Are John, might have known you'd get involved here! The difference between Avocets, Little Egrets and Spoonbills is that they may not move nutrients from one system to another in the same way, they spend their time in the water so there should be no net change. The Geese are feeding in fields and then roosting and crapping in the lakes, thus adding nutrients into the system. In fact the long-legged wading birds probably crap a lot outside of the areas that they feed and may be a net drain on nutrients into freshwater systems...
-
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.
Windermere Canada geese cull to go ahead (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Kits
- Start date
Are John, might have known you'd get involved here! The difference between Avocets, Little Egrets and Spoonbills is that they may not move nutrients from one system to another in the same way, they spend their time in the water so there should be no net change. The Geese are feeding in fields and then roosting and crapping in the lakes, thus adding nutrients into the system. In fact the long-legged wading birds probably crap a lot outside of the areas that they feed and may be a net drain on nutrients into freshwater systems...
The orginal paper about the cull has disappeared form the Lake District Park website, but those nice folk at Google have cached it.
AlfArbuthnot
Well-known member
They are. Feral geese are commonly culled in the USA and Europe because of issues of eutrophication.
The problem is specifically feral geese, which are resident year-round at inland waters, at high densities, rarely moving from very localised areas. We created this situation, by introducing them. This is not 'natural' - geese are migratory birds that range over wide areas. Inland lakes and ponds do not 'naturally' have high densities of large birds transferring nutrients from the land into the water all year round. As ZanderII has eloquently pointed out, most other birds feed and poop within the same system. And you do not tend to see 1000 5 kg avocets living year-round in a single location.
Last edited:
captaincarot
Well-known member
Trystan
Well-known member
The sad fact is that the world was gearing up with lots of research into eugenics and controling human population, something we desperately need to consider right now but nobody will.
These cull threads always sadden me simply because we cite no alternative than culling for the greater good while the human population expands unchecked.
These cull threads always sadden me simply because we cite no alternative than culling for the greater good while the human population expands unchecked.
AlfArbuthnot
Well-known member
To be frank, once feral geese are there then the number of people has no bearing on whether the geese pollute the water. It is not made any better or worse by the number of people - it is purely down to the number of geese and the nutrient state of the water and its ecology. The only solution is to somehow limit the number of geese - there is no way around that. How you do it is just details - if you want to limit the pollution then some geese must be killed (either in the egg if that works, which it generally doesn't, or as adults).
Killing things is an everyday conservation tool, whether it's killing hawthorn for scrub clearance on chalk grasslands, killing rats on albatross islands, killing crows on RSPB reserves, killing conifer trees when restoring ancient woodland, killing mink to favour water voles, or killing feral geese to preserve water quality. If someone has a credible alternative to culling geese, then they would have solved a 50 year old problem, because this isn't new. But so far the thread has contained lots of criticism but no credible alternatives (apart from 'let them pollute and be damned with the consequences for the lake').
I also find it quite shocking that people balk at the idea of killing a goose, as if their lives are somehow sacred, yet happily talk about culling people and eugenics. If it's ok to limit human populations, of all things, then why not geese?!
AlfArbuthnot
Well-known member
His logic was excellent, and demonstrably true, so I'd suggest the bankruptcy lies elsewhere, in the flawed idea that every opinion is equal regardless of experience in the area in question
I take it, then, that you are not too concerend if your dentist has a post-graduate degree in Golf Course Management, rather than dentistry? Again, following your logic, Dr Brian May's opinion on any professional or academic topic is just as valid as those with a qualification in the field. So your logic tells us that Dr Brian's opinion on the results of one's blood tests are the same as a GP's. Personally, I think the GP might know more about the interpretation of blood test data than Dr Brian May. Similarly, I think a Windermere Ranger might know more about interpretation of goose and lake nutrient data than Dr Brian May.
The intellectual bankruptcy of your argument is fully revealed if we turn the logic around: whose opinion wuld you most value on the composition of the rings of saturn? A Windermere Ranger, a Dentist, a GP, or Dr Brian May.
If you think that any one of those (such as the qualified astonomer) has a better idea about saturn than the others, then you have destroyed your own argument, and owe Adam W an apology.
