Just had an interesting thought. Elsewhere on this forum there are lengthy threads about another "possible" bird predator, the dear old moggy. Same sort of thing, one or two people defending cats, and the vast majority down on them. But it was the other way around. The defenders of the potential alien predator were asking for proof, not anecdote, but of course everyone knew about the damage they did, it was obvious. Despite a few quibbles about no definitive studies showing that cats were a national threat to bird survival a(studies that were done were local, islands, etc) the thrust of the threads were that cats were evil, because they killed birds, they were not a natural part of the environment, and there were plenty of posts about killing them. Not much sympathy there for the introduced predator. But this time the nest predator is a bird, but still an introduced alien, and we seem to have a very different outlook. The bird is innocent until there are definitive scientific studies showing that they cause significant national demise of species. The cats, on the other hand, should be got rid of if they get into someone else's garden.
-
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.
Are these people Birders ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Birdforum
- Start date
- Status
Hi Pemberung,
I have said on this thread if Sparrows and Starlings can be proved to be a threat to specific species then a cull seems reasonable (ideally not by untrained people who seem to enjoy killing them but whatever). However a generalised cull of both species seems not to be necessary. There is a fair amount of scientific data pertaining to competition with Woodpeckers. Kerry Vierlings (University of Idaho) study on Lewis' Woodpecker (you'll have to do a google - when I get the link it freezes) shows that it out-competes Starlings in almost all interaction (1 usurption of nesting Lewis's out of a study of 59 pairs) and yet the Lewis's continues to decline - down as much as 50% according to reports over the last 40 years. She quotes earlier work that states that Red-bellied Woodpecker appear to fair less well in interactions with Starlings and yet the Red-bellied is in fact currently expanding it's range well into the north east. It would appear to me from that info that if Starlings were the key issue that they are being made out to be the opposite scenario would be taking place with regard to Woodpecker numbers. No?
Luke
Oh and perhaps you didn't read this section from my previous post: Koenig, Walter D. (2003)
European Starlings and Their Effect on Native Cavity-Nesting Birds. From Conservation Biology Conservation Biology 17 (4), 1134-1140.
doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02262.x
'European Starlings ( Sturnus vulgaris ) were introduced to New York City in 1890 and have since become one of North America's most common species. Starlings are aggressive competitors and commonly usurp cavities of other hole-nesting species. These characters make it a clear choice for a species whose invasion is likely to have significantly affected native cavity-nesting birds. Using Christmas Bird Counts and Breeding Bird Surveys, I compared the mean densities of 27 native cavity-nesting species before and after invasion of sites by starlings. Contrary to expectations, only 10 of the species exhibited significant effects potentially attributable to starlings, and only half of these were in part negative. However, in 2 of the 5 species that showed negative effects, evidence for a decline in one analysis was countered by an increase in the other, whereas in 2 others declines were likely due to factors other than starling competition. Only sapsuckers ( Sphyrapicus spp. ) exhibited declines potentially attributable to starlings that were not countered by other data. Although declines may still occur if starlings continue to increase, the results of this study fail to support the hypothesis that starlings have had a severe impact on populations of native birds. These results highlight the difficulties of predicting the impacts of invasive species. Native hole-nesting birds have thus far apparently held their own against the starling invasion, despite the latter's abundance and aggressive usurpation of often limited cavities.'
This is part of a text by a scientist who was awarded the AOU The William Brewster Memorial Award and is an Adjunct Professor at Berkley.
I have said on this thread if Sparrows and Starlings can be proved to be a threat to specific species then a cull seems reasonable (ideally not by untrained people who seem to enjoy killing them but whatever). However a generalised cull of both species seems not to be necessary. There is a fair amount of scientific data pertaining to competition with Woodpeckers. Kerry Vierlings (University of Idaho) study on Lewis' Woodpecker (you'll have to do a google - when I get the link it freezes) shows that it out-competes Starlings in almost all interaction (1 usurption of nesting Lewis's out of a study of 59 pairs) and yet the Lewis's continues to decline - down as much as 50% according to reports over the last 40 years. She quotes earlier work that states that Red-bellied Woodpecker appear to fair less well in interactions with Starlings and yet the Red-bellied is in fact currently expanding it's range well into the north east. It would appear to me from that info that if Starlings were the key issue that they are being made out to be the opposite scenario would be taking place with regard to Woodpecker numbers. No?
Luke
Oh and perhaps you didn't read this section from my previous post: Koenig, Walter D. (2003)
European Starlings and Their Effect on Native Cavity-Nesting Birds. From Conservation Biology Conservation Biology 17 (4), 1134-1140.
doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02262.x
'European Starlings ( Sturnus vulgaris ) were introduced to New York City in 1890 and have since become one of North America's most common species. Starlings are aggressive competitors and commonly usurp cavities of other hole-nesting species. These characters make it a clear choice for a species whose invasion is likely to have significantly affected native cavity-nesting birds. Using Christmas Bird Counts and Breeding Bird Surveys, I compared the mean densities of 27 native cavity-nesting species before and after invasion of sites by starlings. Contrary to expectations, only 10 of the species exhibited significant effects potentially attributable to starlings, and only half of these were in part negative. However, in 2 of the 5 species that showed negative effects, evidence for a decline in one analysis was countered by an increase in the other, whereas in 2 others declines were likely due to factors other than starling competition. Only sapsuckers ( Sphyrapicus spp. ) exhibited declines potentially attributable to starlings that were not countered by other data. Although declines may still occur if starlings continue to increase, the results of this study fail to support the hypothesis that starlings have had a severe impact on populations of native birds. These results highlight the difficulties of predicting the impacts of invasive species. Native hole-nesting birds have thus far apparently held their own against the starling invasion, despite the latter's abundance and aggressive usurpation of often limited cavities.'
This is part of a text by a scientist who was awarded the AOU The William Brewster Memorial Award and is an Adjunct Professor at Berkley.
Last edited:
Somebody contradicted the contention that "birding" has grown rapidly in recent years - here are some data about the growth of the bird-related industry in the USA. These are from a publication called Bird Conservation from Partners In Flight, a conservation organisation (http://www.partnersinflight.org/pubs/PubsMags.htm).
