Uk Peregrine Population Limit? (1 Viewer)

[nirofo]

ok, so the conclusions so far appear to be:
* Peregrines will eat what they can get
* Feral pigeons only make a up a certain percentage of prey (out of town) and racing pigeons only make up a proportion of that percentage.
* Some breeders accept a certain loss as part of the hobby, others don't.
* P***** F***** will keep throwing their birds at peregrines, but continue to be upset if they get picked off.
* If people stop raptor persecution (for whatever reason), then 2,000 pairs would be a low number of peregrines.

The upshot seems to be that the original question doesn't seem to be very relevent to as AM keeps changing tack after each answer is given.
Apart from the answer to the original question, what else is it you want to know or say?

Hi colonelboris

It seems you have it the nail squarely on the head, or should that be on AM's head?

nirofo.

 

[London Birder]

only almost Des? He reads things into peoples postings that no else can read, denys established opinion and then blows off about flying vermin

I take it back VB .. replace with 'this is most farcical'

atb

 

[Osprey_watcher]

Oh yes, very droll but I wonder how many will understand it?

Most people on here.
All it needs is a sense of humour.
That said, did someone explain it to you.

 

[Anthony Morton]

In which case, don't blame the raptors for picking off the rich feedings that sky rat fanciers chuck about all over the place |;| If you were etc...

The food chain is the food chain, and culling or artificially breeding certain elements of the food chain directly affects others on the chain. Survival of the fittest and all that..

Pip pip old chap...

Well I never, a BF virgin - almost as rare as hen's teeth! :hippy:

Anyway, I could perhaps agree with you if ALL wild birds were treated equally but raptors seem to be more equal than other species. Perhaps if they were not given extra protection then your oft repeated 'survival of the fittest' theory would be a reality. Until then.....!

Chin chin, old chap.

 

[London Birder]

I suggest we leave AM to chat to himself, there really is no point trying to make the man see sense ... is there?

 

[CBB]

Well I never, a BF virgin - almost as rare as hen's teeth! :hippy:

Anyway, I could perhaps agree with you if ALL wild birds were treated equally but raptors seem to be more equal than other species. Perhaps if they were not given extra protection then your oft repeated 'survival of the fittest' theory would be a reality. Until then.....!

Chin chin, old chap.

I think when talking about 'survival of the fittest' then humans must be excluded. What animal stands a chance when up against the destruction of man. After years of persecution, we have a duty to intervene. I am sure that if we know keep away from the majority of raptors, then they'll do very well.

Chris

 

[Anthony Morton]

The upshot seems to be that the original question doesn't seem to be very relevent to as AM keeps changing tack after each answer is given.
Apart from the answer to the original question, what else is it you want to know or say?

Oh dear, oh dear, talk about shooting yourself in the foot! What's that you've got written under your name?

"There are no stupid questions, just stupid people."

Perhaps you should consider changing your name to 'Hopalong'!

Now then, when I asked the original question, quoting exactly where I had got it from don't forget, that was all I wanted an answer to. Why not look back and see how quickly the 'BF Spoilers' tried to take it off thread and also notice one very important thing - it wasn't any of my doing. That came from my giving factual answers to the multitude of other comments and questions which were posted. So whatever else you do, DON'T accuse me of changing tack!

Note also that I was not responsible for introducing the topic of racing and/or feral pigeons to the thread but others felt compelled to do so, probably in an unsuccessful attempt to have the thread locked or removed. Consequently it was only right in my opinion to give factual answers to the more serious comments and questions whenever I was allowed to, because in that way other members might be able to learn something they perhaps didn't know.

 

[AndyS]

Well I never, a BF virgin - almost as rare as hen's teeth! :hippy:

You only get to lose your virginity once eh :smoke:

Anyway, I could perhaps agree with you if ALL wild birds were treated equally but raptors seem to be more equal than other species. Perhaps if they were not given extra protection then your oft repeated 'survival of the fittest' theory would be a reality. Until then.....!