Adam W
Well-known member
ChrisKten
It's true, I quite like Pigeons
You're forgetting something; all of the example "experts" you gave can be checked by other "experts", apart from the "Windermere Ranger", that apparently has no equal.
If, for example, a GP says I need a particular treatment, I can get a second opinion. The time has long past of people believing something to be true just because an "expert" says it is. ("Expert" Bankers made a right mess recently)
Of course alternatives need to be found, but only after first establishing that a problem actually exists. Threads like this go some way to discovering if what an "expert" is saying is to be believed.
As for culling the Human Race; well there's too many of us, and our numbers are increasing by the minute. This is not sustainable, and it is a far greater problem than Geese crapping in the water. Which I'd guess is why the subject was raised in this thread.
Trystan
Well-known member
Getting drawn into this, I'm not suggesting the geese are not a problem, nor balking at culling them, indeed if they were then to be used as food, this would be preferable to some of the unsustainable hunting and farming that goes on.
Also I'm not suggesting culling humans (although I do agree with capital punishment, I think you mentioned this in an earlier post), but some form of birth rate control is required as the damage we do far out weights that of a few geese which are only here because we brought them here in the first place (i.e. their pollution is our pollution).
keith
Well-known member
Human population explosion is a huge problem on this planet, it's shame we can't sort it out.
Adam W
Well-known member
Thats an interesting point,I wonder what does happen with the birds it would be nothing short of criminal if 200 Geese just went to waste when they make such good eating.
John o'Sullivan
Well-known member
I think it is time that the conservation movement had the courage of its convictions. I propose e.g. that the RSPB should change name and become The RSPSB with the extra S standing for some. Perhaps the RSPNOB where N= naturally and O= occurring.
But then this gets complicated as crows are natives and these get killed on reserves.
I know this as the last time I went to Goldcliff (during the breeding season) every bird went up when two shotgun rounds were fired. I went down to the RSPB centre to report this thinking there must be intruders. I was told oh it's probably the farmers shooting crows to protect the waders.
Now they have fox proofed the reserve with fences they have to kill the crows that can fly over the fences. A price worth paying I say. Logically the Herons and Buzzards that prey on waders should also be killed and I know it goes against the grain but also the peregrines that hunt over the reserve. We musn't be sentimental the price of conservation must be paid.
I think there should be a poster and T-shirt campaign. I've thought up some slogans.
1.Death to the Invaders
(with pictures of Canada Geese, Mink, Grey Squirrels, Ring Necked Parakeets)
2. Slaughter Its the Best Medicine
(a picture of a big pile of carcasses or perhaps a gamekeeper gibbet festooned with crows and other vermin)
3. The Non-Natives are Revolting
with a picture of Windsor Davies looking disgusted at the sight of a flock of Canada's flying over head.
4. We cull because we care
perhaps a photos of a smiling multi-racial group of children and adults holding up dead birds and animals showing that everybody has a part to play
and
5. for the younger generation a picture of a Dalek "gassing" Canada Geese with the slogan
"Exterminate"
I'm sure they would be best sellers and would really get this important conservation message across.
But then this gets complicated as crows are natives and these get killed on reserves.
I know this as the last time I went to Goldcliff (during the breeding season) every bird went up when two shotgun rounds were fired. I went down to the RSPB centre to report this thinking there must be intruders. I was told oh it's probably the farmers shooting crows to protect the waders.
Now they have fox proofed the reserve with fences they have to kill the crows that can fly over the fences. A price worth paying I say. Logically the Herons and Buzzards that prey on waders should also be killed and I know it goes against the grain but also the peregrines that hunt over the reserve. We musn't be sentimental the price of conservation must be paid.
I think there should be a poster and T-shirt campaign. I've thought up some slogans.
1.Death to the Invaders
(with pictures of Canada Geese, Mink, Grey Squirrels, Ring Necked Parakeets)
2. Slaughter Its the Best Medicine
(a picture of a big pile of carcasses or perhaps a gamekeeper gibbet festooned with crows and other vermin)
3. The Non-Natives are Revolting
with a picture of Windsor Davies looking disgusted at the sight of a flock of Canada's flying over head.