"Bird watching is one of the fastest growing recreational activities in the United States, generating sizable economic benefits. An estimated 63 million Americans feed birds at home, and more than 24 million travel to watch birds. Bird watchers spent $5.2 billion in 1991 on associated goods and services, supporting almost 200,000 jobs." (I darkly imagine that if this trend continued longterm, we could end up with a ballardesque future in which multiple "cute" species are essentially domesticated (its a joke OK?)).
Someone mentioned the federal government. Here is a review piece on the EPA web site with useful biblio and references (no mention of house sparrows or starlings): http://www.epa.gov/owow/birds/basics.html
And here's an interesting item on the subject of peer review from the AAAS:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/peerreview/index.shtml
Sorry about the generalisations but they were specifically and narrowly directed at the contents of the websites posted, in response to the question Are these people birders?
"Bird watching is one of the fastest growing recreational activities in the United States, generating sizable economic benefits. An estimated 63 million Americans feed birds at home, and more than 24 million travel to watch birds. Bird watchers spent $5.2 billion in 1991 on associated goods and services, supporting almost 200,000 jobs." (I darkly imagine that if this trend continued longterm, we could end up with a ballardesque future in which multiple "cute" species are essentially domesticated (its a joke OK?)).
Someone mentioned the federal government. Here is a review piece on the EPA web site with useful biblio and references (no mention of house sparrows or starlings): http://www.epa.gov/owow/birds/basics.html
And here's an interesting item on the subject of peer review from the AAAS:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/peerreview/index.shtml
Sorry about the generalisations but they were specifically and narrowly directed at the contents of the websites posted, in response to the question Are these people birders?
Last edited:
Luke, thanks for the reference. Unfortunately I can't read the whole thing; most interesting would be the species involved. However, I think I said somewhere earlier that the strong-billed and aggressive woodpeckers, compared to the weak-billed martins (and bluebirds), should be able to defend against sparrows and starlings. I'm not sure that comparing such different species is valid. It's a it like saying a cat can defend against a dog, when the animal at issue is a rabbit. I note that the species that is affected were sapsuckers, apart from the downy our smallest woodpeckers. Even more interesting would be to see if downies were included in the survey, which is likely, as it would point to the species-specific nature of starling impact, making broad generalizations difficult.
But I can't recall anywhere at the start of this thread a suggestion for a widespread general culling of starlings or sparrows, or even, at the beginning, a suggestion that sparrows and starlings were the cause of wide-spread decline in native species. All that came up later, in response to posts portraying sparrows and starlings as innocent. The original post - or commented upon posts, and Draco's response, was very specific. Sparrows and starlings will usurp PUMA nests if measures are not taken to prevent it, and such usurpation can prevent up to 100% of breeding success in unmanaged colonies (Brown 1977, 1981). Starlings can be excluded using very specifically sized entry holes, but this does not work well for sparrows, and these have been had to exclude. Predator reduction at the site - trapping (which is just a pre-step to killing) - is the most often used, and widely suggested by organizations such as Cornell and Audubon, and most effective method of sparrow exclusion. This is what the PUMA people are doing. They are not roaming the woods with guns, shooting stralings at will, or mass poisoning. They are adopting very specific, point of impact predator reduction strategy focussed on the actual individual causing the problem. Similar needs have been seen with wood duck, sea turtle, island bird programs, removal of brown tree snakes on Guam (no-one has suggested going to SE Asia or Australia and wiping out Boiga there, just on Guam where they are doing damage), and many other recovery programs. Even with cowbirds, known not to be the cause of the decline of Kirtland's, protection of specific nests from predation, to increase the bird's numbers, is still part of the strategy. Many birders, on this site, support similar predator reduction strategy when a persistent cat kills their yard birds (with no general outcry on the forum). These birders generally don't suggest roaming the neighborhood killing all cats, just as the PUMA folks don't cull away from their actual nest sites. In any control program, the more specific, the better. The PUMA program is about as specific as it gets. If a sparrow is entering the nest box, or found in it, remove it.
Luke, starlings may not be the key issue with woodpeckers, but the PUMA is a very specific case, where despite suitable feeding habitat, breeding habitat - suitable cavities - was destroyed, by humans, by removing trees containing suitable hollows. When humans replaced those cavities with artifical ones, PUMAs recovered to present levels. With PUMAs it's not about creeping decline, or spreading into new areas as habitat changes. One study has shown, and much data gathering has supported, that alien species, primarily sparrows and starlings, severly affect breeding success in PUMA colonies if nest usurption is not managed. So colonies are managed.
There is a good and valid argument against killing one animal for the sake of another, and there's a good and valid argument against allowing non-professionals to shoot animals even for valid reasons. But this forum has not followed those arguments; it has tried to say that the sparrows and starlings shouldn't be shot - destroyed - at the nest box involved because they are not affecting PUMA breeding success. In the case of PUMAs and PUMAs alone in this argument, the literature and experience has shown this not to be true. How starlings and sparrows affect, or don't affect, other birds is not relevant. (Katy allowed, eventually, that there may be a local effect, which is precisely what the original posts were about, but for some reason lots of locals don't add up to a widespread).
Again, for background; I don't hunt or fish, or kill wasps in the house, spiders, bees or virtually anything else. Don't use pesticides on the garden. I'm about 90% vegetarian. I have watched warblers and vireos construct nests from the first few strands on, and watched these same nests be parasitized by cowbirds; watched the cowbirds destroy the eggs and young; I've watched the females abandon their nest and start again, only to see the same thing happen to them. These are warblers and vireos I've tracked all over their home range, they've become "my" birds. I've never removed a cowbird egg or chick.
