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
.. .


Shame the RSPB are not inclined to spend some of our millions and do
some serious research into this decline

They do.

Really! where?

You may have seen, in this thread, mention of a "Kate" researching this.

She is having her research funded in part by the RSPB.
http://www.birdfood.co.uk/cj/project_hssparrow.htm

Not really an all guns blazing contribution is it, doubtful it even
reaches four figures in total. I'd have thought given the fact they
rake in £50million PA and spend £7million PA on advertising, they
could afford to at least show a real interest in finding out why the
situation is so serious and not only for sparrows.

Better to do it before it's too late I'd suggest.

The first place to start might be to look at where the populations are
stable or expanding, and then see what's missing in declining regions.

This should also have been carried out years ago, but I guess we're
only talking about sparrers!!

ned wrote:
Colonel Bloomer wrote:

snip

Maybe the buggers are getting fussy in their old age, maybe seeds
aint what they used to be?

Snip

Or.......I have usual 4 pairs of house sparrows and 2 pair of Hedgies,
400yds away a farm buildings that always had a number of pairs of
Housesparrows had none nest last year and there are very few small
birds this year why....................Mobile phone mast erected 2 yrs ago,
coincidence...............maybe, nothing else has changed
--
--
Regards

Brian H................

Walk the dogs to reply

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:57:44 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:

than say 50 years ago. Windows are responsible for huge numbers of bird
deaths every year. (that Bill Gates has a lot to be balmed for)

Ah - a typo.

Perhaps that should read "that Bill Gates has a lot to be embalmed for".


grin Good job I'd just put the cup down.

--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

"W K" wrote in message
...

"Oz" wrote in message
news
Tumbleweed writes
ISTR reading a few years ago that the number of sparrow hawks had risen
hugely since the 1940's, maybe to 50,000 or more, whereas 60 years ago
or
so
they were persecuted and very few and far between. If the difference
was
say, 40,000 sparrowhawks between then and now, and they each ate 1
sparrow a
day, that would be 14 million less sparrows a year. Plus, every day I
see
loads of magpies (probably 10 or 20), which I believe eat other birds
eggs.
When I was a kid I don't think I ever saw one. I would guess the number
of
magpies must have risen 10 fold in the last 30-40 years. That must
account
for a fair few sparrows (and similar) as well. Certainly there are lots
of
aphids and the like in my garden in the summer and I would have said
that
most gardeners nowadays used less chemicals than 30 years ago. You
certainly
cant have a rise in the number of predators and expect the prey to
remain
constant, after all isn't that the point of all this organic gardening
we
hear about, encouraging predators such as hoverfly and ladybirds into
gardens? If that works for them, I don't see why it wouldn't work for
sparrow hawks/ sparrows as well.

"I don't see" Glad to see such an admission of cluenessness


OK, so if you're so clued up, give us the benefit of your all-knowing
wisdom, or do you just do poor sarcasm?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

"D Russell" wrote in message
...

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
.. .
snip

If magpies eat the eggs and not the adults, what would you expect to
see?
Sparrows calling the police?
50,000 sparrow hawks is still quite rare, people are saying there is a
shortage of sparrows yet there are millions of them!

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

True there are still millions of sparrows, but there are only, something
like 50% of the millions there were a few years ago.

Ah sorry, I didnt mean to say that wasnt an issue, but just because there's
a decline doesnt mean there is a problem, as we know, the proportion of
predators has risen hugely in the past decades, maybe that is part at least
of the reason, rather than the usual immediate jumping to conclusions about
pesticides, global warming, etc. (and not to say they arent the cause
either, just lets not immediately jump to conclusions)


Part of the problem is the perception of there being so many left that we
have nothing to worry about, but it's the vast percentage decline which
has
people wondering what's going on. If this rate of decline were to continue
then they'd be none left at all in 5-10 years.

" In the space of one hundred and seventy six years the Lower Mississippi
has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of
a trifle over a mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who
is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oölitic Silurian Period,
just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi was upwards of
one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf
of Mexico like a fishing-pole. And by the same token any person can see that
seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be
only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo [Illinois] and New Orleans
will have joined their streets together and be plodding comfortably along
under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something
fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out
of such a trifling investment of fact"

[ mark Twain 1884 ]


--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

"martin" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:58:19 -0000, "D Russell"
wrote:


One thing I notice is not mentioned much is the vast numbers of small
birds
caught and killed on certain medeterranian islands, huge nets erected
during
migratory periods to harvest anything which flies.

