| #1 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
In message <428df4d53112eefebef732e48018ba4f@free.teranews.co m>, Malcolm
<Malcolm@malcsplace.com> writes >There has never been a case of corvids killing a healthy animal on the >farm, despite your misrepresentation, the same act you use to justify >killing foxes by your hunt friends. > >Get real, Get real yourself. Magpies and carrion crows take ducklings, chicks and even goslings, quite apart from eggs, and decimate wildlife populations. And its not just one or two, they decimate populations. The modern world, with its road deaths, has created an explosion in the numbers of Corvids, but they don't stop at eating carcasses on the road. Regards -- Charles Francis |
| #2 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:PKfLPiXsi9A$EwV$@clef.demon.co.uk... > In message <428df4d53112eefebef732e48018ba4f@free.teranews.co m>, Malcolm > <Malcolm@malcsplace.com> writes > >There has never been a case of corvids killing a healthy animal on the > >farm, despite your misrepresentation, the same act you use to justify > >killing foxes by your hunt friends. > > > >Get real, > > > Get real yourself. Magpies and carrion crows take ducklings, chicks and > even goslings, quite apart from eggs, and decimate wildlife populations. > And its not just one or two, they decimate populations. The modern > world, with its road deaths, has created an explosion in the numbers of > Corvids, but they don't stop at eating carcasses on the road. And dumping of specified offal? |
| #3 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
Charles Francis <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> writes
>Get real yourself. Magpies and carrion crows take ducklings, chicks and even >goslings, quite apart from eggs, and decimate wildlife populations. And its not >just one or two, they decimate populations. The modern world, with its road >deaths, has created an explosion in the numbers of Corvids, but they don't stop >at eating carcasses on the road. Surely not. <sucks teeth> Aren't they vegetarian like all natural animals? <Wanders off whistling> -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
| #4 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
In article <PKfLPiXsi9A$EwV$@clef.demon.co.uk>, Charles Francis <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> writes >In message <428df4d53112eefebef732e48018ba4f@free.teranews.co m>, >Malcolm <Malcolm@malcsplace.com> writes >>There has never been a case of corvids killing a healthy animal on the >>farm, despite your misrepresentation, the same act you use to justify >>killing foxes by your hunt friends. >> >>Get real, > > >Get real yourself. Magpies and carrion crows take ducklings, chicks and >even goslings, quite apart from eggs, and decimate wildlife >populations. And its not just one or two, they decimate populations. For which last statement, I would ask you to produce some hard evidence. Hint: there isn't any and it is a subject that has been investigated in depth. A few anecdotes, mostly in letters to the Telegraph, but nothing more. > The modern world, with its road deaths, has created an explosion in >the numbers of Corvids, but they don't stop at eating carcasses on the >road. > Hmm. For a long time, numbers of crows and magpies were held down by widespread keepering. The decline in keepering has allowed numbers to increase. -- Malcolm |
| #5 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
"Malcolm" <MAO@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:TjwKkUhOgBB$EwdP@indaal.demon.co.uk... > > Hmm. For a long time, numbers of crows and magpies were held down by > widespread keepering. The decline in keepering has allowed numbers to > increase. certainly I suspect that there is some truth in this. Also I know that a lot more farmers used to control corvids because of lambing, now a lot of us no longer have sheep, and more cows calve inside, then people don't bother. Jim Webster > > -- > Malcolm |
| #6 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
In article <bFVMa.46740$xd5.2379101@stones.force9.net>, Jill <news@REMOVETHISkintaline.plus.com> writes > >"Malcolm" <MAO@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >news:TjwKkUhOgBB$EwdP@indaal.demon.co.uk... >> >> In article <PKfLPiXsi9A$EwV$@clef.demon.co.uk>, Charles Francis >> <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> writes >> >In message <428df4d53112eefebef732e48018ba4f@free.teranews.co m>, >> >Malcolm <Malcolm@malcsplace.com> writes >> >>There has never been a case of corvids killing a healthy animal on the >> >>farm, despite your misrepresentation, the same act you use to justify >> >>killing foxes by your hunt friends. >> >> >> >>Get real, >> > >> > >> >Get real yourself. Magpies and carrion crows take ducklings, chicks and >> >even goslings, quite apart from eggs, and decimate wildlife >> >populations. And its not just one or two, they decimate populations. >> >> For which last statement, I would ask you to produce some hard evidence. > >you really need to get into the real world A meaningless and, as it happens, highly inappropriate remark. >They will take whole clutches in the space of less than an hour >that is pretty good decimation in anyones book > Well, it isn't strictly speaking, as decimation actually means removing one in ten, but I'll assume you, and the previous poster, think it means something more drastic than that. >often however they take them over a period of days > So? Why is the period relevant? >the result is the same >nothing to go into the next generation > Nothing? What species are you talking about where Magpies leave "nothing" to go into the next generation? >> >> Hint: there isn't any and it is a subject that has been investigated in >> depth. >> A few anecdotes, mostly in letters to the Telegraph, but nothing more. > >You ask anyone who lives in the real world and they will not have anecdotes >but first hand experience >IE - they have seen it happen time and again > Sigh. Of *course* they have seen it happen time and again. No-one, least of all me, is doubting that Magpies take eggs and young of smaller birds. And, for your information, an anecdote is usually based on first hand experience. But just saying that people (whether in the real world or any other) see it happen is NOT evidence that it has any effect on the actual populations of those birds, let alone "decimates" them which was what was claimed, a claim you are supporting. Detailed investigations, not anecdotes or "seeing it happen", have failed to show any such effect. Which is why I asked for any *evidence* to the contrary. >> >> > The modern world, with its road deaths, has created an explosion in >> >the numbers of Corvids, but they don't stop at eating carcasses on the >> >road. >> > >> Hmm. For a long time, numbers of crows and magpies were held down by >> widespread keepering. The decline in keepering has allowed numbers to >> increase. >There are always a number of factors influencing any population > Absolutely right. The most sensible thing you've said :-) The Magpie is only *one* factor influencing the populations of birds which you claim they "decimate". -- Malcolm |
| #7 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
"Peter Ashby" <p.r.ashby@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message news  .r.ashby-277D80.14560203072003@dux.dundee.ac.uk...> In article <bFVMa.46740$xd5.2379101@stones.force9.net>, > "Jill" <news@REMOVETHISkintaline.plus.com> wrote: > > > > >Get real yourself. Magpies and carrion crows take ducklings, chicks and > > > >even goslings, quite apart from eggs, and decimate wildlife > > > >populations. And its not just one or two, they decimate populations. > > > > > > For which last statement, I would ask you to produce some hard evidence. > > > > you really need to get into the real world > > They will take whole clutches in the space of less than an hour > > that is pretty good decimation in anyones book > > My wife observed an adult swan taking a duckling the other week. Should > we then lobby the sovereign to allow us to punish these evil birds? I dont see swans hanging about in trees waiting for an oppurtune moment to take a chicken or duckling from the coup though. > People who claim that supposed increasing numbers of magpies underlies > the decrease in songbirds need to read up on their ecology. If all these > magpies are eating songbird eggs/chicks in such profusion then why are > there so many of them when their supposedly primary food source has > crashed? Exactly! Thats why they are pecking out the eyes of lambs . > > > |
| #8 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
"Peter Ashby" <p.r.ashby@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message news .r.ashby-277D80.14560203072003@dux.dundee.ac.uk...> In article <bFVMa.46740$xd5.2379101@stones.force9.net>, > "Jill" <news@REMOVETHISkintaline.plus.com> wrote: > > > > >Get real yourself. Magpies and carrion crows take ducklings, chicks and > > > >even goslings, quite apart from eggs, and decimate wildlife > > > >populations. And its not just one or two, they decimate populations. > > > > > > For which last statement, I would ask you to produce some hard evidence. > > > > you really need to get into the real world > > They will take whole clutches in the space of less than an hour > > that is pretty good decimation in anyones book > > My wife observed an adult swan taking a duckling the other week. Should > we then lobby the sovereign to allow us to punish these evil birds? > I have seen swans so intolerant of other water birds on 'their' patch that they have drowned and killed them (on one local mill pond, every water bird other than the swans was killed or driven off, for example), but I've not actually seen one eat a duckling. Is that - taking and eating - what your wife witnessed? |
| #9 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