But I can't recall anywhere at the start of this thread a suggestion for a widespread general culling of starlings or sparrows, or even, at the beginning, a suggestion that sparrows and starlings were the cause of wide-spread decline in native species. All that came up later, in response to posts portraying sparrows and starlings as innocent. The original post - or commented upon posts, and Draco's response, was very specific. Sparrows and starlings will usurp PUMA nests if measures are not taken to prevent it, and such usurpation can prevent up to 100% of breeding success in unmanaged colonies (Brown 1977, 1981). Starlings can be excluded using very specifically sized entry holes, but this does not work well for sparrows, and these have been had to exclude. Predator reduction at the site - trapping (which is just a pre-step to killing) - is the most often used, and widely suggested by organizations such as Cornell and Audubon, and most effective method of sparrow exclusion. This is what the PUMA people are doing. They are not roaming the woods with guns, shooting stralings at will, or mass poisoning. They are adopting very specific, point of impact predator reduction strategy focussed on the actual individual causing the problem. Similar needs have been seen with wood duck, sea turtle, island bird programs, removal of brown tree snakes on Guam (no-one has suggested going to SE Asia or Australia and wiping out Boiga there, just on Guam where they are doing damage), and many other recovery programs. Even with cowbirds, known not to be the cause of the decline of Kirtland's, protection of specific nests from predation, to increase the bird's numbers, is still part of the strategy. Many birders, on this site, support similar predator reduction strategy when a persistent cat kills their yard birds (with no general outcry on the forum). These birders generally don't suggest roaming the neighborhood killing all cats, just as the PUMA folks don't cull away from their actual nest sites. In any control program, the more specific, the better. The PUMA program is about as specific as it gets. If a sparrow is entering the nest box, or found in it, remove it.
Luke, starlings may not be the key issue with woodpeckers, but the PUMA is a very specific case, where despite suitable feeding habitat, breeding habitat - suitable cavities - was destroyed, by humans, by removing trees containing suitable hollows. When humans replaced those cavities with artifical ones, PUMAs recovered to present levels. With PUMAs it's not about creeping decline, or spreading into new areas as habitat changes. One study has shown, and much data gathering has supported, that alien species, primarily sparrows and starlings, severly affect breeding success in PUMA colonies if nest usurption is not managed. So colonies are managed.
There is a good and valid argument against killing one animal for the sake of another, and there's a good and valid argument against allowing non-professionals to shoot animals even for valid reasons. But this forum has not followed those arguments; it has tried to say that the sparrows and starlings shouldn't be shot - destroyed - at the nest box involved because they are not affecting PUMA breeding success. In the case of PUMAs and PUMAs alone in this argument, the literature and experience has shown this not to be true. How starlings and sparrows affect, or don't affect, other birds is not relevant. (Katy allowed, eventually, that there may be a local effect, which is precisely what the original posts were about, but for some reason lots of locals don't add up to a widespread).
Again, for background; I don't hunt or fish, or kill wasps in the house, spiders, bees or virtually anything else. Don't use pesticides on the garden. I'm about 90% vegetarian. I have watched warblers and vireos construct nests from the first few strands on, and watched these same nests be parasitized by cowbirds; watched the cowbirds destroy the eggs and young; I've watched the females abandon their nest and start again, only to see the same thing happen to them. These are warblers and vireos I've tracked all over their home range, they've become "my" birds. I've never removed a cowbird egg or chick.
Hi Pemburung,
I'll try to get you a full response to your post later, i'm busy at work, but for now we can say - Starlings can be dealt with at PUMA sites by using Starling proof nest holes right? And the one piece of scientific research that has been quoted by the Purple Matin organization (Brown) suggests that in his opinion House Sparrows are not a serious issue as long as the sites are managed to stop them taking over the nests before PUMA's arrive at the sites by closing boxes over winter. Both of these problems seem to be dealable with without recourse to lethal means then? And yet the boards of the Purple Martin group are littered with people advocating the need to kill them (and suggesting the need to do the same to federally protected bird species.)
Luke
I'll try to get you a full response to your post later, i'm busy at work, but for now we can say - Starlings can be dealt with at PUMA sites by using Starling proof nest holes right? And the one piece of scientific research that has been quoted by the Purple Matin organization (Brown) suggests that in his opinion House Sparrows are not a serious issue as long as the sites are managed to stop them taking over the nests before PUMA's arrive at the sites by closing boxes over winter. Both of these problems seem to be dealable with without recourse to lethal means then? And yet the boards of the Purple Martin group are littered with people advocating the need to kill them (and suggesting the need to do the same to federally protected bird species.)
Luke
Luke, I'm not sure there's any need to respond to the rest of the post, it seems we are getting to, or got back to, the nub of things. I seem to recall in my readings that the late opening of nest boxes turned out not to be sufficient to deter sparrows after all, but I'd need to go back and re-look, I may be wrong. If it is enough, then great, no need to trap, shoot or otherwise harm sparrows.
The important thing here to note, I think, is that once the insults, irrelevancies, and other unpleasantries were got through, and the issue itself was addressed, we seemed to come to agreement, or at least very close to it at this stage. As you said in an earlier post, if it turns out there is good reason to remove sparrows, so be it; as I say above, if there's not, great. Why didn't this proceed this way from the start - people trying to get at the truth, for the sake of the birds?
The important thing here to note, I think, is that once the insults, irrelevancies, and other unpleasantries were got through, and the issue itself was addressed, we seemed to come to agreement, or at least very close to it at this stage. As you said in an earlier post, if it turns out there is good reason to remove sparrows, so be it; as I say above, if there's not, great. Why didn't this proceed this way from the start - people trying to get at the truth, for the sake of the birds?
alcedo.atthis
Well-known member
"In my area of my state any farmer could put up Martin housing and get Martins 60 years ago. Now we have more than six available Martin nesting sites in a 30 mile radius and none of these have Martins. There was not much competition back 60 years ago (I've talked to old farmers) from invasive species and they used tilt pole systems which could not be monitored. Did S&S drive Martins from the area because they were not controlled? Is there another problem(s)? That's why I built my Website. If I allow S&S into the available nesting compartments I won't ever find out."
