Ethics of feeding garden birds (1 Viewer)

rskrsk · Dec 20, 2012

One of the reasons people buy bird feed to feed birds in their garden is the belief that they are helping birds. This is especially true in winter, a time when food is scarce, and when some birds supposedly need our help or they would die. This belief is sometimes accompanied by an argument that since humans have encroached so far onto wild nature and what used to be the birds' natural feeding grounds, that it is only right that people give something back.

I would argue that growing seed in one part of the world to feed birds in another is just displacing habitat destruction elsewhere, and is far less efficient than simply not feeding birds, and therefore having less industrial chemical monocrop agriculture overall. If we like seeing a few birds in our garden at the expense of greater bird populations elsewhere, then garden bird feeding makes sense. But if we take a broader view, then cultivating land to grow crops which are then shipped around to feed certain favoured populations makes no sense. It is just accelerating the process of taking resources away from nature and using them them in wasteful, destructive agriculture.

Fat balls are a fine example: taking tracts of land to grow grain, to feed cattle, to produce suet, to feed garden birds is possibly the most wasteful way of feeding birds we could come up with. Spraying bird pests with Starlicide to protect sunflower crops destined for birdseed is a contradiction hopefully obvious to most. But beyond that, the whole idea of using agriculture to feed wild birds is problematic if we take a wider view. And how is it possible to care about birdlife and bird populations if we don't take a wide view?

Discuss.

fugl · Dec 20, 2012

Nothing really to discuss. I feed birds in my yard because I like to have them around so that I can watch them. Ethical considerations come into it only to the extent that they do with any other human activity consuming resources devotable to some more worthy purpose.

There is such a thing as too broad a view, you know.

Fozzybear · Dec 20, 2012

The problem is that everything we do as humans has a double-edged impact - you do one thing thinking you're helping and it has a negative effect on something else. Like the way people are encouraged to go to conservancies to see rare animals to support the local people in looking after them but travelling there causes pollution and may contribute to global warming that could destroy their habitat, or just the pure number of visitors degrades the habitat.

Anyone really concerned about this issue can buy seed from UK farms... I've occasionally bought bird seed from the Essex Wildlife Trust that they grow on their own local farm which they manage to benefit wildlife.

I would argue that the fat used in fatballs is unlikely to be the reason the cattle are raised though, they're going to be primarily farmed for their meat (and possibly their hide), the fat is a by-product like bones. It would be more beneficial in the case of cattle farming to argue for people to return to eating parts of the animal that are not in favour now and so reduce waste and the number of animals that are needed. Or eat less meat generally, which would have a far greater impact than stopping putting out a couple of fatballs every week or so.

The worry for me is that if everything we do we're told has negative connotations for something else then where is the impetus to actually do anything at all... don't feed the birds because it affects wildlife elsewhere, don't travel to nature reserves because it affects the atmosphere, don't buy optics (or anything else) because the factories pollute and use raw materials where their extraction destroys habitats, don't eat food because farms damage habitats and... in fact, it's best if you just don't live at all. :-C

Nightranger · Dec 20, 2012

Fozzybear said:
I would argue that the fat used in fatballs is unlikely to be the reason the cattle are raised though, they're going to be primarily farmed for their meat (and possibly their hide), the fat is a by-product like bones. It would be more beneficial in the case of cattle farming to argue for people to return to eating parts of the animal that are not in favour now and so reduce waste and the number of animals that are needed. Or eat less meat generally, which would have a far greater impact than stopping putting out a couple of fatballs every week or so.

I think you have essentially answered your own question here in that the fat balls are a result of finding a commercial outlet for a by-product. In fact, finding uses for every single bit of an animal carcase would offset much of the argument about growing animals for meat because it increases the efficiency of the system. What we should not forget is that an awful lot of stuff (chemicals etc) is put on land to help crops grow and this is often derived by artificial means so growing plants is not quite as straightforward as some people would have us believe. However, there is a compelling reason for not taking this argument too far and that is - commercial fishing. If you define what commercial fishing is and what it does, the outlay is simply the cost of running the boat, which will be the equivalent of running wheeled and static machinery on a large farm (OK, there are fishing licenses etc but don't forget these are less common once you get away from western countries). There is absolutely no preparations to increase yields except where fish farming is concerned but hang on...am I just talking about food production? Well, yes and no! Not all of the fish goes into the human food chain because there is a thriving trade to produce food for pets, particularly in Europe and North America. Sadly, it is difficult to see the fishing industry in any other light than 'take and do not give back'.