"Jill" <news@REMOVETHISkintaline.plus.com> wrote in message news:bFVMa.46740$xd5.2379101@stones.force9.net... > > "Malcolm" <MAO@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:TjwKkUhOgBB$EwdP@indaal.demon.co.uk... > > > > In article <PKfLPiXsi9A$EwV$@clef.demon.co.uk>, Charles Francis > > <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> writes > > >In message <428df4d53112eefebef732e48018ba4f@free.teranews.co m>, > > >Malcolm <Malcolm@malcsplace.com> writes > > >>There has never been a case of corvids killing a healthy animal on the > > >>farm, despite your misrepresentation, the same act you use to justify > > >>killing foxes by your hunt friends. > > >> > > >>Get real, > > > > > > > > >Get real yourself. Magpies and carrion crows take ducklings, chicks and > > >even goslings, quite apart from eggs, and decimate wildlife > > >populations. And its not just one or two, they decimate populations. > > > > For which last statement, I would ask you to produce some hard evidence. > > you really need to get into the real world Silly. Very Silly. Note: there are two different Malcoms here. > They will take whole clutches in the space of less than an hour > that is pretty good decimation in anyones book No it isn't. Thats not decimation - it really means taking 1 in 10, which is probably true. > > Hint: there isn't any and it is a subject that has been investigated in > > depth. > > A few anecdotes, mostly in letters to the Telegraph, but nothing more. > > You ask anyone who lives in the real world and they will not have anecdotes > but first hand experience > IE - they have seen it happen time and again Malcom will be aware of the RSPB research that does state they can be a problem locally. Extrapolating what happens in one or two circumstances does not reflect a general problem. |
| #10 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
"Oz" <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:a2Apl7DOmFB$EwcN@btopenworld.com... > Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> writes > Remember that in many arable areas the farm staff, as a perk, were > allowed to shoot (only) corvids. > > And they did, very effectively. was there ever much shooting for pigeons? I know a lot of lads who were given free cartridges to shoot pigeons over peas Jim Webster |
| #11 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
"Peter Ashby" <p.r.ashby@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message news .r.ashby-277D80.14560203072003@dux.dundee.ac.uk...> In article <bFVMa.46740$xd5.2379101@stones.force9.net>, > "Jill" <news@REMOVETHISkintaline.plus.com> wrote: > > > > >Get real yourself. Magpies and carrion crows take ducklings, chicks and > > > >even goslings, quite apart from eggs, and decimate wildlife > > > >populations. And its not just one or two, they decimate populations. > > > > > > For which last statement, I would ask you to produce some hard evidence. > > > > you really need to get into the real world > > They will take whole clutches in the space of less than an hour > > that is pretty good decimation in anyones book > > My wife observed an adult swan taking a duckling the other week. Should > we then lobby the sovereign to allow us to punish these evil birds? a duckling is not the whole clutch nor is it repeatedly Malcolm claiimed that Magpies didnot kill live animals "to quote " There has never been a case of corvids killing a healthy animal on the >farm, end quote nor had any effect on the population of birds It is obvious from anyone who lives and works in the country that neither is true and has been seen repeatedly It is true that all nature is cruel to each other and that is part of its rich pattern > > People who claim that supposed increasing numbers of magpies underlies > the decrease in songbirds need to read up on their ecology. If all these > magpies are eating songbird eggs/chicks in such profusion then why are > there so many of them when their supposedly primary food source has > crashed? Fortunately for corvids eggs and chicks are not their only source of food which anyone who understood their ecology would know. They are opportunists of the highest order but are very effective killers. I don't see anyone here claiming that eggs and chicks are their promary food source I personally do not know about their effect on numbers of the populations in the past 50 years but I have seen the local effect of increased numbers and its not good > > Birds evolved in this place with magpies, and crows, and cuckoos. If > something has happened to bird populations it is very unlikely to be due > to an endogenous creature's activities, unless that creature is us. but we have affected the populations of the corivds for generations. and I cannot see your logic in saying that it is unlikely for an endogenous creature's activities to adversely affect another. It happens all the time in ecological web systems -- Jill Bowis http://www.poultryscotland.co.uk http://www.henhouses.co.uk http://www.domesticducks.co.uk http://www.poultry-books.co.uk http://www.kintaline.co.uk/cottage > > Peter > > -- > Peter Ashby > School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland > To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. > Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
| #12 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
In message <bFVMa.46740$xd5.2379101@stones.force9.net>, Jill