Mark, with regards to the relationship to time, 60years ago, the localised populations of Martins at that time, and the Martin numbers now. How has your local environment changed over the last 60 years. What chemicals are utilised now, which were not in existence then. What new farming practices are there now compared to 60 years ago, and what crops are now grown locally, compared to 60 years ago. Has the biodiversity changed. Has there been a population growth, which has encroached into wild areas, affecting long-standing habitat. With regards to your web site. What are you actually doing. Can you clarify the purpose of your efforts, and what goals are you attempting to achieve.
Have you studied the "invasive species" and tried to work out what the similarities are in reproduction habits.
Again, I have read from posts in the last 2 days, about House Sparrows killing chicks, adults and breaking egg (all Purple Martins) but there seems to be a total lack of evidence to substantiate these claims. I will never believe that this happens, until I see some proof of it happening. This hearsay has got to stop, and when it does, the world of birding may understand what is actually going on, instead of this ongoing worthless debate/argument(s). No one is learning from this fiasco. That should be the priority, not point scoring in some tit for tat game.
When you look at the Audubon society, they have not helped, but hindered this whole situation. On one hand they post spurious claims, pander to public opinion by congratulating the congress publicly, but do not publish information which would back up their "public stance".
Cornell are as bad. Comments such as this :-
"The house sparrow (above), an introduced species, is displacing bluebirds across North America, including the Eastern bluebird (below). Copyright © Cornell University "
Followed by this contradictory statement :-
“There are no long-term studies showing the effect of competition between House Sparrows and our native cavity-nesters. This is one reason why we’re asking everyone across the continent to become part of our nest-box monitoring project. The only way to get answers is to get data, which are provided most effectively by people who monitor nest boxes.”
How can the first statement be accurate, considering the content of the second statement.
In reality, the utilisation of data regarding the Purple Martin/endemic cavity nesting species of America, is about the worst so-called ornithological based science project I have seen, or tried to research in 53 years of life.
If this is what science is turning into, the world had better beware.
Regards
Malky
Mark, with regards to the relationship to time, 60years ago, the localised populations of Martins at that time, and the Martin numbers now. How has your local environment changed over the last 60 years. What chemicals are utilised now, which were not in existence then. What new farming practices are there now compared to 60 years ago, and what crops are now grown locally, compared to 60 years ago. Has the biodiversity changed. Has there been a population growth, which has encroached into wild areas, affecting long-standing habitat. With regards to your web site. What are you actually doing. Can you clarify the purpose of your efforts, and what goals are you attempting to achieve.
Have you studied the "invasive species" and tried to work out what the similarities are in reproduction habits.
Again, I have read from posts in the last 2 days, about House Sparrows killing chicks, adults and breaking egg (all Purple Martins) but there seems to be a total lack of evidence to substantiate these claims. I will never believe that this happens, until I see some proof of it happening. This hearsay has got to stop, and when it does, the world of birding may understand what is actually going on, instead of this ongoing worthless debate/argument(s). No one is learning from this fiasco. That should be the priority, not point scoring in some tit for tat game.
When you look at the Audubon society, they have not helped, but hindered this whole situation. On one hand they post spurious claims, pander to public opinion by congratulating the congress publicly, but do not publish information which would back up their "public stance".
Cornell are as bad. Comments such as this :-
"The house sparrow (above), an introduced species, is displacing bluebirds across North America, including the Eastern bluebird (below). Copyright © Cornell University "
Followed by this contradictory statement :-
“There are no long-term studies showing the effect of competition between House Sparrows and our native cavity-nesters. This is one reason why we’re asking everyone across the continent to become part of our nest-box monitoring project. The only way to get answers is to get data, which are provided most effectively by people who monitor nest boxes.”
How can the first statement be accurate, considering the content of the second statement.
In reality, the utilisation of data regarding the Purple Martin/endemic cavity nesting species of America, is about the worst so-called ornithological based science project I have seen, or tried to research in 53 years of life.
If this is what science is turning into, the world had better beware.
Regards
Malky
Last edited:
snowyowl
Well-known member
Most of the discussion has been generated over the issue of cruelty and the apparent enjoyment of the cruelty by somme of the people posting to the PM BB. The removal of intoduced species has been a side issue.pemburung said:
Mark has tried to side track the discussion onto what he personally puts on his website and onto the removal issue neither of which is what angered amny of us. It was the tone of the posts to the PM web site that got to us.
Malky,
Since I am surrounded by farm land, as much of Michigan is, and DDT was used from 1945 through the early 70s to control insects (which is all that Martins eat) that could be a contributing factor. Of course, some clearing of forests, urban sprawl, genetically engineered crops, changes in farming practices, non-native insects, animals and plants, etc., have all been factors that could affect a number of bird species.
My Website was inspired by the fact that nobody near me could start a Martin colony. I knew of colonies in Michigan and in my third year of trying to establish a colony I decided to go ahead with this project. The first goal is to document as many colony sites in Michigan as we can - the haves, have nots and those that had birds and lost them. This along with data collected about these sites, which includes a five year history of nesting success (we keep count up to the time of fledging), housing and entry types and other data. Data analysis will be the next step. Are there more areas in the state like my area where no Martin colonies have existed for years? Are there areas that have recently lost all colonies? Are existing colonies growing, stable or in decline? Are there things common to successful sites? Are there things common to areas where no colonies exist? We can already identify some sites that seem to have a site specific problem. A yellow or red dot surrounded by black dots (yellow and red - no birds, black - birds) would indicate site specific problems. Areas like mine, a group of red dots indicate some other, yet to be determined problem, or problems.
I do know quite a bit about our invasive species and many of their habits. I know about entries, accepted cavity and entrance sizes, lethal and non-lethal control, clutch sizes and number of clutches per season, sesonal habits. . .
Go back to the first thread that I posted links in and you can "see" proof. These people didn't poke holes in their birds. They were all killed by S&S. The pictures are graphic, but it may help you to understand why we do what we do. I have tried to make one thing clear. We use a vast variety of methods to control S&S. Removing them is the best option in my opinion because we protect all native cavity nesting birds by doing so. All of the other things that we do compliment removal of these birds.
