• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Cormorant Cull Petition (1 Viewer)

Sorry to hear that. It starts with the family and grows with the kids, of that I have no doubt. Dont get me started on eroding family values.


Being that I live in the northeast US, there are a lot of people moving in with diverse backgrounds, cultures, and origins. I'm in the proverbial melting pot, which on a whole is one of the strengths of the area. I do a fair bit of cleaning up when I hit the parks & ponds, so its not pristine. I do notice that the tendency to litter varies depending upon which national or ethic area we are in. For example, and I'll risk an alarmist calling me a bigot, I have noticed that areas predominated by japanese or indian/pakistani are quite consciencous, whereas those from russians, albanians & koreans tend to be less so. Socioeconomically, those areas in wealthier neighborhoods are "cleaner" of minor litter than those not. Based on annecdotal observations obviously, but it'd be neat to have someone do a more controlled scientific study on this.

Which ethnic groups eat the wildfowl more?

(http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=223615 )
 
I do notice that the tendency to litter varies depending upon which national or ethic area we are in. For example, and I'll risk an alarmist calling me a bigot, I have noticed that areas predominated by japanese or indian/pakistani are quite consciencous, whereas those from russians, albanians & koreans tend to be less so. Socioeconomically, those areas in wealthier neighborhoods are "cleaner" of minor litter than those not. Based on annecdotal observations obviously, but it'd be neat to have someone do a more controlled scientific study on this.

Why? What would be the value of a study like that?
 
Education? Why does any entity do scientific or sociological studies?

In the case of worthwhile studies, to learn something new or useful. I can't see anything coming out of the study you're proposing other than the reinforcement of ethnic stereotypes.
 
Nah, then you can determine which groups you need to target in a language specific manner. I'm not saying it'd be world changing, but certainly not useless.
 
Nah, then you can determine which groups you need to target in a language specific manner. I'm not saying it'd be world changing, but certainly not useless.

Clean-up campaigns have traditionally been conducted on a neighborhood or stretch of river or highway basis & in places where I've lived have often produced positive results, at least for a time. And, sure, in areas with large non-English speaking populations signs & flyers in the appropriate language can be valuable adjuncts to public projects of all kinds. But a "controlled scientific study" on the relationship of ethnicity to littering? No, I see nothing useful coming out of that at all, only trouble, particularly since you now appear to leave social class out of the equation, a cross-cutting variable at least as consequential to the problem as ethnicity.
 
Last edited:
Clean-up campaigns have traditionally been conducted on a neighborhood or stretch of river or highway basis & in places where I've lived have often produced positive results, at least for a time.

I'd say my experiences are about the same.

... But a "controlled scientific study" on the relationship of ethnicity to littering? No, I see nothing useful coming out of that at all, only trouble,

truth = trouble?

I understand though, in this day and age no one ever wants to talk about cultural differences being a potentially negative factor in anything. We are only supposed to look at the positive aspects. If one exists, the other does as well. But SHHHHHHH...

particularly since you now appear to leave social class out of the equation, a cross-cutting variable at least as consequential to the problem as ethnicity.

Come on now, we wouldnt know if its at least, more so, or less consequential to ethnicity... maybe If someone did a study we would! ;)


Seriously though, I left out social class/socioeconomics because I think the correlation is pretty obvious. Then again, it very well may be that the wealthy are just more apt and capable of hiring someone to clean it up.

Sounds like a second study!
 
I'd say my experiences are about the same.
truth = trouble?
I understand though, in this day and age no one ever wants to talk about cultural differences being a potentially negative factor in anything. We are only supposed to look at the positive aspects. If one exists, the other does as well. But SHHHHHHH... .

Well, I should have guessed that the word "trouble" would distract you from the point I was trying to make (or maybe just smoke you out? ;)). But, to get back to specifics. . ..OK, say there a "scientific" study that confirms your impression that in "northern New Jersey" "Koreans" are more prone to "littering" than Japanese. Where do we go from there? What is the point of this information other than scapegoating particular ethnic groups? How do we use it in litter-control programs? We can see there's lots of litter on the ground & we already know the ethnic breakdown of the problem neighborhoods (or whatever) from census & other records.

"Trouble = truth". C'mon now, the correlations you're talking about aren't "truths" in any meaningful sense of that highfalutin term but are simply irrelevant facts with no practical bearing on the littering problem which (as we appear to agree) is a neighborhood one best solved on that level.

. Seriously though, I left out social class/socioeconomics because I think the correlation is pretty obvious. Then again, it very well may be that the wealthy are just more apt and capable of hiring someone to clean it up. !

Sure, obvious enough. And the "why" question? Who cares?
 
Which may well be a realistic target, no?