<news@REMOVETHISkintaline.plus.com> writes > >> >Get real yourself. Magpies and carrion crows take ducklings, chicks and >> >even goslings, quite apart from eggs, and decimate wildlife >> >populations. And its not just one or two, they decimate populations. >> >> For which last statement, I would ask you to produce some hard evidence. > >you really need to get into the real world >They will take whole clutches in the space of less than an hour >that is pretty good decimation in anyones book > >often however they take them over a period of days > >the result is the same >nothing to go into the next generation As Malcolm O asked can you offer evidence of this. As far as I am aware all the (not inconsiderable) research does not indicate that the increase in corvid populations does decimate wildlife. Before you reply I do not deny that Magpies take eggs and young but I have yet to see anything other than hearsay to support this. If you know better please give the reference for the research I would be interested to read it. > >> >> Hint: there isn't any and it is a subject that has been investigated in >> depth. >> A few anecdotes, mostly in letters to the Telegraph, but nothing more. > >You ask anyone who lives in the real world and they will not have anecdotes >but first hand experience First hand experience that is not backed by facts and figures is not of any use. By the way I do live in the real world I have been involved in countryside and country activities for more decades than I care to remember. So please stop stating real world and back your statement by a few references of properly carried out research which shows your point. If there isn't any I wonder why - surely not because it can't be proved to be the reason. >IE - they have seen it happen time and again See above. -- Malcolm Kane |
| #13 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
In message <be1etk$fb7$1@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>, jd
<jd@talk21.com> writes > >> People who claim that supposed increasing numbers of magpies underlies >> the decrease in songbirds need to read up on their ecology. If all these >> magpies are eating songbird eggs/chicks in such profusion then why are >> there so many of them when their supposedly primary food source has >> crashed? > >Exactly! Thats why they are pecking out the eyes of lambs . >> Would you care to explain why they were pecking the eyes out of stock when I was a child *WELL* before the present crash in populations. *IF* songbirds are their major food source they would not have been pecking eyes but it was common back then so I doubt it has anything to do with the population crash of birds in modern times. -- Malcolm Kane |
| #14 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
In message <be1oki$s74$1@hercules.btinternet.com>, W K
<hyagillot@tesco.net> writes > > >Silly. Very Silly. Note: there are two different Malcoms here. > At least 3 Malcolm O, myself and he of the many names presently calling himself malcolm@malcsplace -- Malcolm Kane |
| #15 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
In article <jML$B7BFxGB$EwIp@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> writes >Before you reply I do not deny that Magpies take eggs and young but I >have yet to see anything other than hearsay to support this. > >If you know better please give the reference for the research I would be >interested to read it. Can we take it that no research has been done because; a. lack of funds. b. anyone observing Magpie behaviour in the Spring knows they take eggs and young. c. confirming the above would not swell any charitable coffers. (snip) >First hand experience that is not backed by facts and figures is not of >any use. By the way I do live in the real world I have been involved in >countryside and country activities for more decades than I care to >remember. So please stop stating real world and back your statement by >a few references of properly carried out research which shows your >point. The point has to be that without interference from Magpies more *first attempt* nests would produce viable fledgelings. Whether sufficient food and suitable nest sites exist for them to survive and further propagate is a parallel issue. regards -- Tim Lamb |
| #16 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> writes
>was there ever much shooting for pigeons? I know a lot of lads who were >given free cartridges to shoot pigeons over peas Yes but more restricted, tending to be specific crops at specific times. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
| #17 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
"Tim Lamb" <tim@marford.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:cP2HtCAMCLB$Ew+c@marford.demon.co.uk... > In article <jML$B7BFxGB$EwIp@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm Kane > <malcolm@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> writes > >Before you reply I do not deny that Magpies take eggs and young but I > >have yet to see anything other than hearsay to support this. > > > >If you know better please give the reference for the research I would be > >interested to read it. > > Can we take it that no research has been done because; > > a. lack of funds. > > b. anyone observing Magpie behaviour in the Spring knows they take eggs > and young. > c. confirming the above would not swell any charitable coffers. The RSPB has done research, and the results are not popular. ie that they are not causing general problems. |