In this sense, I do not see an ethical dilemma where feeding garden birds is concerned because it is very much a case of giving something back. Ideally yes, it would be better to go back to old-style farming methods that were good for farmland birds but we should not forget that the species we attract to our gardens are different by definition so the activity produces a nett gain for those species.

Nightranger · Dec 20, 2012

Fozzybear said:
The worry for me is that if everything we do we're told has negative connotations for something else then where is the impetus to actually do anything at all... don't feed the birds because it affects wildlife elsewhere, don't travel to nature reserves because it affects the atmosphere, don't buy optics (or anything else) because the factories pollute and use raw materials where their extraction destroys habitats, don't eat food because farms damage habitats and... in fact, it's best if you just don't live at all. :-C

I decided to split this point off Paul, because it is actually a different point albeit that we are being beaten over the head with reducing our carbon footprint and everything becomes linked under that particular umbrella. This is a good paragraph though and it is not easy to decide whether we continually fuel a demand by our actions or whether we are utilising products that have already been produced and would be used anyway. Indeed, if we suddenly stopped using optics for instance, what would happen to all the instruments that have been already produced but not sold? Would scrapping of all these be a complete waste that is not even addressed by carbon footprint determination? The companies that produce them would then go on to produce other things anyway and be honest, are we all going to give up our PCs, TVs, game consoles, fridges, cookers, microwave ovens etc? It is a difficult issue because I think the subject of generating demand is so difficult to quantify even for something as widespread in use as the car or the TV. Better recycling can offset some of this but given how things are going even here in the so-called enlightened western world, we have got a long way to go to get the efficiency levels up to an acceptable percentage of what we throw away. Perhaps this is not a very ethical argument but how much impact is driving to a reserve (and seeing conservation at first hand) or using optics compared to how many people own cars and TVs (and don't do any of the conservation-related things like being a member of the RSPB/Audubon Society as an offset) actually having?

rskrsk · Dec 20, 2012

Fozzybear said:
Anyone really concerned about this issue can buy seed from UK farms... I've occasionally bought bird seed from the Essex Wildlife Trust that they grow on their own local farm which they manage to benefit wildlife.

That may be better than buying it from china but it doesn't answer the original question of whether it's better not to grow it in the first place.

Fozzybear said:
I would argue that the fat used in fatballs is unlikely to be the reason the cattle are raised though, the fat is a by-product like bones.

If you are paying for it, then it's not a by-product

Fozzybear said:
The worry for me is that if everything we do we're told has negative connotations for something else then where is the impetus to actually do anything at all...

All our actions have effects, it's a case of making choices which minimise harm

Nightranger said:
In this sense, I do not see an ethical dilemma where feeding garden birds is concerned because it is very much a case of giving something back.

In order to give a little back, you have to take more from elsewhere: it's a false economy.

Nightranger said:
Ideally yes, it would be better to go back to old-style farming methods that were good for farmland birds but we should not forget that the species we attract to our gardens are different by definition so the activity produces a nett gain for those species.

Only at the expense of other species, and birdlife and wildlife in general

Nightranger said:
it is not easy to decide whether we continually fuel a demand by our actions or whether we are utilising products that have already been produced and would be used anyway. Indeed, if we suddenly stopped using optics for instance, what would happen to all the instruments that have been already produced but not sold?

That sounds like an exercise in refusing to take responsibility for one's actions

Nightranger said:
Perhaps this is not a very ethical argument but how much impact is driving to a reserve or using optics compared to how many people own cars and TVs

You are right, defending an activity by comparing it to a worse activity is not an ethical argument.

I appreciate the replies, but nobody has answered the original question: Is cultivating crops to feed to certain birds more damaging to birdlife in general - through increased pressure on ecosystems - than not doing it?

wildlifelove · Dec 20, 2012

Fozzybear said:
The problem is that everything we do as humans has a double-edged impact - you do one thing thinking you're helping and it has a negative effect on something else. Like the way people are encouraged to go to conservancies to see rare animals to support the local people in looking after them but travelling there causes pollution and may contribute to global warming that could destroy their habitat, or just the pure number of visitors degrades the habitat.

Anyone really concerned about this issue can buy seed from UK farms... I've occasionally bought bird seed from the Essex Wildlife Trust that they grow on their own local farm which they manage to benefit wildlife.

I would argue that the fat used in fatballs is unlikely to be the reason the cattle are raised though, they're going to be primarily farmed for their meat (and possibly their hide), the fat is a by-product like bones. It would be more beneficial in the case of cattle farming to argue for people to return to eating parts of the animal that are not in favour now and so reduce waste and the number of animals that are needed. Or eat less meat generally, which would have a far greater impact than stopping putting out a couple of fatballs every week or so.