The calls for "proof" and "peer-reviewed documentation" are not provided because they do not exist. Cornell is asking us to undertake this project for them by monitoring and reporting through a program that they have developed. I would never participate in any study that allowed a non-native species kill any native species and/or reproduce. I don't think that they will get anywhere with this program because of that reason. I will bring a camera and a small bag of seed into work next week and take some photos on my lunch hour. Maybe a frame full of HOSP feeding just a few feet away in a matter of minutes will show what we are up against. Trying to find out how many non-native and native birds in any given area, what the percetages of native birds killed, eggs pecked, nests taken over, compared to a controlled area. . . would be like trying to count the number of flies on a hog farm and what the effectiveness of a fly swatter is against them. We know what happens because we see it. That's all of the proof that I need. I do not control non-native species outside of my one acre parcel. Folks who tend Bluebird trails just control these species on their trail. We know that we cannot rid North America of these birds, but we can make a difference in small, isolated areas. To anyone who says that we should not practice lethal control of these species just because a scientific study has not been conducted I say take a look at the problem before you judge me. You have to see this problem to understand it. This is what I protect from what I know kills our native birds (you should see the feeders near the house!).
Since I am surrounded by farm land, as much of Michigan is, and DDT was used from 1945 through the early 70s to control insects (which is all that Martins eat) that could be a contributing factor. Of course, some clearing of forests, urban sprawl, genetically engineered crops, changes in farming practices, non-native insects, animals and plants, etc., have all been factors that could affect a number of bird species.
My Website was inspired by the fact that nobody near me could start a Martin colony. I knew of colonies in Michigan and in my third year of trying to establish a colony I decided to go ahead with this project. The first goal is to document as many colony sites in Michigan as we can - the haves, have nots and those that had birds and lost them. This along with data collected about these sites, which includes a five year history of nesting success (we keep count up to the time of fledging), housing and entry types and other data. Data analysis will be the next step. Are there more areas in the state like my area where no Martin colonies have existed for years? Are there areas that have recently lost all colonies? Are existing colonies growing, stable or in decline? Are there things common to successful sites? Are there things common to areas where no colonies exist? We can already identify some sites that seem to have a site specific problem. A yellow or red dot surrounded by black dots (yellow and red - no birds, black - birds) would indicate site specific problems. Areas like mine, a group of red dots indicate some other, yet to be determined problem, or problems.
I do know quite a bit about our invasive species and many of their habits. I know about entries, accepted cavity and entrance sizes, lethal and non-lethal control, clutch sizes and number of clutches per season, sesonal habits. . .
Go back to the first thread that I posted links in and you can "see" proof. These people didn't poke holes in their birds. They were all killed by S&S. The pictures are graphic, but it may help you to understand why we do what we do. I have tried to make one thing clear. We use a vast variety of methods to control S&S. Removing them is the best option in my opinion because we protect all native cavity nesting birds by doing so. All of the other things that we do compliment removal of these birds.
The calls for "proof" and "peer-reviewed documentation" are not provided because they do not exist. Cornell is asking us to undertake this project for them by monitoring and reporting through a program that they have developed. I would never participate in any study that allowed a non-native species kill any native species and/or reproduce. I don't think that they will get anywhere with this program because of that reason. I will bring a camera and a small bag of seed into work next week and take some photos on my lunch hour. Maybe a frame full of HOSP feeding just a few feet away in a matter of minutes will show what we are up against. Trying to find out how many non-native and native birds in any given area, what the percetages of native birds killed, eggs pecked, nests taken over, compared to a controlled area. . . would be like trying to count the number of flies on a hog farm and what the effectiveness of a fly swatter is against them. We know what happens because we see it. That's all of the proof that I need. I do not control non-native species outside of my one acre parcel. Folks who tend Bluebird trails just control these species on their trail. We know that we cannot rid North America of these birds, but we can make a difference in small, isolated areas. To anyone who says that we should not practice lethal control of these species just because a scientific study has not been conducted I say take a look at the problem before you judge me. You have to see this problem to understand it. This is what I protect from what I know kills our native birds (you should see the feeders near the house!).
Attachments
Last edited:
alcedo.atthis
Well-known member
"Since I am surrounded by farm land, as much of Michigan is, and DDT was used from 1945 through the early 70s to control insects (which is all that Martins eat) that could be a contributing factor. Of course, some clearing of forests, urban sprawl, genetically engineered crops, changes in farming practices, non-native insects, animals and plants, etc., have all been factors that could affect a number of bird species."
Ok, we seem to agree that there are many factors involved with the decline of not only the Purple Martin, but most other species.
"My Website was inspired by the fact that nobody near me could start a Martin colony. I knew of colonies in Michigan and in my third year of trying to establish a colony I decided to go ahead with this project. The first goal is to document as many colony sites in Michigan as we can - the haves, have nots and those that had birds and lost them."
Acceptable and worthwhile first step.Find out what is there to start with.
"This along with data collected about these sites, which includes a five year history of nesting success (we keep count up to the time of fledging), housing and entry types and other data."
Sensible enough approach. Utilise year on year data to monitor output from successful and unsuccessful sites. (Personally, I think that 5 years is too short a period for this type of data collation and discernment.)
"Data analysis will be the next step."
Care must be used when utilising data, as data can be manipulated to serve any ends.
"Are there more areas in the state like my area where no Martin colonies have existed for years?"
You will have to try and identify why??
"Are there areas that have recently lost all colonies?"
Again, as above.
"Are existing colonies growing, stable or in decline?"
Identifying the contributing factors may not be that easy.
"Are there things common to successful sites? Are there things common to areas where no colonies exist? We can already identify some sites that seem to have a site specific problem."
Again, Care must be used when utilising data, as data can be manipulated to serve any ends. Also, data omitted can influence to the good or the bad of any conclusions.
"A yellow or red dot surrounded by black dots (yellow and red - no birds, black - birds) would indicate site specific problems. Areas like mine, a group of red dots indicate some other, yet to be determined problem, or problems."
At least you are using a basic form of identification. Fine, at least the simpler it is, the easier it is to follow.
"I do know quite a bit about our invasive species and many of their habits. I know about entries, accepted cavity and entrance sizes, lethal and non-lethal control, clutch sizes and number of clutches per season, seasonal habits. . ."
Good. As one soldier said, know your "enemy" (slightly overdone in this case) and the campaign will be easier to control.
"Go back to the first thread that I posted links in and you can "see" proof. These people didn't poke holes in their birds. They were all killed by S&S. The pictures are graphic, but it may help you to understand why we do what we do."
Unfortunately, this is where you let yourself down, along with many other P.M/nest cavity enthusiasts. I, like many others cannot "see" the "proof". You/we/others are driven to conclusions by comments derived from speculation.
"A House Sparrow was seen entering the nest box. We looked in when it flew off. There were 2 broken eggs/1 dead nestling and 1 dead female P/M in the box. It was the Sparrow that did it. I am sure, cause it was the only bird I saw near or going into the box." Speculative conclusions, based on a lack of actual data. If the deed was not actually witnessed, then how can the conclusion be factual.
That is why I have repeatedly asked to see video of this.
If it is so wide-spread, considering the cost and availability of web cams, based the amount being used on home based porn sites, how come no one from any P/M community, or University, or ornithological based research foundation , Audubon, Cornell etc etc has footage available for public access.
If I had similar problems, the first thing that I would have done would be to record the interactions between the species, outside and inside nesting colonies. The only conclusion based on the above said lack of evidence, is that there is probably video footage of the interactions between the species, but it is too embarrassing to show, as other reasons actually exist and are already known relative to nest site predation/deaths. But these contradict the ongoing facade which is present in everyday P/M communities.
"I have tried to make one thing clear. We use a vast variety of methods to control S&S. Removing them is the best option in my opinion because we protect all native cavity nesting birds by doing so. All of the other things that we do compliment removal of these birds."
You have based your decision on your opinion. O.K. Who am I to contradict that stance. Least you do not seem to relish in the torture and electrocution bit.
Hypothetical situation. What would happen if further research shows that the males, juveniles and non-breeding, are the main cause of nest-site deaths by an avian species. (For this question, ignore the Crows, Owls, Hawks and the other avian predators)It also shows that non-paired females, or paired dominant females, late in arriving from migration, without a nest site also are involved with infanticide related deaths. How would you approach that situation, considering your love of the species.
"The calls for "proof" and "peer-reviewed documentation" are not provided because they do not exist. Cornell is asking us to undertake this project for them by monitoring and reporting through a program that they have developed."
Good, at least Cornell has finally got the proverbial finger out, and is actually doing something at last. 150 years late, but least, its a start.
"I would never participate in any study that allowed a non-native species kill any native species and/or reproduce."
Realistically, that is a slightly spurious comment and claim. Can you actually, in all sincerity, confirm the source/place of origin of any and all so called "native bird species" found at present in the United States of America.
It would seem that "our" Wren emanated from the states. But are we really sure??
"I will bring a camera and a small bag of seed into work next week and take some photos on my lunch hour. Maybe a frame full of HOSP feeding just a few feet away in a matter of minutes will show what we are up against."
I note that people in certain areas are being asked not to put out Millet for feeding the birds, as Millet is one of the favourite foods of the H/S. Some people are ignoring this request, and are being frowned upon for doing so. Having stated that, by feeding the birds at work with seeds from your own "small bag" are you not adding to the problem, which you are trying to address??
"Trying to find out how many non-native and native birds in any given area, what the percentages of native birds killed, eggs pecked, nests taken over, compared to a controlled area. . . would be like trying to count the number of flies on a hog farm and what the effectiveness of a fly swatter is against them. We know what happens because we see it."
But what are you actually seeing. The end result of what??
"That's all of the proof that I need."
Not enough for me!! On that, we will have to agree to disagree.
"To anyone who says that we should not practice lethal control of these species just because a scientific study has not been conducted I say take a look at the problem before you judge me."
I would think that your own conscience will judge you in the long run. As for me at present, I do not judge you for your attempts based on what your understanding of the situation is at present.You never know, further research may swing the conclusions either way. Only time will tell.
"You have to see this problem to understand it. This is what I protect from what I know kills our native birds"
Based on the actual lack of overall readily available information/knowledge, and what you actually think that "you know" I can only hope that you open your mind, and wait for the research to throw further light on the P/M's, along with the other diminishing species problems.
At least you are showing a bit of humanity, unlike some of the P/M community forum posters.
I hope that your project lasts more than 5 years and goes well.
Regards
Malky. (Keeping foxes etc out of this discussion, and trying to keep a bit of decorum in!!)
The above is the shortened version.
Ok, we seem to agree that there are many factors involved with the decline of not only the Purple Martin, but most other species.
"My Website was inspired by the fact that nobody near me could start a Martin colony. I knew of colonies in Michigan and in my third year of trying to establish a colony I decided to go ahead with this project. The first goal is to document as many colony sites in Michigan as we can - the haves, have nots and those that had birds and lost them."
Acceptable and worthwhile first step.Find out what is there to start with.
"This along with data collected about these sites, which includes a five year history of nesting success (we keep count up to the time of fledging), housing and entry types and other data."
Sensible enough approach. Utilise year on year data to monitor output from successful and unsuccessful sites. (Personally, I think that 5 years is too short a period for this type of data collation and discernment.)
"Data analysis will be the next step."
Care must be used when utilising data, as data can be manipulated to serve any ends.
"Are there more areas in the state like my area where no Martin colonies have existed for years?"
You will have to try and identify why??
"Are there areas that have recently lost all colonies?"
Again, as above.
"Are existing colonies growing, stable or in decline?"
Identifying the contributing factors may not be that easy.
"Are there things common to successful sites? Are there things common to areas where no colonies exist? We can already identify some sites that seem to have a site specific problem."
Again, Care must be used when utilising data, as data can be manipulated to serve any ends. Also, data omitted can influence to the good or the bad of any conclusions.
"A yellow or red dot surrounded by black dots (yellow and red - no birds, black - birds) would indicate site specific problems. Areas like mine, a group of red dots indicate some other, yet to be determined problem, or problems."
At least you are using a basic form of identification. Fine, at least the simpler it is, the easier it is to follow.
"I do know quite a bit about our invasive species and many of their habits. I know about entries, accepted cavity and entrance sizes, lethal and non-lethal control, clutch sizes and number of clutches per season, seasonal habits. . ."
Good. As one soldier said, know your "enemy" (slightly overdone in this case) and the campaign will be easier to control.
"Go back to the first thread that I posted links in and you can "see" proof. These people didn't poke holes in their birds. They were all killed by S&S. The pictures are graphic, but it may help you to understand why we do what we do."
Unfortunately, this is where you let yourself down, along with many other P.M/nest cavity enthusiasts. I, like many others cannot "see" the "proof". You/we/others are driven to conclusions by comments derived from speculation.
"A House Sparrow was seen entering the nest box. We looked in when it flew off. There were 2 broken eggs/1 dead nestling and 1 dead female P/M in the box. It was the Sparrow that did it. I am sure, cause it was the only bird I saw near or going into the box." Speculative conclusions, based on a lack of actual data. If the deed was not actually witnessed, then how can the conclusion be factual.
That is why I have repeatedly asked to see video of this.
If it is so wide-spread, considering the cost and availability of web cams, based the amount being used on home based porn sites, how come no one from any P/M community, or University, or ornithological based research foundation , Audubon, Cornell etc etc has footage available for public access.
If I had similar problems, the first thing that I would have done would be to record the interactions between the species, outside and inside nesting colonies. The only conclusion based on the above said lack of evidence, is that there is probably video footage of the interactions between the species, but it is too embarrassing to show, as other reasons actually exist and are already known relative to nest site predation/deaths. But these contradict the ongoing facade which is present in everyday P/M communities.
"I have tried to make one thing clear. We use a vast variety of methods to control S&S. Removing them is the best option in my opinion because we protect all native cavity nesting birds by doing so. All of the other things that we do compliment removal of these birds."
You have based your decision on your opinion. O.K. Who am I to contradict that stance. Least you do not seem to relish in the torture and electrocution bit.
Hypothetical situation. What would happen if further research shows that the males, juveniles and non-breeding, are the main cause of nest-site deaths by an avian species. (For this question, ignore the Crows, Owls, Hawks and the other avian predators)It also shows that non-paired females, or paired dominant females, late in arriving from migration, without a nest site also are involved with infanticide related deaths. How would you approach that situation, considering your love of the species.
"The calls for "proof" and "peer-reviewed documentation" are not provided because they do not exist. Cornell is asking us to undertake this project for them by monitoring and reporting through a program that they have developed."
Good, at least Cornell has finally got the proverbial finger out, and is actually doing something at last. 150 years late, but least, its a start.
"I would never participate in any study that allowed a non-native species kill any native species and/or reproduce."
Realistically, that is a slightly spurious comment and claim. Can you actually, in all sincerity, confirm the source/place of origin of any and all so called "native bird species" found at present in the United States of America.
It would seem that "our" Wren emanated from the states. But are we really sure??
"I will bring a camera and a small bag of seed into work next week and take some photos on my lunch hour. Maybe a frame full of HOSP feeding just a few feet away in a matter of minutes will show what we are up against."
I note that people in certain areas are being asked not to put out Millet for feeding the birds, as Millet is one of the favourite foods of the H/S. Some people are ignoring this request, and are being frowned upon for doing so. Having stated that, by feeding the birds at work with seeds from your own "small bag" are you not adding to the problem, which you are trying to address??
"Trying to find out how many non-native and native birds in any given area, what the percentages of native birds killed, eggs pecked, nests taken over, compared to a controlled area. . . would be like trying to count the number of flies on a hog farm and what the effectiveness of a fly swatter is against them. We know what happens because we see it."
But what are you actually seeing. The end result of what??
"That's all of the proof that I need."
Not enough for me!! On that, we will have to agree to disagree.
"To anyone who says that we should not practice lethal control of these species just because a scientific study has not been conducted I say take a look at the problem before you judge me."
I would think that your own conscience will judge you in the long run. As for me at present, I do not judge you for your attempts based on what your understanding of the situation is at present.You never know, further research may swing the conclusions either way. Only time will tell.
"You have to see this problem to understand it. This is what I protect from what I know kills our native birds"
Based on the actual lack of overall readily available information/knowledge, and what you actually think that "you know" I can only hope that you open your mind, and wait for the research to throw further light on the P/M's, along with the other diminishing species problems.
At least you are showing a bit of humanity, unlike some of the P/M community forum posters.
I hope that your project lasts more than 5 years and goes well.
Regards
Malky. (Keeping foxes etc out of this discussion, and trying to keep a bit of decorum in!!)
The above is the shortened version.
Last edited:
Malky, your reply to Draco's message was very educated and I hope that Draco responds to you 'up there' too.
One thing though. I'm sure that when Draco mentions non-native birds he means the ones that live wild and breed in North America now simply because some people decided it would be nice to bring them here. And when he mentions native birds he means the species that live here but did not come through the decisions and actions of some people. I'm sure you know that that is what he means.
One thing though. I'm sure that when Draco mentions non-native birds he means the ones that live wild and breed in North America now simply because some people decided it would be nice to bring them here. And when he mentions native birds he means the species that live here but did not come through the decisions and actions of some people. I'm sure you know that that is what he means.
Last edited:
alcedo.atthis
Well-known member
"I'm sure that when Draco mentions non-native birds he means the ones that live wild and breed in North America now simply because some people decided it would be nice to bring them here. And when he mentions native birds he means the species that live here but did not come through the decisions and actions of some people. I'm sure you that that is what he means."
Marcus, I am sure that he means that too, but therein lies the problem. How do we know what happened in the past. How do we know the earlier sailors, prior to and including sailing ships, moving between islands and continents, in canoes sailing ships etc, did not translocate any species during hunting/exploration forages/expeditions. After all, the first translocation of the House Sparrow, to New York was in 1851. It is recorded as such, but what happened prior to that date with other species. Will we ever know?
Regards
Malky
Marcus, I am sure that he means that too, but therein lies the problem. How do we know what happened in the past. How do we know the earlier sailors, prior to and including sailing ships, moving between islands and continents, in canoes sailing ships etc, did not translocate any species during hunting/exploration forages/expeditions. After all, the first translocation of the House Sparrow, to New York was in 1851. It is recorded as such, but what happened prior to that date with other species. Will we ever know?
Regards
Malky
pemburung said:
As has been raised many times through this thread, the outcry was not due to the cull in itself (though a debate as to the necessity of this is certainly healthy), but due to the pleasure that some people on the PM forums expressed in in subjecting birds to cruelty, advocating a 'free for all' open season on anything that possibly affected their Purple Martins (including in at least one post an owl and in others cowbirds).
IF PUMA people are as responsible as you try to indicate above, then I believe they would be a little more concerned by the views being expressed on their forums. This thread would have come to to an end almost as soon as it started had those responsible for the forums, or those supporting the forums, simply and clearly made it known to their 'wayward' members that under no circumstances would posts advocating cruelty or wanton destruction where other alternatives exist be allowed. In fact, the forums still display posts of a very 'gun-ho' nature - you say they are not roaming the woods with guns, shooting starlings at will, but focussing on the actual individual causing the problem. These post, copied today from a PM forum, would suggest otherwise:
"Late Sunday morning I decided to do a little S&S hunting. I had the the crosshair on a bull sparrow and just before I squeezed the trigger a starling landed right in front of him (bad decision) a little bit later I got his buddy"
"I have always heard that the male will lure in a female to his nest so I think of it as if I shoot off a male every opportunity I get, it's like getting rid of a female to. Not sure if this is correct or not but it keeps me aiming for those cocky little SOBS. Also I have capped 7 starling so far as well. I just shoot them off of my bird feeder which is located about 20 ft. from my back doorwall."
These posts are A LOT 'milder' than the threads glorifying the pulling off legs, etc, from sparrows. My comment here is simply this type of post will do nothing for the public image of PM conservation - it has already been stated that Starlings can easily be excluded by entrance hole design, so the posts above refer to killing for what purpose? It would seem the element of pleasure is forefront and IT IS THAT PLEASURE OF KILLING AND THE INHUMAN METHODS CHOSEN THAT HAS CAUSED THIS A GENERAL DISGUST BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM. All those with a genuine interest in Purple Martins should understand their cause is not served by the forums that still allow this rubbish to be be expressed.
As for the issue of native/non-native invasive species, it would seem some at least don't care - again copied from a PM forum:
"I also keep tally of Starlings & HOSPs dispatched. Not cowbirds tho but maybe I should. I got the idea of keeping "score" years ago from folks on the NABS which I also belong to.
Lots of Starlings, HOSPs and Cowbirds around now since all the snow and cold. Ones I do get I throw out by the road or way out on our side lawn"
Cowbirds joined the ranks of invasive species too?
"I also keep tally of Starlings & HOSPs dispatched. Not cowbirds tho but maybe I should. I got the idea of keeping "score" years ago from folks on the NABS which I also belong to.
Lots of Starlings, HOSPs and Cowbirds around now since all the snow and cold. Ones I do get I throw out by the road or way out on our side lawn"
Cowbirds joined the ranks of invasive species too?
Jos,
I don't know why I even bother to reply to someone who "protects his garden" with a domestic cat. Do you find pleasure in watching your feline killing birds from the perch that you provide?
I notice that you have been studying "PUMA people". You quote some things that you found, but you ignore the fact that our northern tier states are in a state of "emergency feeding" because of a late winter storm that threatens to kill many Martins. They cannot live for long with temperatures below 50 F., but you wouldn't know that because you haven't looked at anything except the culling of S&S.
If you lived in my state how would you handle the following if you wanted to start a Purple Martin colony? :
Gourds or other housing, both, if so what combination (natural, plastic)?
What type(s) of entrance hole would you suggest? - remember you are STARTING a colony.
Would you control S&S and how would you if you chose to?
What compartment size would you suggest?
How would you set up your housing and what would you do to maximize the possibility of your success in establishing a new colony?
We have already gone over the Cowbird thing. You may have missed it. Just Google - Brown Headed Cowbird problem - and you will get all of the information that you need on the subject. States in our country kill them by the tens of thousands every year.
Mark
I don't know why I even bother to reply to someone who "protects his garden" with a domestic cat. Do you find pleasure in watching your feline killing birds from the perch that you provide?
I notice that you have been studying "PUMA people". You quote some things that you found, but you ignore the fact that our northern tier states are in a state of "emergency feeding" because of a late winter storm that threatens to kill many Martins. They cannot live for long with temperatures below 50 F., but you wouldn't know that because you haven't looked at anything except the culling of S&S.
If you lived in my state how would you handle the following if you wanted to start a Purple Martin colony? :
Gourds or other housing, both, if so what combination (natural, plastic)?
What type(s) of entrance hole would you suggest? - remember you are STARTING a colony.
Would you control S&S and how would you if you chose to?
What compartment size would you suggest?
How would you set up your housing and what would you do to maximize the possibility of your success in establishing a new colony?
We have already gone over the Cowbird thing. You may have missed it. Just Google - Brown Headed Cowbird problem - and you will get all of the information that you need on the subject. States in our country kill them by the tens of thousands every year.
Mark
Mary Evelyn
New member
Jos Stratford said:
Read the above again Draco and understand what Jos is actually saying.
INHUMAN>>>>THEIR PLEASURE>>>OUR DISGUST>>>>
snowyowl
Well-known member
As usual, most of your post is completely off the subject.Draco said:
I'm not certain, I believe that Brown-headed Cowbirds fall under the Migratory species legislation so to kill them is illegal and since that's an international treaty I doubt if any state has the authority to over ride it.
Dan, you are correct. The Cowbirds are covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. See link below for a list of birds covered:snowyowl said:
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/intrnltr/mbta/mbtandx.html#alpha1
- Status