| #18 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
"Jill" <news@REMOVETHISkintaline.plus.com> wrote in message news:8h_Ma.46797$xd5.2383365@stones.force9.net... > nor had any effect on the population of birds > > It is obvious from anyone who lives and works in the country > that neither is true Oh god, that old chestnut. A few anecdotes and you're all experts. You seem not to realise there are two people given the name of "Malcom". Theres a very distinct difference, notably one having a one-finger salute in his sig. Its a laugh to say the other doesn't live in the countryside. > and has been seen repeatedly You are actually saying that by seeing chicks get eaten you are seeing an effect on the population? No, you aren't. You are seeing an effect on one individual from a population. If you saw 1000 chicks being eaten, thats not seeing whether that predation has an effect on the population - as in the number that make it to breed etc. |
| #19 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
In article <be3bct$k5n$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, W K
<hyagillot@tesco.net> writes >> b. anyone observing Magpie behaviour in the Spring knows they take eggs >> and young. >> c. confirming the above would not swell any charitable coffers. > >The RSPB has done research, and the results are not popular. >ie that they are not causing general problems. ISTR a BTO survey identified an area where high magpie numbers co- incided with a good population of songbirds. IMO this is not conclusive as, if nest robbing is *learned* behaviour, it may not occur where ample alternative food is available. Clearly simply linking increasing Magpie numbers with reducing songbirds gives an unscientific conclusion. regards > > -- Tim Lamb |
| #20 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
In article <be3bct$k5n$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
"W K" <hyagillot@tesco.net> wrote: > "Tim Lamb" <tim@marford.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:cP2HtCAMCLB$Ew+c@marford.demon.co.uk... > > In article <jML$B7BFxGB$EwIp@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm Kane > > <malcolm@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> writes > > >Before you reply I do not deny that Magpies take eggs and young but I > > >have yet to see anything other than hearsay to support this. > > > > > >If you know better please give the reference for the research I would be > > >interested to read it. > > > > Can we take it that no research has been done because; > > > > a. lack of funds. > > > > b. anyone observing Magpie behaviour in the Spring knows they take eggs > > and young. > > c. confirming the above would not swell any charitable coffers. > > The RSPB has done research, and the results are not popular. > ie that they are not causing general problems. That is the main point, not that corvids take songbirds but if that has any major effect on the songbird population. Sharks eat seals, yet we still have seals, lions eat antelope yet we still have antelope. Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
| #21 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
In article <tHbNa.32$HH.7673@news.dircon.co.uk>,
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote: > > I know some people who have been 'culling' magpies in their locality for a > few years, and they report a recovery of other songbirds. No scientific > survey, though. That doesn't mean the magpies were responsible for the initial reduction. As I wrote in another message, if the songbirds decline for another reason it is highly likely an adaptable animal will move in and exploit the resources the songbirds were. Once the magpies are in that niche they will prevent the recovery of the songbirds because of competition, but that does not mean they were the cause of the decline. Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
| #22 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
"Peter Ashby" <p.r.ashby@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message news .r.ashby-353453.11540904072003@dux.dundee.ac.uk...> In article <tHbNa.32$HH.7673@news.dircon.co.uk>, > "BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > I know some people who have been 'culling' magpies in their locality for a > > few years, and they report a recovery of other songbirds. No scientific > > survey, though. > > That doesn't mean the magpies were responsible for the initial > reduction. As I wrote in another message, if the songbirds decline for > another reason it is highly likely an adaptable animal will move in and > exploit the resources the songbirds were. Once the magpies are in that > niche they will prevent the recovery of the songbirds because of > competition, but that does not mean they were the cause of the decline. > You are using the wrong term. Competition for a niche means they are exploiting the same resource. Song birds are not predators. Magpies are predators. If the ratio of predator to prey increases, the number of prey decreases. That's definitely not rocket science. > Peter > > -- > Peter Ashby > School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland > To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. > Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
| #23 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
In article <be400g$bvi$1@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>, R&SB <bishop5@ix.netcom.com> writes > >"Peter Ashby" <p.r.ashby@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message >news .r.ashby-353453.11540904072003@dux.dundee.ac.uk...>> In article <tHbNa.32$HH.7673@news.dircon.co.uk>, >> "BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > >> > I know some people who have been 'culling' magpies in their locality for >a >> > few years, and they report a recovery of other songbirds. No scientific >> > survey, though. >> >> That doesn't mean the magpies were responsible for the initial >> reduction. As I wrote in another message, if the songbirds decline for >> another reason it is highly likely an adaptable animal will move in and >> exploit the resources the songbirds were. Once the magpies are in that >> niche they will prevent the recovery of the songbirds because of >> competition, but that does not mean they were the cause of the decline. >> > >You are using the wrong term. Competition for a niche means they >are exploiting the same resource. >Song birds are not predators. >Magpies are predators. >If the ratio of predator to prey increases, the number of prey decreases. >That's definitely not rocket science. > Oh dear :-( Your thesis that the numbers of predators control the numbers of prey would only be tenable in the case of a predator that only preys on one kind of prey. In such circumstances, the numbers of predators would regulate the numbers of prey, but, just as importantly, the numbers of prey would regulate the numbers of predators. However, as Magpies take a large variety of other foods, and songbird mortality has a large variety of other causes, your thesis cannot be applied to them. -- Malcolm |
| #24 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
"Peter Ashby" <p.r.ashby@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message news .r.ashby-A3EAC7.10244704072003@dux.dundee.ac.uk...> In article <EcYMa.21$HH.2139@news.dircon.co.uk>, > "BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote: > > > I have seen swans so intolerant of other water birds on 'their' patch that > > they have drowned and killed them (on one local mill pond, every water bird > > other than the swans was killed or driven off, for example), but I've not > > actually seen one eat a duckling. Is that - taking and eating - what your > > wife witnessed? > > Yes, it was in a large artifical pond on a University campus. She was > quite upset about it, saying her opinion of swans had been radically > revised. Her biologist husband of course simply shrugged, nature red in > tooth and claw and all that. Apparently the swan quite deliberately > isolated this one duckling while the mother was trying to shepherd them > all away, before eating it. My wife was further enraged that none of the > drakes nearby did anything. This was of course then turned into a > comment about men in general. > Thanks, one lives and learns, as they say. What did your wife expect a nearby drake to do - he'd be no match for a swan. |
| #25 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
"R&SB" <bishop5@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:be400g$bvi$1@slb9.atl.mindspring.net... > > "Peter Ashby" <p.r.ashby@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > news .r.ashby-353453.11540904072003@dux.dundee.ac.uk...> > In article <tHbNa.32$HH.7673@news.dircon.co.uk>, > > "BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > I know some people who have been 'culling' magpies in their locality for > a > > > few years, and they report a recovery of other songbirds. No scientific > > > survey, though. > > > > That doesn't mean the magpies were responsible for the initial > > reduction. As I wrote in another message, if the songbirds decline for > > another reason it is highly likely an adaptable animal will move in and > > exploit the resources the songbirds were. Once the magpies are in that > > niche they will prevent the recovery of the songbirds because of > > competition, but that does not mean they were the cause of the decline. > > > > You are using the wrong term. Competition for a niche means they > are exploiting the same resource. > Song birds are not predators. > Magpies are predators. > If the ratio of predator to prey increases, the number of prey decreases. > That's definitely not rocket science. > That's probably my fault, since I tend to term corvids as 'songbirds'. Not all 'songbirds' exploit the same food sources or have similar nesting requirements :-) |
| #26 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
In article <JigNa.4$rI2.1274@news.dircon.co.uk>,
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote: > > Thanks, one lives and learns, as they say. What did your wife expect a > nearby drake to do - he'd be no match for a swan. I expect she thought A) that a male should lay down his life for his children and B) the drakes could have mobbed the swan en mass. I wondered if it was likely that the father was even one of the drakes present. Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
| #27 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
"W K" <hyagillot@tesco.net> wrote in message news:be3cdr$m2q$1@sparta.btinternet.com... > You seem not to realise there are two people given the name of "Malcom". Three "Malcolms" post to this ng, though I think the one who signs himself "Fantrace" hasn't participated in this thread. |
| #28 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
"Bluetail" <bluetailACRIMONY@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:be4bs4$14ca6$1@ID-139095.news.dfncis.de... > > "W K" <hyagillot@tesco.net> wrote in message > news:be3cdr$m2q$1@sparta.btinternet.com... > > > You seem not to realise there are two people given the name of "Malcom". > > Three "Malcolms" post to this ng, though I think the one who signs himself > "Fantrace" hasn't participated in this thread. > (many groups up there you know, but yes, seen that one too) Only one of them has participated. |
| #29 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
In message <p.r.ashby-C1179B.10334604072003@dux.dundee.ac.uk>, Peter
Ashby <p.r.ashby@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> writes >In article <8h_Ma.46797$xd5.2383365@stones.force9.net>, > "Jill" <news@REMOVETHISkintaline.plus.com> wrote: > >> Fortunately for corvids eggs and chicks are not their only source of food >> which anyone who understood their ecology would know. They are opportunists >> of the highest order but are very effective killers. >> I don't see anyone here claiming that eggs and chicks are their promary food >> source > >No, but if the magpies are having a major effect it would have to be a >fairly major food source. eggs and chicks are a major food source, but naturally only for part of the year. Magpies in particular work their way along the hedgerows systematically looking for nests. A crow can eat half a dozen hen eggs in a day. The population of magpies and crows might well be less if there was less dead meat available on the roads for the rest of the year. Although others have suggested that these populations were controlled in the past, my own view is that food supply has more effect on populations for most species. >> I personally do not know about their effect on numbers of the populations in >> the past 50 years >> but I have seen the local effect of increased numbers and its not good > >yes but how do you know that the effect you see is not simply >correlative? For eg if something else is causing the decline in >songbirds then you would expect an opportunist animal to come in and >utilise the resources which are now spare. Because the resource this opportunist animal requires is dead carrion, eggs, and live chicks, not the same diet as its victims. > This is far more likely than >a suitable specialist animal being around. This would fit your >observations without the corvid population being causative. Has your >rodent population also increased btw? Rodent populations can be observed to increase dramatically and quickly when a farm allows them access to food. Regards -- Charles Francis |
| #30 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
Peter Ashby <p.r.ashby@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> writes
>That is the main point, not that corvids take songbirds but if that has >any major effect on the songbird population. Sharks eat seals, yet we >still have seals, lions eat antelope yet we still have antelope. What we seem to be seeing is *changes* in populations. Fewer starlings, more rooks. Fewer songbirds, more sparrowhawks. etc. Now generally man used to predate (well, slaughter really) the animals high up the foodchain and now he doesn't. It shouldn't be surprising that population densities readjust themselves to this new equilibrium. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
| #31 | |
|
|
Re: Magpie has rights too, judge rules
In article <C$F$3eBYXsB$EwvJ@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> writes >Peter Ashby <p.r.ashby@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> writes > >>That is the main point, not that corvids take songbirds but if that has >>any major effect on the songbird population. Sharks eat seals, yet we >>still have seals, lions eat antelope yet we still have antelope. > >What we seem to be seeing is *changes* in populations. > >Fewer starlings, more rooks. > >Fewer songbirds, more sparrowhawks. > >etc. > >Now generally man used to predate (well, slaughter really) the animals >high up the foodchain and now he doesn't. It shouldn't be surprising >that population densities readjust themselves to this new equilibrium. > No, indeed, but what some people all too readily assume is that an increased number of predators is the *only* reason for the decline in their prey, ignoring lots of important factors like habitat and food supply for the prey. The simplicity of the equation: More sparrowhawks/magpies = fewer songbirds fits with the simplicity of their minds :-( This is coupled with a marked reluctance to accept that matters could be rather more complicated than that. -- Malcolm |