The worry for me is that if everything we do we're told has negative connotations for something else then where is the impetus to actually do anything at all... don't feed the birds because it affects wildlife elsewhere, don't travel to nature reserves because it affects the atmosphere, don't buy optics (or anything else) because the factories pollute and use raw materials where their extraction destroys habitats, don't eat food because farms damage habitats and... in fact, it's best if you just don't live at all. :-C

I have to say I agree with a few of the points raised here. Everything we do has negatives affects, but again will have a fair share of positives.

I feed the garden birds as I enjoy seeing them feed, I like knowing I'm Helping them survive.. I have good number of house sparrows in my garden now resident, house sparrows are on the serious decline. And maybe in years to come they may Become rare. I'm lucky to have the house sparrows nest in and near my garden every year. if I didn't feed them over the years there could of been a good chance the resident sparrows in my garden may of died of over the cold spell, so by me feeding them this helps them survive so they nest and then breed so a new generation of house sparrows are brought in the world, and you never know..If I didn't feed them that new generation may not of happened and then the decline gets worse..

On this subject; I believe the positives outweigh the negatives.

King Edward · Dec 20, 2012

rskrsk said:
I appreciate the replies, but nobody has answered the original question: Is cultivating crops to feed to certain birds more damaging to birdlife in general - through increased pressure on ecosystems - than not doing it?

In narrow terms, I would agree with you. Better to keep more land in a relatively wild/natural state, where it can support a whole range of wildlife (not only birds), than to cultivate it to grow food for a narrow range of generally common bird species and little else.

In practical terms, I don't think it's so simple. I suspect that the direct effects of birdfood growing are small compared to the indirect effects on people's attitudes and behaviour. For instance, birds/wildlife could benefit indirectly if bird feeding leads more people to join/support conservation charities, encourage wildlife in other ways, and lead a more 'ethical' lifestyle (e.g. consuming fewer resources generally).

Alternatively, maybe bird feeding just acts as a salve to the conscience and actually deters people from acting in other more wildlife-friendly ways, by allowing people to think they've 'done their bit' for nature by putting out some peanuts for the Blue Tits and thereby justifying their latest transatlantic holiday.

rskrsk · Dec 20, 2012

King Edward said:
birds/wildlife could benefit indirectly if bird feeding leads more people to join/support conservation charities, encourage wildlife in other ways, and lead a more 'ethical' lifestyle (e.g. consuming fewer resources generally).

Alternatively, maybe bird feeding just acts as a salve to the conscience and actually deters people from acting in other more wildlife-friendly ways, by allowing people to think they've 'done their bit' for nature by putting out some peanuts for the Blue Tits and thereby justifying their latest transatlantic holiday.

I agree with both those points and it's going to be a hard one to quantify. But it seems clear that for many people, being a bird-lover is perfectly compatible with complacence in the face of habitat destruction, extinctions and all the rest of it.

Nightranger · Dec 20, 2012

rskrsk said:
I appreciate the replies, but nobody has answered the original question: Is cultivating crops to feed to certain birds more damaging to birdlife in general - through increased pressure on ecosystems - than not doing it?

rskrsk, a few people have given you perfectly logical answers and have skirted around what was a wild assumption in your original post so I will ask you what is the origin of your question? To be blunt, I am not sure there is any production of food to support feeding of garden birds directly and I cannot see anyone voting money for this kind of production even in the Third World, especially in a time of world economic recession. Pretty much all garden bird food is derived from stocks that are not considered to be good enough for human food needs (by-product). Even the Chinese peanut production is a by-product of what goes into KP, Planters etc and this is never more obvious than the aflatoxin business. Aflatoxins are harmful to birds and they mostly arise as a result of long-term, poor storage but they are then diverted to feed the garden bird market because they have passed the point where they would be acceptable in the human food chain. Unfortunately, the situation has deteriorated so badly that the nuts are no longer suitable for feeding to birds either but that does not mean the original cultivation was solely intended for garden birds in the western world (any such market would be economically unviable judged against human food needs). The ultimate question to you would be, which crops do you imagine are specifically grown for certain birds (and remember you linked garden birds in your original post)? I felt Paul made some good points so I talked about them but they are pertinent to your post too and from reading your latest post I am not sure any of us can answer your question if we do not understand what you are trying to ask.

Apologies for being a bit harsh but looking down the thread tells me your question has been answered albeit that you may not have read what you expected to see (and I mean that with all respect). However, I am wondering if we have missed something so by all means feel free to qualify your question further.

Note on edit: much as we do not use millet and other products such as sunflower seeds and nijer directly in the human food chain they are good for birds because they are high in natural oils etc and that answers why they are grown in the first place. It just so happens that rapeseed is good for farmland birds as long as they have enough hedgerows to nest in nearby but no one could claim rapeseed is specifically grown for any birds. To repeat - I am not sure what crop is being referred to in the OP's first post.