I'd agree with you if we were protecting the birds against their natural predators - but we are not. We are protecting them against people who attack them for personal gain - either from taking eggs for collections, killing them to increase numbers of birds available for shoots or to stop their racing pigeons being taken |;|. I'd say it was down to survival of the fittest for raptors - kill something to eat; or die.

As for positive discrimination generally... it happens everywhere in life, primarily because minorities are unfairly discriminated against and tend to be persecuted to extinction (sound familiar |:S|). Seems to be human nature that one unfortunately |=(|

 

[Anthony Morton]

A donation of £100 to the RSPB Raptor Protection Fund would seem appropriate.

Thank you.

nirofo.

In your dreams!

With an income of £63 million in 2005, of which £32 million was spent on staff costs alone, what does the RSPB need more money for?

 

[Anthony Morton]

If you read the posts correctly you'll see that's the question I've been asking you, what is the ratio of racers to, if you prefer the term non racing homers? If you don't know, say so, don't waffle!

nirofo.

I have already told you that IMO there are more racers than non-racers. I would go further and say that there are considerably more racers to non-racers. In my own case the ratio would be at least 5 : 1 although before you start trying to un-pick that figure, many of the non-racers in your terminology are in fact retired racers which, for a variety of reasons such as age, injury etc., no longer race.

 

[StevieEvans]

IMO

Anthony Morton
Can i ask you a simple question, what do you feel when you see a wild Peregrine in the air ?
SteveE

 

[Anthony Morton]

Andy,

A good post, much of which I can agree with!

You only get to lose your virginity once eh :smoke:

Afraid so, old son. Once broken it's about as useful as a handbrake on a canoe.

I'd agree with you if we were protecting the birds against their natural predators - but we are not. We are protecting them against people who attack them for personal gain - either from taking eggs for collections, killing them to increase numbers of birds available for shoots or to stop their racing pigeons being taken |;|. I'd say it was down to survival of the fittest for raptors - kill something to eat; or die.

Thank you for using the term 'people' and not trying to point the finger at just one particular interest as some here do. I can accept that pigeon fanciers MAY belong on the list, along with egg collectors, shooting interests etc., but I flatly refuse to accept that they are single-handedly responsible for the death of every raptos, or the failure of their nests.

As for positive discrimination generally... it happens everywhere in life, primarily because minorities are unfairly discriminated against and tend to be persecuted to extinction (sound familiar |:S|). Seems to be human nature that one unfortunately |=(|

Too true, Blue! It sounds to me like a classic example of the way both racing pigeons and pigeon fanciers are openly discriminated against on this forum. I have tried to explain that, together with urban-dwelling feral pigeons, they are NOT an inexhaustable food source and, just like the Passenger Pigeon, when they are gone that's it. The facts are that pigeon fanciers are declining and so, therefore, are the number of racing pigeons they breed each year. At the same time Feral Pigeons are also being eradicated in our towns and cities. Yet the number of Peregrine Falcons, most of which partially rely on them, is increasing.

It seems fairly obvious what the eventual outcome will be but how long will it take if simply allowed to continue? What will the situation be in say 5 years from now, or 10 years, or even 50 years? What are the 'experts' predicting and what do they feel will be the effect on other species of birds? For my part I've had enough of this 'live for today and sod the consequences' attitude that so many here seem to be advocating.

That should give the BF snipers something to aim at! :storm:

Anthony

 

[Anthony Morton]

I suggest we leave AM to chat to himself, there really is no point trying to make the man see sense ... is there?

Ah yes, the old 'There are two sides to every argument - mine and the wrong one' attitude so beloved by those who can't cope.

If you've got time to spare, do us a favour and count the Feral Pigeons in Trafalgar Square, please.

 

[Anthony Morton]

Anthony Morton
Can i ask you a simple question, what do you feel when you see a wild Peregrine in the air ?
SteveE

Steve,

That's simple - admiration!