.

absolutely not no, the 1970's was the point where these birds were considered endangered to the point that they were given legal protection, the cause of them being endangered was human persecution. so calling this a realistic target would be utterly moronic.
 
absolutely not no, the 1970's was the point where these birds were considered endangered to the point that they were given legal protection, the cause of them being endangered was human persecution. so calling this a realistic target would be utterly moronic.

1970 was about the start of when Sinensis arrived from the continent. I imagine at that time Carbo was mostly a coastal bird?
 
Well, I should have guessed that the word "trouble" would distract you from the point I was trying to make (or maybe just smoke you out? ;)). But, to get back to specifics. . .....
Sure, obvious enough. And the "why" question? Who cares?

Smoke me out. Dont flatter yourself that you are being coy here.

I think you and I would disagree on this as we go around back and forth ad nauseum. No? Thats fine. Fact is I dont care all that much about it, and woudnt petition for public money to go for such a study. I'm merely noting that what one person thinks is a bang up idea, another may not. And here';s the kicker... visa versa. Review a cross section of biolocical, sociological, and psychological literature. Have you seen some of the stuff that gets studied? its hilarious at times. SOMEONE thought it ws a good enough idea to do.

I digress, this back and forth has become off topic from the thread goal- the cull petition. I am not trying to scuttle the OP's original intent of the thread, so lets you and I just agree to disagree. And disagree we do.
 
absolutely not no, the 1970's was the point where these birds were considered endangered to the point that they were given legal protection, the cause of them being endangered was human persecution. so calling this a realistic target would be utterly moronic.

You can dispense with the veiled name calling. There really is no need for it.

So the protection program worked... they arent endangered any longer. Now what? Let them boom/bust to whatever levels they ultimately oscillate at? Are other parts of this ecosystem managed, or is it all pristine? Former, then a management program could well be in order and therefore the question I posed makes sense again. If the later, then do you apply that principle to ALL species in that ecosystem? Are you calling for zero human interaction?

1970 was about the start of when Sinensis arrived from the continent. I imagine at that time Carbo was mostly a coastal bird?

If thats' true, why were they listed as endangered in that area? Or maybe they were not listed as such?

Interesting problem. I hope someone is putting together a study.
 
So, pros for this cull from the above debate:

Anglers (Or 16000 ish of them) would like to see cormorants culled because they take too many fish. This is a valid opinion because anglers (Maybe not the same 16000) do more for protecting rivers than anyone else in the UK.

Birders, do much less for the environment, we just gripe.

You can do what you like to maintain your livelihood and if you didn't you would be an idiot.

I've changed my mind then, you've persuaded me :S
 
You can dispense with the veiled name calling. There really is no need for it.

what veiled name calling, it would be utterly moronic to suggest that the solution to a recovery in a species population post persecution would be to persecute said species back to the point where it had to be legally protected in the first place. there is no veil and no name calling.
 
absolutely not no, the 1970's was the point where these birds were considered endangered to the point that they were given legal protection, the cause of them being endangered was human persecution. so calling this a realistic target would be utterly moronic.

I'm a little confused, it doesn't take much these days.

According to Operation Seafarer seabird survey of 1969-70 there were 6,071 AON (Apparently Occupied Nests). Numbers had risen to 7,238 by the time of the Seabird 2000 survey.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2876

Weren't cormorants given complete protection under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act? If so, weren't cormorant numbers actually rising in the UK when the bird was given protection?

Cheers
Jonathan
 
I'm a little confused, it doesn't take much these days.

According to Operation Seafarer seabird survey of 1969-70 there were 6,071 AON (Apparently Occupied Nests). Numbers had risen to 7,238 by the time of the Seabird 2000 survey.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2876

Weren't cormorants given complete protection under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act? If so, weren't cormorant numbers actually rising in the UK when the bird was given protection?

Cheers
Jonathan

Yes, I believe that is correct. I dont find it odd to protect something that is showing an increase in population if that species is still seen to be vulnerable.

I guess this really comes down to one's philosophy... conservation vs preservation. Or more specifically, are we as humans aprt of th eecosystem or invasives? My opinion is that we are part of any ecosystem in a highly populated/developed region. Therefore attempts at management with our interests, be they social or professional, are justified.

If the ecosystems we are talking about were undeveloped and pristine, then I'd be more inclined to view humans as outsiders, or invasives if you will. IN that case, let nature take its course without our intervention.

I think the areas in questions are more developed and places in which humans have as much (if not more in some cases) history than cormorants.
 
I dont find it odd to protect something that is showing an increase in population if that species is still seen to be vulnerable.

No, neither do I. What confused me a little was the Capt's insistance that cormorants were considered endangered, and that numbers were as low as 'around 2200 birds' in the 1970, neither of which statements appears to be true.

Cheers
Jonathan
 
i'd consider the possibility of roast cormorant, BBQ cormorant, cormorant-caesar-salad...

Doesnt need much consideration. The shag I tried was excellent !
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top