Nightranger · Dec 20, 2012

rskrsk said:
I agree with both those points and it's going to be a hard one to quantify. But it seems clear that for many people, being a bird-lover is perfectly compatible with complacence in the face of habitat destruction, extinctions and all the rest of it.

Not at all, you appear to be taking a judgemental position here on something that you have not thought through. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here but this smacks of an anti-conservation (RSPB, WWT, BTO) thread given that you are criticising hard-core birders who also put out food in the garden alongside so-called 'dude' birders who do not/cannot venture beyond their own environs. This is another way of saying that you quite possibly are challenging the views of over 50% of BF-ers so I am sure we would all like to know what we are actually discussing here.

Wildmoreway · Dec 22, 2012

rskrsk said:
I agree with both those points and it's going to be a hard one to quantify. But it seems clear that for many people, being a bird-lover is perfectly compatible with complacence in the face of habitat destruction, extinctions and all the rest of it.

Quite a few of them about, like the petrolheads with gasguzzling 4x4s that race all over the country to see that Spangled Redhen that everyone else is rushing to see.

A lot of the issue of feeding birds is one of guilt-offset. I don't disagree with feeding birds but perhaps we should get back to the old fashioned idea of using our own food waste rather than buying from this wild bird food industry.

An interesting point is that in some public places there are now signs asking you not to feed the birds because of the issue of this same food attracting rats that also kill young nestling birds. A little bit sad perhaps as one of the joys of grandparenting is taking the grandchildren to the park and letting them feed the birds.

Allen S. Moore · Dec 22, 2012

speckled wood said:
A lot of the issue of feeding birds is one of guilt-offset.

I doubt if that is the case for many people, pleasure at watching the birds and a wish to help them through the winter surely being the reasons for feeding wild birds for much greater proportions of the people who do so in these islands.

locustella · Dec 22, 2012

King Edward said:
birds/wildlife could benefit indirectly if bird feeding leads more people to join/support conservation charities.

Exactly. However feeding generates artificial bird populations dependent on people, uncapable to survive without human intervention, or ties existing populations to given area, for example such birds don't want to migrate before winter. Actually people create birds needing people. In other words birds don't need people. This concerns most of all probably waterfowl, not garden birds.

Much more serious situation can happen in case of mammals grown by people especially in forests, for hunting purposes. For example in XIX century and at the beginning of XX century tsars in Bialowieza Forest in eastern Poland under Russian occupation were growing enormously large populations of ungulates, including not native species. To hunt them ( http://darz-bor.info/pliki/id/96/polowanie-2.jpg ). Owning forest by tsars contributed to its protection from logging, saved wisents (like in previous centuries when forest was private property of Polish kings), but these animals destroyed many plants and in addition finally in years 1910 - 1911 some of them died out from epidemy (1104 among 13,619, and many infected farm animals). This is an example of consequences of feeding animals. And such feedding by hunters aimed to kill animals is obviously also not ethical at all. Much better is to leave herbivores alone and for wolves.

Feeders give opportunity to take pictures of birds. And this way they can contribute to bird protection and indirectly make feeding very ethical. When I was in the USA 12-9 years ago I saw many feeders for very exotical for me hummingbirds and wanted take them pictures in flight some time. Birds accustomed to feeding them by people can be easily photographed in parks, they almost loose fear. Children like feed tits in special feeders with roofs like small houses, what inspires sympathy for nature in them. Sometimes feeders are located in schoolgardens, students of elementary schools build feeders during so called practical and technical lessons.

Nightranger · Dec 22, 2012

locustella said:
Exactly. However feeding generates artificial bird populations dependent on people, uncapable to survive without human intervention, or ties existing populations to given area, for example such birds don't want to migrate before winter. Actually people create birds needing people. In other words birds don't need people. This concerns most of all probably waterfowl, not garden birds.

This is a debatable point locustella, certainly the feeding of garden birds supports birds that may have a marginal time of things without the artificial food. However, whether this truly translates to supporting populations that would be unviable in terms of size and species is less clear. There is a suspicion that feeding blue and great tits is not helpful to nearby willow and marsh tit populations but this is an isolated example and is not a direct effect as such. Similarly the idea that birds do not migrate if they find sufficient food is slightly flawed because the individuals do actually migrate. For example, the recent trend towards chiffchaff and blackcap winter records in UK gardens is now thought to involve central European birds from Germany and Poland and not breeding UK birds staying on. Indeed, the records seem to still be dependent on weather and few birds are recorded if the weather turns colder. It is a similar patterns with finches, which tend to be nomadic rather than truly migratory yet do not necessarily stay in one place even if food is constant.