4. We cull because we care
perhaps a photos of a smiling multi-racial group of children and adults holding up dead birds and animals showing that everybody has a part to play
and
5. for the younger generation a picture of a Dalek "gassing" Canada Geese with the slogan
"Exterminate"
I'm sure they would be best sellers and would really get this important conservation message across.
Cheshire Birder
Well-known member
While we're on about culls, i've heard they are now culling the re-introduced Wild Boars in southern England because they are taking over. Yet another example of humans not thinking about the consequences of introducing a species into the wild (even if it was originally native some 700 years ago).
CB
CB
However, according to a recent Doctor Who episode, the Dalek population has dwindled to a single individual, a misjudgement on the part of the Daleks knocking out the other three remaining individuals and a hybrid of some sort that held Dalek genes.
Not sure they are the best role models to teach the younger generation the conservaton message.
PS . BBC Entertainment is sometimes a little behind the BBC Blighty Service, so maybe the Daleks have regenerated somehow.
AlfArbuthnot
Well-known member
I'd suggest that you've laboured under the misapprehension that it was called the RSPIB - the Royal Society for the Protection of Individual Birds.
This has never been the case. The RSPB has never claimed to be a welfare organisation or one opposed to culling, or even recreational shooting. They have never hidden this.
It may seem a paradox that conservation often involves killing things, but it isn't. Conservation has always been about maintaining biodiversity, and that involves management of species - encouraging some and controlling others to maintain the maximum amount of diversity in a given area (region, nation, global, whatever). Conservation is about populations, not the welfare of individual birds. Sometimes, individuals have to 'take one for the team'.
The RSPB has had a high profile in supporting the Ruddy Duck cull (among others), has a well-publicised neutrality on sport shooting, and have never claimed to be anything different. If you've missed all this, and thought the RSPB was some sort of mixture of the RSPCA, Animal Aid, Rolf Harris, and a knitted robin, then that really isn't their problem. They are a conservation organisation. Conservation organisations often kill things.
Last edited:
AlfArbuthnot
Well-known member
You do know it's not Patrick Troughton anymore, right?
Not quite that far behind :t:
Chriskens population model on canada goose growth is not quite right . Of the 800 remaining geese at least a third are likely to be juveniles too young to breed ( geese are usualy 3 years old before they breed ) So there are probably about 533 adults or 266 breeding pairs. Of those a few will fail to successfully breed or lose their eggs to foxes , crows or small boys so in reality there will probably be about 200 - 220 successful broods probably maturing around 600 individuals of whome about 200 will enter the breeding population as there will be 1st year and adult losses from shooting.
The big mistake the Windermere goose management group has made is to anounce they are going to cull these birds in the breeding season when all that was needed was to up the shooting pressure in winter when they are feeding on farmers fields and the reduction in numbers could be acheved without hitting the headlines.
As for various methods of control shooting is the most effective as it has instant results. Pricking the eggs can work , but over a much longer timescale. The problem should be approached in several ways. First stopping members of the public feeding the geese. this will tend to disperse the birds , ***** eggs in easily located nests and encourage local farmers to shoot a few more when the geese are dammaging the crops.
This would acheve their aim without causing public outrage and a some people would enjoy a very good roast goose dinner.
The big mistake the Windermere goose management group has made is to anounce they are going to cull these birds in the breeding season when all that was needed was to up the shooting pressure in winter when they are feeding on farmers fields and the reduction in numbers could be acheved without hitting the headlines.
As for various methods of control shooting is the most effective as it has instant results. Pricking the eggs can work , but over a much longer timescale. The problem should be approached in several ways. First stopping members of the public feeding the geese. this will tend to disperse the birds , ***** eggs in easily located nests and encourage local farmers to shoot a few more when the geese are dammaging the crops.
This would acheve their aim without causing public outrage and a some people would enjoy a very good roast goose dinner.
ChrisKten
It's true, I quite like Pigeons
I'm amazed that I was even close, let alone "not quite right"|=)|
So if pricking the eggs was started years ago, when I assume the population was smaller, a cull of adult birds might never have been necessary?
And I think it's funny how the forum software has filtered out the word p r i c k in your post
Similar threads