(Surprised?)

Anthony

 

[London Birder]

Ah yes, the old 'There are two sides to every argument - mine and the wrong one' attitude so beloved by those who can't cope.

If you've got time to spare, do us a favour and count the Feral Pigeons in Trafalgar Square, please.

something wrong with counting them?

lots of homers/racers there pal ...

 

[AndyS]

I can accept that pigeon fanciers MAY belong on the list, along with egg collectors, shooting interests etc., but I flatly refuse to accept that they are single-handedly responsible for the death of every raptos, or the failure of their nests.

I think "the snipers" would probably be happy if you changed MAY to DO in your statement above. I haven't seen one post on this thread where someone is saying they are single-handedly responsible... My reading - as someone who is new to the forums - is that you are saying they shouldn't be included in the list, and the one proven case was just an anomaly.

It seems fairly obvious what the eventual outcome will be but how long will it take if simply allowed to continue? What will the situation be in say 5 years from now, or 10 years, or even 50 years? What are the 'experts' predicting and what do they feel will be the effect on other species of birds?

The outcome is that an equilibrium of sorts will be reached, even if artificially maintained by culling or additional breeding. As to experts, I'd expect they'd have to be good with statistics and computer models as well as being well informed ornithologists to make any form of meaningful prediction. Perhaps Google may be a good place to start to find the answers

At the end of the day though, what with the world being a system ruled by chaos theory, the predictions will only be as good as the models used - and we all know how easy they are to construct (long range weather predictions anyone )

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

... but I flatly refuse to accept that they are single-handedly responsible for the death of every raptor, or the failure of their nests.

I don't believe anyone here has ever suggested that they are responsible for every raptor death or every nesting failure, Anthony.

Could you give a reference, or are you just trying to put words into mouths again?

 

[London Birder]

they haven't Andrew, you are perfectly correct, more inverted spin from AM

 

[colonelboris]

Oh dear, oh dear, talk about shooting yourself in the foot! What's that you've got written under your name?

"There are no stupid questions, just stupid people."

Perhaps you should consider changing your name to 'Hopalong'!

Now then, when I asked the original question, quoting exactly where I had got it from don't forget, that was all I wanted an answer to. Why not look back and see how quickly the 'BF Spoilers' tried to take it off thread and also notice one very important thing - it wasn't any of my doing. That came from my giving factual answers to the multitude of other comments and questions which were posted. So whatever else you do, DON'T accuse me of changing tack!

Note also that I was not responsible for introducing the topic of racing and/or feral pigeons to the thread but others felt compelled to do so, probably in an unsuccessful attempt to have the thread locked or removed. Consequently it was only right in my opinion to give factual answers to the more serious comments and questions whenever I was allowed to, because in that way other members might be able to learn something they perhaps didn't know.

Well, if you were that interested in the answer to the original question alone, you didn't have to get involved in anything else on here did you?
As for the tagline, someone who asks a question on another thread, doesn't like the answer he gets and starts another thread on the same question - well maybe it applies?

 

[nirofo]

Quote: Anthony Morton, post 390.

Originally Posted by nirofo

If you read the posts correctly you'll see that's the question I've been asking you, what is the ratio of racers to, if you prefer the term non racing homers? If you don't know, say so, don't waffle!

"I have already told you that IMO there are more racers than non-racers. I would go further and say that there are considerably more racers to non-racers. In my own case the ratio would be at least 5 : 1 although before you start trying to un-pick that figure, many of the non-racers in your terminology are in fact retired racers which, for a variety of reasons such as age, injury etc., no longer race."

Ah! At last, a semi answer to my original question, having said that though, once again you are prevaricating! You are now saying that although there are more racers than non racers, that might not be so because a lot of racers are no longer racers because they don't race anymore?

I used to think I was sane, now I'm not so sure?

nirofo.