Note on edit: I forgot to specifically mention that there are no firm examples of artificial feeding changing behaviour patterns completely except over a short period of time. However, it is true to say that garden feeders will be vital for non-migratory species such as the house sparrow but that is not necessarily the same thing as changing behaviour in the species.

AlfArbuthnot · Dec 22, 2012

Nightranger said:
This is a debatable point locustella, certainly the feeding of garden birds supports birds that may have a marginal time of things without the artificial food.

What marginal species are those, that are "certainly supported by artificial food"?

From what I see, birdfeeding only affects birds that are already common, and makes them even more common (Blue Tit, Great Tit, Collared Dove, Goldfinch, Woodpigeon etc). The species that are really struggling in the wider countryside through lack of winter food are not common garden visitors (Yellowhammer, Corn Bunting, Linnet). The only species where you may have a point of garden feeding supplementing the population is Tree Sparrow in some places. But if we think of House Sparrow and Starling then the massive rise of feeding has not prevented their decline. It is possible that it slowed the decline in some places, but seeing as the problem seems to be reduced chick food then 99% of garden feeding (seeds, nuts etc) is of no use in plugging this food gap.

Furthermore, garden feeding is directly implicated in the 20% slashing of Greenfinch numbers, and also a large chunk of Chaffinches, thanks to spreading the Trichomonas disease. Garden feeding may also be implicated in two further disease epidemics (Fringilla papillomavirus and Great Tit pox), by bringing birds into very close proximity with each other. Trichomonas has spread from British bird tables to Scandinavia with the migrants, so spreading disease internationally! That's a chilling effect.

It is also possible that a similar disease epidemic, such as salmonellosis, was actually the cause of the House Sparrow crash - again spread by birdfeeding. This is being studied by ZSL, I believe. So, far from helping sparrows, birdfeeding might have been the problem, just like it is for Greenfinches right now. What happens if it spreads to Bullfinches next, a species which can hardly afford it but has starting using garden feeders? Where is the control of such problems? All we hear is that we should improve hygiene, yet still the disease spreads, and still the conservation charities encourage us to buy their branded birdfood as a routine measure. This means that RSPB and BTO are not neutral on the birdfood issue - they have a vested interest in playing down the negatives and playing up the benefits because they earn a large amount of money from it.

Nightranger said:
However, whether this truly translates to supporting populations that would be unviable in terms of size and species is less clear.

I think it is very clear that there is no evidence to support that point (do you know of any?). I think if all garden feeding stopped tomorrow, all that would happen is that some extremely common species would become less common, but would nevertheless still be abundant. I don't think any species would slump or crash to become 'uncommon' or 'rare'.

Nightranger said:
There is a suspicion that feeding blue and great tits is not helpful to nearby willow and marsh tit populations but this is an isolated example and is not a direct effect as such.

Isn't that a VERY direct effect? Feeding = more blue tits = less willow tits? So no feeding = more willow tits. A 90% population crash and threat of global extinction for an endemic race is hardly 'isolated' if it is also true for marsh tit. Those are two national effects on red-listed species. If true, those two are unlikely to be the only species suffering such an effect of competiton, but we do not yet know.

Nightranger said:
For example, the recent trend towards chiffchaff and blackcap winter records in UK gardens is now thought to involve central European birds from Germany and Poland and not breeding UK birds staying on.

There is a ringing recod of a breeding Blackcap found wintering. And isn't feeding the main reason cited for less migratory behaviour in Goldfinches?

Nightranger said:
However, it is true to say that garden feeders will be vital for non-migratory species such as the house sparrow but that is not necessarily the same thing as changing behaviour in the species.

Which studies have shown that feeding is "vital" for House Sparrows? I don't think this is known to be 'true'? Is there a study showing it?

#If nobody fed birds, would the biodiversity of British birds suffer? I don't think so. We'd still have the same number of species, of similar conservation status.
#Would we have less birds overall? Not necessarily, but we might have less of some of the very common species.
#Would the RSPB and BTO get less money? Definitely.
#But do they spend all of their money on conservation? No (marketing, for example), so we can't say that would mean 'less money for birds'.
#Would we have less disease in garden birds? Almost certainly.
#Would any species benefit from no feeding? Possibly, such as willow tit.
#Would less people care about birds? I think that is certain. People really do love feeding birds (they spend £140 million per year, and 1 in 3 housholds feeds the birds at some point).