There are fishermen who have done the same to fish and now see it as
an EU conspiracy that there are no fish left.

Great european state we
live in where this would be totally illegal in one country but is fine
next
door.

There are countries where half ****ed wonders dress up in antique
clothes to shoot grouse and pheasants specially bred to be shot.


....and the relevance of that to declines in native birds is....?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:57:44 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Oz" wrote in message
...
ned writes
Yes, contrary to popular belief, Nature is not the pretty, pretty
civilised environment that some think it is. It is a harsh, cruel
place to survive in. Everything has its place in the predatory chain
and anything that dies of old age is mighty fortunate.
Hunger will very quickly transform an opportunistic feeder to seek out
an easy meal.


Local spars work gardens and feeders in particular on a regular basis.
The villagers are torn between having such an elegant bird and having
fewer small birds (up to collared doves+). They seem to be far more
effective than cats, not surprising really as flying away is no escape.


snip
Thats another factor, cats, though I dont know if there are more than
there
used to be. And windows. There must be a lot more, and a lot larger
windows
than say 50 years ago. Windows are responsible for huge numbers of bird
deaths every year. (that Bill Gates has a lot to be balmed for)

Ah - a typo.

Perhaps that should read "that Bill Gates has a lot to be embalmed for".


LOL

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:42:15 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:58:19 -0000, "D Russell"
wrote:


One thing I notice is not mentioned much is the vast numbers of small
birds
caught and killed on certain medeterranian islands, huge nets erected
during
migratory periods to harvest anything which flies.

There are fishermen who have done the same to fish and now see it as
an EU conspiracy that there are no fish left.

Great european state we
live in where this would be totally illegal in one country but is fine
next
door.

There are countries where half ****ed wonders dress up in antique
clothes to shoot grouse and pheasants specially bred to be shot.


...and the relevance of that to declines in native birds is....?

both are totally irrelevant. Both actvities gave gone on for more than
a hundred years and can not explain the sudden decline of sparrows.

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:57:44 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Oz" wrote in message
...
ned writes
Yes, contrary to popular belief, Nature is not the pretty, pretty
civilised environment that some think it is. It is a harsh, cruel
place to survive in. Everything has its place in the predatory chain
and anything that dies of old age is mighty fortunate.
Hunger will very quickly transform an opportunistic feeder to seek out
an easy meal.


Local spars work gardens and feeders in particular on a regular basis.
The villagers are torn between having such an elegant bird and having
fewer small birds (up to collared doves+). They seem to be far more
effective than cats, not surprising really as flying away is no escape.


snip
Thats another factor, cats, though I dont know if there are more than
there
used to be. And windows. There must be a lot more, and a lot larger
windows
than say 50 years ago. Windows are responsible for huge numbers of bird
deaths every year. (that Bill Gates has a lot to be balmed for)

Ah - a typo.

Perhaps that should read "that Bill Gates has a lot to be embalmed for".


LOL

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:42:15 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:58:19 -0000, "D Russell"
wrote:


One thing I notice is not mentioned much is the vast numbers of small
birds
caught and killed on certain medeterranian islands, huge nets erected
during
migratory periods to harvest anything which flies.

There are fishermen who have done the same to fish and now see it as
an EU conspiracy that there are no fish left.

Great european state we
live in where this would be totally illegal in one country but is fine
next
door.

There are countries where half ****ed wonders dress up in antique
clothes to shoot grouse and pheasants specially bred to be shot.


...and the relevance of that to declines in native birds is....?

both are totally irrelevant. Both actvities gave gone on for more than
a hundred years and can not explain the sudden decline of sparrows.

In article , Bob Hobden
writes

? wrote in message
I have some news that I know you'll be interested in, Mike, about the
house
sparrow project. Kate rang me last night, she is now writing up her
conclusions.
The conclusion is, lack of aphids and invertebrates as the main cause of
the
house sparrow decline, lack of nestsites also.
Thanks for this Christina. I have discussed this with loads of friends
over the years, and all are agreed that there are far fewer flies of
many kinds than ~30 years ago. The next question is why ?
((SNIP))

Not so sure about that, the only place they are in abundance near here is by
our allotment site along the lane which is bordered by gardens for the old
peoples bungalows. Some of these people still put bread out every day for
the birds!
Everyone used to do that in the old days and it was the house sparrow that
got the main share.
Now everyone buys expensive seed for their garden birds, perhaps part of the
decline is because people have got too posh.

Chickens? Large flocks of sparrows used to share food put out for laying
hens. The salmonella scare, low priced supermarket eggs, less domestic
waste food, fear of fox predation and perhaps longer holidays all
contribute to fewer opportunities for birds long associated with human
habitation.

Improved hygiene requirements for the storage of food on farms both for
animal and human consumption has eliminated this food source.

The RSPB often refers to changes in farm practice as being responsible
for the decline in many birds associated with farmland/buildings. In the
case of sparrows this may be more due to *rationalisation* where many
small mixed farms have become bijou country dwellings with the land
going to bigger and more efficient neighbours. The buildings are still
there but the poultry, cattle and sheep have gone. The riding horses
that replace them are not fed ad lib and are too closely supervised for
opportunistic birds.

Magpies are unlikely to be involved due to the sparrows nesting
preference and sparrow hawks take many small birds other than sparrows.

I believe we are moving toward a revised population balance in many
species that formerly relied heavily on human carelessness for their
food and nest sites.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

The message
from martin contains these words:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:10:13 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:
The message
from martin contains these words:

Hang food under a CD.

Troll. Look how many crossposts.....

Apart from your post, the whole thread has fallen into my spamtrap anyway.

I didn't cross post.

Sheesh! of course you didn't - or you'd have fallen in too.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from martin contains these words:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:10:13 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:
The message
from martin contains these words:

Hang food under a CD.

Troll. Look how many crossposts.....

Apart from your post, the whole thread has fallen into my spamtrap anyway.

I didn't cross post.

Sheesh! of course you didn't - or you'd have fallen in too.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

"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
.. .


Shame the RSPB are not inclined to spend some of our millions and do
some serious research into this decline

They do.

Really! where?

You may have seen, in this thread, mention of a "Kate" researching this.

She is having her research funded in part by the RSPB.
http://www.birdfood.co.uk/cj/project_hssparrow.htm

Not really an all guns blazing contribution is it, doubtful it even
reaches four figures in total. I'd have thought given the fact they
rake in £50million PA and spend £7million PA on advertising, they
could afford to at least show a real interest in finding out why the
situation is so serious and not only for sparrows.

Just out of interest, why is it 'serious'? I see many birds now that I
never saw as a kid, including (perhaps not coincidentally) many species of
raptors and numerous magpies. If a part of the decline is due to that, and
another part due to us not having sparrows living in our house roofs, and a
further part due to farmers not feeding them by scattering grain all over
the fields when harvesting, then you could reasonably argue that the sparrow
pop of (say) 1900-1950 was artificially boosted over what it would be in an
environment with no human interference, since there would be far fewer
artificial (i.e. houses) nesting sites , much less food, and many more
predators, in such an environment. Maybe the 'natural' sparrow pop is
closer to what it is now, than it was 50 years ago?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

Better to do it before it's too late I'd suggest.

The first place to start might be to look at where the populations are
stable or expanding, and then see what's missing in declining regions.

This should also have been carried out years ago, but I guess we're
only talking about sparrers!!

Xref: kermit uk.business.agricultu166185 uk.rec.birdwatching:83866 uk.rec.gardening:192696

Tumbleweed wrote:
If a part of the decline is
due to that, and another part due to us not having sparrows living in
our house roofs, and a further part due to farmers not feeding them
by scattering grain all over the fields when harvesting, then you
could reasonably argue that the sparrow pop of (say) 1900-1950 was
artificially boosted over what it would be in an environment with no
human interference, since there would be far fewer artificial (i.e.
houses) nesting sites , much less food, and many more predators, in
such an environment. Maybe the 'natural' sparrow pop is closer to
what it is now, than it was 50 years ago?

Good point!

--
Michelle Fulton
Texas, USA
If you aren't living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.