers of small birds in the countryside as a result.

I'm also a regular visitor to SW Spain where there are, despite poisoning and persecution, there are far more BoPs than in the UK. According to the 'SBS' thesis there should be scarcely any small birds at all. The observable truth is that there are many more small birds there than here. An impossibility if 'SBS' are right. Numerous studies that contradict the idea that 'it was the BoPs what done it' so the 'SBS' et al simply ignore them. As has been pointed out already, BoPs are an intrinsic part of our environment and should not (cannot) be thought of as standing somehow outside the natural order.

The argument for 'allowing the link' on the grounds of 'democracy' is fatuous. The 'SBS' and their ilk are quite capable of gaining plenty of publicity from the gullible (newspaper editors and bird fanciers alike) that they really don't need extra publicity here. Worse, by patently promoting a false and damaging view of how the environment actually works they pose a real, rather than imagined, threat to the health of our birdlife and the environment. With apologies if I've upset anyone, but it gets tiresome to have to repeat the message time and again,

Just out of interest, can those working in the field confirm that this text on their website is as fishy as it seems?

Habitat is improving...


•Broadleaved woodland is up a third since 1947
•40,000 km of hedges have been planted since 1990
•70% of farms are now in Agri-environment schemes - farmers are paid to look after wildlife

Click to expand...

I've only just read this thread and am totally gobsmacked at the amount of utter nonsense coming from some people. I too believe the people pro-SOS have very dark hidden agendas.
A few initial thoughts: there are an estimated 10 million cats in the UK, catching an estimated 55 million birds per year. Does this mean we should now be campaigning to have cats culled across the UK? (but as the RSPB points out, there is no direct link in declines of songbirds and numbers of cats)(http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.asp).

Numbers of predators is a reflection on the abundance of prey. Basic fact. If there are not enough Zebras and Wildebeest on the Serengeti, Lions start starving and dying. Their reproductve levels of '52 litters per year' would go down considerably (!!!). If there were insufficient prey levels for our raptors to survive, their numbers would naturally decline. It is not man's decison to decide what can and what cannot be allowed to live and at what levels. What do we know - hardly got a good track record have we?

Sparrowhawks and Peregrines are moving into suburban areas because there is less persecution and more prey available. Peregrines have nested in urban locations in USA for years. It's called natural adaptation. Same as some passerines have adapted to living in more urban habitats.

Just think about what has happened due directly to man's interference in so many places around the world. Introduction of rats, cats, pigs, stoats, extinctions caused by hunting... An endless list of disasters when you start looking into it. (but I appreciate there are some good things we've done too!). The only thing we can't control is ourselves which will ultimately prove to be our destruction.
Interferring with natural balances and killing predators for the good of some peoples 'hobbys' is just plain wrong.

Were I work there are hundreds of feral pigeons, Among these are racing pigeons who I presume got lost or stayed for breeding purposes, Does this mean that if a pigeon fails to return its automatically put down as a BOP kill. In my opinion this post was not about songbird survival but about pigeon fanciers looking after their own interest and looking to cull BOP which has been pointed out have no impact on overall songbird numbers.

The serengeti senario always seems to crop up in this debate and its quite true and i have no doubt that that is how things would work in this country if we hadnt taken over the vast majority of the country building on it leaving a much smaller area for the wildlife to exist and we dont always do a very good job of looking after that either(modern farming methods certainly have alot to answer for) but i dont see how we can compare our situation to that of huge areas of land left largely untouched by humans such as the Serengeti.
Nature would happily find a balance if we didnt exist and had no impact on our landscape but we are a very long way from that.

Adam W said:

Nature would happily find a balance if we didnt exist and had no impact on our landscape but we are a very long way from that.

Click to expand...

We are a mammal species and live in our natural 'habitat' same as others. It's just that we're a bit more complex and advanced. Species living alongside us adapt to us (and to eveything else in our ecosystem).
Just say the SOS type of view were to go ahead - artificially reduce the numbers of apex bird predators. This has the desired effect and populations of songbirds start to rise. Result! But then what about the food which the songbirds eat? Certain species of butterfly would find a lot more of their caterpillers were being eaten by the swarms of Blue Tits. Some snail species could go into decline because Song Thrushes are now everywhere. What about the other insects which are now going to be under pressure by all the Wrens and Robins?
One tweak by us for no good reason at the top point of a food chain could be disasterous for so many species interlinked below. Although our influence on our surrounding habitats is far from perfect, is it not better to let species sort their own population levels out? Once we've made our population adjustments and its all gone horribly wrong, then the work to try and correct things again is countless times harder. And we may have lost a few species in the meantime.
Natural selection and adaptation is far more powerful than the biased judgements made by a select few. The species themselves have balanced their populations out for countless thousands of years. We've just messed things over a very very short space of time.

Hi Mark, i do actually agree with you to an extent i dont agree with starting to control BOP's but i dont disagree with all predator control and alot has been happening for a very long time and i personally think there would be a negative impact if it were stopped as this would far more than a minor tweak to what has been happening for hundreds of years.I think that the negative impact we have in such a small over populated country in particular is to big to just think that nature will sort it out itself without us doing at least something to counter act the huge negative impact we have.

We are most certainly on the same side when it comes to BOP persecution but we might just have to agree to disagree on some things as i dont want to fall with you or anyone else for that matter over it.