Personally, I think garden birdfeedng has become 'too big'. I think there are too many feeders in too many places, such amounts of feeding are unecessary to populations, and it could be harming some species. When we get disease epidemics like in Greenfinches, it suggests that things have got out of hand and it is so widespread that the benefits are fading and negatives are increasing.

If individuals limited the amount they fed, rather than limiting the number of individuals that feed birds, most of the benefits would be retained (such as people's exposure and enjoyment of birds) and some of the negatives would be reduced (such as inflating common bird population, spreading disease etc). At one time, most people just had a single feeder of e.g. seed or nuts, now feeders are much larger and people have many more of them, so the amount of food supplied has grown enormously (as the growth of the industry demonstrates).

Wildmoreway · Dec 22, 2012

rskrsk said:
But it seems clear that for many people, being a bird-lover is perfectly compatible with complacence in the face of habitat destruction, extinctions and all the rest of it.

This is true, an uncomfortable truth but in the case of some people it is the truth, anyone can do something lessen the negative impacts though. If you must use the car drive more carefully and use less fuel. Always try to cause the least possible disturbance to wildlife. If you must have a dog, don't take it to critical areas.

A hard reality though is that for some people their interest in wildlife involves nothing more than tick lists or simply seeing wildlife because they think it looks nice and does not involve them having any concern about their long term conservation. In the case of some of those people it might be better if they either stayed at home or found a interest that did not have a totally negative effect on wildlife.

There are of course many other people for whom the tick list and/or seeing the birds is important but who do also appreciate that they have a further responsibility to minimise their impact and disturbance of wildlife and who do also either take an active part in conservation or supporting organisations such as the RSPB.

On the simple issue of bird feeding, there are paradoxes, Leaving suitable food waste out for the birds from our own dining table is little different from birds feeding on the left overs from another animal's kill, just so long as we leave our surplus in a responsible way. I also don't see a problem in use having wildlife friendly gardens and growing plants and shrubs that provide food and shelter for wildlife.

I do see a problem though when commercial land that might otherwise be left to go wild is turned over to producing wildbird food and then that food is transported over large distances (often by air).

AlfArbuthnot said:
Personally, I think garden birdfeedng has become 'too big'. I think there are too many feeders in too many places, such amounts of feeding are unecessary to populations, and it could be harming some species. When we get disease epidemics like in Greenfinches, it suggests that things have got out of hand and it is so widespread that the benefits are fading and negatives are increasing.

If individuals limited the amount they fed, rather than limiting the number of individuals that feed birds, most of the benefits would be retained (such as people's exposure and enjoyment of birds) and some of the negatives would be reduced (such as inflating common bird population, spreading disease etc). At one time, most people just had a single feeder of e.g. seed or nuts, now feeders are much larger and people have many more of them, so the amount of food supplied has grown enormously (as the growth of the industry demonstrates).

You have hit the nail on the head here, what we have lost is the moderation in all things. Some of the bird feeding stations I see are on a near industrial scale.

Nightranger · Dec 22, 2012

AlfArbuthnot said:
What marginal species are those, that are "certainly supported by artificial food"?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying here probably because I switched between talking about individual birds and species in my post. Apologies it was a bit rushed at the time but I was actually referring to individual birds in this case and thinking specifically about urban and suburban birds that may not be able to exist at all without garden feeding.

AlfArbuthnot said:
From what I see, birdfeeding only affects birds that are already common, and makes them even more common (Blue Tit, Great Tit, Collared Dove, Goldfinch, Woodpigeon etc). The species that are really struggling in the wider countryside through lack of winter food are not common garden visitors (Yellowhammer, Corn Bunting, Linnet). The only species where you may have a point of garden feeding supplementing the population is Tree Sparrow in some places. But if we think of House Sparrow and Starling then the massive rise of feeding has not prevented their decline. It is possible that it slowed the decline in some places, but seeing as the problem seems to be reduced chick food then 99% of garden feeding (seeds, nuts etc) is of no use in plugging this food gap.

From what I gather that is the point the OP was making but the assumption was that feeding took away something from rural birds, which is actually wrong. However, your final sentence is incorrect because although there are examples of blue tits feeding peanuts to young in desperation, all (admittedly, untested) visual evidence suggests parent birds (blue tits and great tits) collect from the bird table for their own needs yet stick to the usual caterpillars for the young if the weather is adequate. Finches on the other hand introduce seed diets to their young long before fledging anyway (the precise timing depends on the species - Ian Newton's book on finches).

AlfArbuthnot said:
Furthermore, garden feeding is directly implicated in the 20% slashing of Greenfinch numbers, and also a large chunk of Chaffinches, thanks to spreading the Trichomonas disease. Garden feeding may also be implicated in two further disease epidemics (Fringilla papillomavirus and Great Tit pox), by bringing birds into very close proximity with each other. Trichomonas has spread from British bird tables to Scandinavia with the migrants, so spreading disease internationally! That's a chilling effect.

