Uk Peregrine Population Limit? (2 Viewers)

[Collster]

More info on casualties from this way whu2005 r11461,gb2000 p05075, whu2005t02241, whu2005s05381,whu2003s01425,whu2005r03628, Anthony i hope you are taking on board the fact that im trying to help some fanciers who are worried as to the status of their pigeons, as you can guess, they are deceased

 

[Osprey_watcher]

But to attempt to discredit the work done on Peregrine Falcons by Dr Andrew Dixon clearly shows that you are not familiar with his work, or that you have even taken the trouble to find out anything about him. Can I suggest that you carry out a bit more of the leg-work you mention as one of your attributes?

I'll wait while you catch up!

So what does that say about your attempts to discredit the work done on peregrines by members of this forum?
People in glass houses etc etc....

 

[Collster]

So what does that say about your attempts to discredit the work done on peregrines by members of this forum?
People in glass houses etc etc....

He can try all he wants, lets face it most of us are only still posting on here to wind him up. You cannot discuss anything of any depth with him as he honestly doesn't have much of a clue.Ive helped with research which has led to at least 7 papers on Perry, the latest is in Welsh birds. So how some retired gent from buckingham can know more about the situation is beyond me. Lets face it though he is giving us a good laugh trying to defend a unions members who he freely admits knows nothing about. Maybe he should have a shot on the pecker thread

 

[Anthony Morton]

Hi Andrew,

If I can answer the points you raise as follows:-

Hey hold on a sec, I wasn't using this to justify any action whatsoever against peregrines.

And neither was I - despite the fact that this statement might not fit the stereotype image some members seem to have of me.

Or to suggest that feral or racing pigeons were in any danger whatsoever. Just to say that in the country as a whole, the peregrine population and the feral pigeon population are not as strongly linked as some may think.

Accepted, but here in the UK the Peregrine Falcons are clearly much more reliant on Feral and Racing Pigeons as a food source. My suggestion all along has been that if the increasing number of Peregrine Falcons in the UK were to reduce the population of Ferals and Racers over time, also allowing for other factors such as the number of pigeon fanciers declining, what would happen?

Am I right in saying that you yourself are not advocating culling peregrines?

YES!

Or defending those who do?

YES!

If not then we can all live together in peace and harmony :hippy:

Andrew

If only! Sadly there are far too many here who wish to demonise racing pigeons and pigeon fanciers at every opportunity. They seem unable to accept that other groups and interests can hold any view whatsover which differs from theirs - if they do, then anyone following this thread from the start will see what can happen.

I began this thread with what I felt was an interesting question I had borrowed from someone else. Just look how little time it took for this to be disrupted and attempts made to stifle any debate. Anyone interested can take a look and will find that I was not responsible for diverting the thread onto racing pigeons and raptors, that was done by those who frequently use this method of operation to either attempt to discredit pigeon racing (which they clearly do not understand), or even get the thread deleted.

Edit: Peregrines in my area hunt woodpigeons simply because the area is semi-rural and there are few ferals and lots of fat tasty WP.

Another Edit: And I'm referring only to the pigeon intake, not counting the other bird families that may be in their diet.

That's clearly understood - you are giving us YOUR local picture as YOU see it, which is YOUR opinion. Surely there can't be any arguments about that!

Anthony

 

[Anthony Morton]

I'm starting to think Valley Boy is right.
This does seem to be very much a fact-hunting mission.
Makes me wonder why...

You don't think that it just might be anything to do with getting at the truth and sweeping aside this barrier of unsubstantiated prejudice that's being constantly thrown up in some quarters, do you?

It doesn't matter how many times a lie is repeated it will NEVER become the truth!

 

[Osprey_watcher]

You don't think that it just might be anything to do with getting at the truth and sweeping aside this barrier of unsubstantiated prejudice that's being constantly thrown up in some quarters, do you?!

Talking about yourself now?

It doesn't matter how many times a lie is repeated it will NEVER become the truth!

So STOP telling them!!!

 

[Collster]

You don't think that it just might be anything to do with getting at the truth and sweeping aside this barrier of unsubstantiated prejudice that's being constantly thrown up in some quarters, do you?

It doesn't matter how many times a lie is repeated it will NEVER become the truth!

Anthony, what do you possibly know about whats going on down here? Come on answer the question? You are the one who's guessing about the reality. So lets have an answer as to your personal experiences down this way

 

[London Birder]

You're rattling that spear again, LB!

stick to the jokes Anthony

 

[Steve]

Remind me about policy on pigeon threads and posts on BF ?

 

[James Lowther]

I began this thread with what I felt was an interesting question I had borrowed from someone else. Just look how little time it took for this to be disrupted and attempts made to stifle any debate. Anyone interested can take a look and will find that I was not responsible for diverting the thread onto racing pigeons and raptors, that was done by those who frequently use this method of operation to either attempt to discredit pigeon racing (which they clearly do not understand), or even get the thread deleted.

Anthony,
it doesn't matter how many times you repeat this crap

NO-ONE IS BUYING IT!!!!!!

when a self confessed fancier, with a vested interest in controlling peregrine numbers, comes onto a wild bird forum, and starts a thread that ever-so-subtly (don't make me laugh) is designed to convince the more impressionable members that unless peregrine numbers are controlled other wild bird populations are in peril, despite

a) there being no evidence whatsoever that this is the case

b) the fancier having been instructed numerous times that there is no evidence

are we really expected to behave as if some old duffer is asking an innocent question????

you're unbelievable....

 

[James Lowther]

Remind me about policy on pigeon threads and posts on BF ?

lock it, lock it, lock it!!!

Anthony can retire gracefully, undefeated as he sees it, and he no doubt won't make any more attempts to spread his propaganda until another new generation of BFers is along in about a year's time...

 

[Collster]

That's clearly understood - you are giving us YOUR local picture as YOU see it, which is YOUR opinion. Surely there can't be any arguments about that!

Anthony[/QUOTE]
If that is the case in this instance, WHY cant you accept what im saying about my local picture. Is it because the situation here doesn't suit your agenda

 

[Jos Stratford]

Remind me about policy on pigeon threads and posts on BF ?

Erm, shouldn't be done. Agree, lock the thread, everything that needs to be said has been - any new readers will find plenty of arguments to make their mind up, even the casual reader.

 

[dubs1967]

pigeon corn

Keep eating the corn Anthony,but if you eat too much you will choke!The boy who went to ground?Isnt that a hunting term?What you have failed to realise is that i like pigeons! I was brought up on pigeon corn.so the stickers do exist after all!Any way, bored now so enjoy your wine. :clap:

 

[nirofo]

Hi Anthony

I'm still waiting for you to answer some of the questions put to you in post 472, have you had any thoughts on these yet, can't wait for your replies?

Incidentally, I have been a Schedule One Licence holder for about 38 years, I have reported many instances of crime against Raptors (including Peregrine) during this period. Very few of these Raptor persecution incidents have been successfully brought to prosecution, not because they didn't happen, but because the so-called protection agencies couldn't get off their backsides and provide watches at the various sites, or follow up on the reported incidents, (they just weren't high profile enough). As stated in a previous post, one particular Peregrine eyrie I've been aquainted with was done every year for thirteen years, (the only year it raised young to fledging was when we had a hide on it). This was reported to the appropriate wildlife protection bodies and the police year after year without any response! Then you wonder why there are so few convictions for wildlife persecution.

nirofo.

 

[Anthony Morton]

What the sticker does say, however, is that 'Hawks kill 250,000 songbirds every day'. Would you disagree with this figure, always remembering that it specifically refers to 'hawks' and makes no reference whatsoever to falcons? This well and truly puts the lie to 'dubs1967's' original comment that Peregrine Falcons, or any other falcon for that matter, are even mentioned.

As anyone who has studied basic raptor predation will know, the figure of 250,000 (a quarter of a million) songbirds killed per day is the total number attributable to Sparrowhawks alone.(Reference Ian Newton's book 'The Sparrowhawk' and extrapolated from the figures given in the 'Feeding Habits' paragraph. (How am I doing this time, AR?)

So then, Jos, how can you possibly state at a) above that the sticker shows the 'warped mentality of the folks there' (presumably you mean at the RPRA) when it clearly does no such thing? How can you possible even suggest at b) that the use of the peer-reviewed figure that 250,000 songbirds which are being killed every day by Sparrowhawks shows a lack of understanding of basic ecology? And finally, how can you further claim at c) that this in any way, shape, or form indicates the RPRA's overall view of raptors?

In fact, isn't this all assumption on your part?

Is this figure world wide?[/QUOTE]

You are joking, of course. The figure of 250,000 songbirds killed by Sparrowhawks every day covers the UK only.

 

[Anthony Morton]

Anthony -

a) You are surely not suggesting that the use of the figure 250,000 Killed, combined with the slogan Save Our Songbirds is merely a factual statement devoid of any intent?

That's EXACTLY what it was, a factual statement whose only intention was to inform the wider audience.

b) The use of the phrase Save Our Songbirds linked with the the fact that 250,000 songbirds are killed by hawks is clearly either a lack of understanding of basic ecology or equally worrying a deliberate attempt to mislead. Predation by native predators has in pretty much every serious study been shown to have no effect on breeding populations. i.e. There is no relationship between the amount of songbirds hawks eat and the survival of songbirds. Linking the two ideas is either deliberately misleading or merely showing ignorance beyond the norm.

Cut the waffle - if it's factual, how can it be designed to mislead? Do you wish to dispute the figure of 250,000 songbirds killed per day by Sparrowhawks in the UK, or not?

c) The RPRA clearly states it wants the right to control raptors in other sources (e.g. their web site).

What's the problem with that? As has already been stated by others who looked beneath the surface, this would require a change to the law. It is also a basic right in the UK for anyone to lobby for changes to the law. However, it does not follow that these changes will be approved just because of the lobby. In any case, those opposed to a proposed change in the law also have the right to voice their opinion. That's how democracy works - at least in the UK anyway!

Pigeon fanciers are simply asking for the right to defend their birds on their own property i.e. GARDEN. What's so wrong with that as a basic proposition? Basic ornithological intelligence should tell you that almost without exception this is only going to relate to the very occasional Sparrowhawkas, to my knowledge, there has NEVER been any suggestion that either Peregrine Falcons or any other raptor species should be included.

I realise that this certainly isn't going to fit the stereotype of a pigeon fancier which some members have whipped themselves into a frenzy over. You should also realise that fishery owners can already apply for a licence to remove cormorants if it can be shown they are causing problems. In Scotland the law has been changed to allow pigeon fanciers the right to similarly apply for a licence to remove a Sparrowhawk constantly targetting a loft on their property. There is no guarantee that any licence application will be granted. To the best of my knowledge, this has not led to a rash of licence applications, or a dramatic reduction in the population of Sparrowhawks in Scotland - and I'm sure it never will!

Moderation in all things, that's the key.

 

[Anthony Morton]

'Hawks eat over 250,000 songbirds daily'

If all the sparrowhawks and goshawks suddenly disappeared, then the 9.2 million birds a year they eat (from the 250,000 daily figure) would starve to death, which is a much more drawn out process than being snacked on.

250,000 x 365 = 9.2 million? Shouldn't the total be 91.25 million songbirds predated by hawks in a year?

That's the trouble, if you start with duff information you end up with a duff answer!

That's if sparrow- and goshawks do eat 3.1 birds a day.

Are you suggesting that Ian Newton got it wrong in his book 'The Sparrowhaek'? Surely not.

 

[Anthony Morton]

'Hawks eat over 250,000 songbirds daily'

That works out at 3.1 songbirds per hawk per day (40,100 sparrowhawk pairs, 300 goshawk pairs). According to the Hawk Conservancy, songbirds make up 90-98 % of sparrowhawk prey, so you can add roughly half a vole to that number.
Blue tits, 7 million birds, av winter population, double their numbers when the nestlings fledge to 14 million and are back to 7 million by the winter. So on blue tits alone, most the sparrowhawk population can survive without making a difference to the population of blue tits.
Of course, when you factor in chaffinches, greenfinches, great tits, house sparrows, etc, it's not that a big a deal.
Plus the sparrowhawks round here make a good meal out of wood pigeons (7.3 million birds, four young per year), which something needs to in order to keep the population stable.

I nearly missed this - must be getting old. More 'schoolboy howlers' of the mathematical kind I'm afraid.

You suggest the population of Sparrowhawks is 40,100 breeding pairs. Fair enough but haven't you forgotten that there will be a similar number (say 40,000) of unpaired adults and juveniles? This makes the TOTAL UK Sparrowhawk population around 120,000 individual birds.

Ian Newton suggests that the male Sparrowhawk consumes the equivalent of 2 sparrow-sized birds per day, and 3 for the larger female. Then if the number of each sex is roughly the same, the average requirement will be 2.5 sparrow-sized birds for each Sparrowhawk.

If 120,000 Sparrowhawks each predate the equivalent weight of 2.5 sparrow-sized songbirds per day, this equates to 300,000 per day. And 300,000 per day x 365 = 109,500 million sparrow-sized birds consumed in a year. As you say, according to the H&OT, songbirds make up between 90% - 98% of the Sparrowhawks' prey requirements.

Based on your figures, this shows that Sparrowhawks predate the equivalent in weight of 110 million songbirds per annum. Yes, 110 MILLION!

 

[Osprey_watcher]

I nearly missed this - must be getting old. More 'schoolboy howlers' of the mathematical kind I'm afraid.

You suggest the population of Sparrowhawks is 40,100 breeding pairs. Fair enough but haven't you forgotten that there will be a similar number (say 40,000) of unpaired adults and juveniles? This makes the TOTAL UK Sparrowhawk population around 120,000 individual birds.

Ian Newton suggests that the male Sparrowhawk consumes the equivalent of 2 sparrow-sized birds per day, and 3 for the larger female. Then if the number of each sex is roughly the same, the average requirement will be 2.5 sparrow-sized birds for each Sparrowhawk.

If 120,000 Sparrowhawks each predate the equivalent weight of 2.5 sparrow-sized songbirds per day, this equates to 300,000 per day. And 300,000 per day x 365 = 109,500 million sparrow-sized birds consumed in a year. As you say, according to the H&OT, songbirds make up between 90% - 98% of the Sparrowhawks' prey requirements.

Based on your figures, this shows that Sparrowhawks predate the equivalent in weight of 110 million songbirds per annum. Yes, 110 MILLION!

It's nature you moron!!
There is still a healthy population of songbirds in the UK. Nature has a way of balancing things out. If the alledged 250,000 per day was affecting the population of songbirds then sparrowhawks would go into decline because their food supply would be diminishing. And for the record I don't believe the figure quoted.
Incidently the RSPB figure for sparrowhawks is 34,500 pairs. Not breeding pairs, PAIRS.
So stop trying the scaremongering tactics to get the less educated worried.