On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:31:31 -0000, "Thur" wrote:


"Colonel Bloomer" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:55:03 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Colonel Bloomer" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:20:45 +0000 (UTC), "W K"
wrote:


"Colonel Bloomer" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:59:32 +0000 (UTC), "W K"

wrote:


"Colonel Bloomer" wrote in message
.. .
snips
I feel this is a bit more than the natural yoyo cycle of populations.

The cycle of populations.
When the sparrow population reached it's height, maybe there
was some vulnerability due directly to the closeness the birds
found themselves in.
Maybe some populations are in a "stable state" when they are
fluctuating?

Fluctuation is "normal" within a certain moderate range, even great
peaks and troughs now and again is normal.

sparrowhawks (another post)
Predators may lower the population if they recover themselves from
population losses such as the agro-chemicals combined with
gamekeeper slaughter.
Once established though, there should be a "natural" balance between
prey and predator numbers?

Indeed.

Another consideration may be that garden feeders may have increased,

For sure.

and this is thought to unnaturally bring birds together more closely than
they would do elsewhere. I heard someone say that many deaths from
disease actually reduce numbers eventually around a feeder.

I'd find that hard to believe. whilst we do often hear of many cases,
they are usually as a result of contaminated seed etc.

I have not noticed this myself, rather the opposite after more than 7 years.
T.

Having said that, how many birds around our feeders actually last
longer than a year?

It all shows we need some serious research undertaken, preferably
independent.

Quite why we're still twiddling our thumbs?...

Maybe we should start a new charity for the protection of "all" birds,
even the common ones.