I see no reason to dispute this point Alf but I should point out it is another aspect that we may not have reached in this discusssion - yet!

AlfArbuthnot said:
It is also possible that a similar disease epidemic, such as salmonellosis, was actually the cause of the House Sparrow crash - again spread by birdfeeding. This is being studied by ZSL, I believe. So, far from helping sparrows, birdfeeding might have been the problem, just like it is for Greenfinches right now. What happens if it spreads to Bullfinches next, a species which can hardly afford it but has starting using garden feeders? Where is the control of such problems? All we hear is that we should improve hygiene, yet still the disease spreads, and still the conservation charities encourage us to buy their branded birdfood as a routine measure. This means that RSPB and BTO are not neutral on the birdfood issue - they have a vested interest in playing down the negatives and playing up the benefits because they earn a large amount of money from it.

I do not agree with your closing sentence here simply because I happen to know there are people at the RSPB who are working on this very issue. It is also very wrong to say that the information is being suppressed 'playing down the negatives':

http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/helpingbirds/health/sickbirds/disease.aspx

AlfArbuthnot said:
I think it is very clear that there is no evidence to support that point (do you know of any?). I think if all garden feeding stopped tomorrow, all that would happen is that some extremely common species would become less common, but would nevertheless still be abundant. I don't think any species would slump or crash to become 'uncommon' or 'rare'.

You use a sentence such as 'What happens if it spreads to Bullfinches next, a species which can hardly afford it but has starting using garden feeders?' However, if you read my point again I was actually not claiming anything of the sort and I was actually casting doubt on the idea made in the post I was answering.

AlfArbuthnot said:
Isn't that a VERY direct effect? Feeding = more blue tits = less willow tits? So no feeding = more willow tits. A 90% population crash and threat of global extinction for an endemic race is hardly 'isolated' if it is also true for marsh tit. Those are two national effects on red-listed species. If true, those two are unlikely to be the only species suffering such an effect of competiton, but we do not yet know.

True, we do not know for sure, hence why it is NOT a direct effect. I am sure some more detailed research is underway by now but when I first heard this mentioned, it was just a theory and may yet remain as such. There is an equal chance that no correlation will be found and I certainly know areas here in GM where willow tits are doing well despite being near enough to urban areas to potentially be critical.

AlfArbuthnot said:
There is a ringing recod of a breeding Blackcap found wintering. And isn't feeding the main reason cited for less migratory behaviour in Goldfinches?

Most of the records still suggest most of the birds (when they do over-winter) are central European birds and again, don't you think it is a bit disingenuous to cite one example that disproves the point?

As for goldfinches, generally UK breeding birds tend to move away (not always completely out of the UK) from breeding sites and are replaced by continental or more northerly birds in winter. As far as I am aware apart from numbers staying a few years ago after a major winter influx, there is very little evidence that there is a long-term change in behaviour - which, I think is what I said originally.

AlfArbuthnot said:
Which studies have shown that feeding is "vital" for House Sparrows? I don't think this is known to be 'true'? Is there a study showing it?

...and what would urban sparrows feed on otherwise? Is it not true that some of the urban sparrow studies have identified cleaner streets (along with loss of nesting sites in roof soffits) as a cause for decline. OK, there is some discussion about which cause is most relevant for each given site but winter survival of young is a crucial factor in whether populations are increasing, remaining stable or continuing to decrease

AlfArbuthnot said:
#If nobody fed birds, would the biodiversity of British birds suffer? I don't think so. We'd still have the same number of species, of similar conservation status.
#Would we have less birds overall? Not necessarily, but we might have less of some of the very common species.

...including house sparrows?

AlfArbuthnot said:
#Would the RSPB and BTO get less money? Definitely.

...and that would be a good thing?

AlfArbuthnot said:
#But do they spend all of their money on conservation? No (marketing, for example), so we can't say that would mean 'less money for birds'.

Crucially you use the word 'all' so I feel you have argued your own point away by accepting that some of the money is going back into conservation. Even by your own words this means there would be less money for birds and of course, you can always check this with the RSPB/BTO directly if you wish.

AlfArbuthnot said:
#Would we have less disease in garden birds? Almost certainly.

No argument here but we could easily ask - would using more hygienic methods around the feeders lead to less disease in garden birds? It is not the full point as I see you appreciate from what you said above but it is not a point we can easily dismiss either.

AlfArbuthnot said:
#Would any species benefit from no feeding? Possibly, such as willow tit.

Possibly, but there may be limitations in this idea that should be covered by further research. We have to remember that willow and marsh tits have specific habitat needs compared to blue and great tits and it would be pointless stopping feeding at a certain distance away from willow and marsh tit populations. Perhaps an over-simplified appraisal of the true situation but I am sure you get what I mean.

AlfArbuthnot said:
#Would less people care about birds? I think that is certain. People really do love feeding birds (they spend £140 million per year, and 1 in 3 housholds feeds the birds at some point).

I agree but this would not be a good thing, surely?

AlfArbuthnot said:
Personally, I think garden birdfeedng has become 'too big'. I think there are too many feeders in too many places, such amounts of feeding are unecessary to populations, and it could be harming some species. When we get disease epidemics like in Greenfinches, it suggests that things have got out of hand and it is so widespread that the benefits are fading and negatives are increasing.

Possibly but do we really want to take the gamble with house sparrows in some areas?

AlfArbuthnot said:
If individuals limited the amount they fed, rather than limiting the number of individuals that feed birds, most of the benefits would be retained (such as people's exposure and enjoyment of birds) and some of the negatives would be reduced (such as inflating common bird population, spreading disease etc). At one time, most people just had a single feeder of e.g. seed or nuts, now feeders are much larger and people have many more of them, so the amount of food supplied has grown enormously (as the growth of the industry demonstrates).

Alf , I have to take you to task for the phrase 'such as inflating common bird population' - do you have any evidence for this claim? Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with your other suggestions.

I am a bit disappointed that this thread has taken an anti-RSPB/BTO direction but then again, I wondered whether that was the position being taken by the OP

Nightranger · Dec 22, 2012

speckled wood said:
I do see a problem though when commercial land that might otherwise be left to go wild is turned over to producing wildbird food and then that food is transported over large distances (often by air).

As per what I was asking the OP, where is the evidence for this SW? All the seeds used in bird food are grown commercially for human use rather than exclusively for birds albeit that some of the human uses may be obscure.

rskrsk · Dec 24, 2012

Nightranger said:
I am a bit disappointed that this thread has taken an anti-RSPB/BTO direction but then again, I wondered whether that was the position being taken by the OP

Its very interesting the directions this thread has gone in and amusing (to me) how people can get ahead of themselves and make assumptions about others!

My original question was not referring to specific bird conservation organisations, specific types of birders, or even specific species of birds or bird feed

I am dealing explicitly with generalities and feel free to pick them apart, but beware of being so focussed on the local level that you ignore wider processes going on (i appreciate that that argument runs both ways)

Some of my original wild assumptions are :

#there is a sizable bird food industry - £140 million according to AlfArbuthnot in his post, presumably referring to the UK
#that represents a significant amount of agricultural activity
#in terms of ecosystems, resources and economics, there are no such thing as "by-products".
#that agricultural activity represents a certain amount of ecological resources eg: land, which is not available to wild nature because it is given over to human activity
#if there is less wild nature, there are less birds (as a definition, more wild = less human intervention)

The key issue may be whether bird feed is by-product. As i see it, income from a certain crop, eg. sunflower seed, comes from different markets: human food, livestock feed, bird feed, industrial uses etc. These uses may be interlinked, eg. seed pressed for oil, then leftover dry matter going for animal feed. The economics of that industry will be a balance of those demands and prices, but they are all a part of it. Global grain prices are volatile, and at certain times more grain will be diverted from the human market to the bird feed market (see the following FAO document: http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5831e/y5831e08.htm). There are no freebies waiting to be siphoned off because they are not fit for human consumption, you can't magically discount the bird feed industry from the equation.

By the way, the reason i have started asking these questions is because i know people who buy bird feed by the sackful and keep their bird feeders constantly full over winter. Not so much to enjoy watching the birds, but because they have been taught that in winter time, garden birds need artificial feeding or they will die. On questioning, people sometimes back this up with an argument that since humans have so encroached on birds' ecological space, that we need to make up for it by growing more food for them. There seems to me something wrong with that argument and that situation.

Nightranger said:
rskrsk, a few people have given you perfectly logical answers and have skirted around what was a wild assumption in your original post

in other words: not answered the question

Here it is again:

Does using human agriculture to raise crops for bird feed do more harm than good (through increased global pressures on resources and ecosystems) to bird populations?

Ethics of feeding garden birds (1 Viewer)

Member

Well-known member

Ich bin ein Vogelbeobachter

Senior Moment

Senior Moment

Member

Hopefully Birding...

Well-known member

Member

Senior Moment

Senior Moment

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Moment

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Moment

Senior Moment

Member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread