"Oz" wrote in message
...
Tim Lamb writes

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

Remember the seriously improved hygiene AND TIDINESS is imposed on farms
by supermarket diktat. Obviously the less grain lying about the fewer
birds and the fewer small rodents.

This is something that wants pointing out firmly, and with any luck some of
the environmental organisations might have the courage to pick up on it. I
note that these organisations have eventually caught on to the idea of the
importance of grazing (The RSPB is very big on it) so I think there is hope
they will take on the supermarkets tidyness fetish

Jim Webster

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Tim Lamb writes

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

Remember the seriously improved hygiene AND TIDINESS is imposed on farms
by supermarket diktat. Obviously the less grain lying about the fewer
birds and the fewer small rodents.

This is something that wants pointing out firmly, and with any luck some of
the environmental organisations might have the courage to pick up on it. I
note that these organisations have eventually caught on to the idea of the
importance of grazing (The RSPB is very big on it) so I think there is hope
they will take on the supermarkets tidyness fetish

Jim Webster

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Jim Webster writes

This is something that wants pointing out firmly, and with any luck some of
the environmental organisations might have the courage to pick up on it. I
note that these organisations have eventually caught on to the idea of the
importance of grazing (The RSPB is very big on it) so I think there is hope
they will take on the supermarkets tidyness fetish

Its probably too late. I doubt it is possible to return to the more
casual days when grains were spilt casually and left for wildlife to
clear up. This inevitably encourages small rodents which are a complete
bete noir as far as all the regulatory authorities are concerned. The
prescribed sealing of buildings and feeders from bird access is to do
with various ec and uk laws (eg salmonella) and is unlikely to be
reversible. This latter change immediately and obviously reduced small
bird numbers and collared doves within a few months.

It is worth noting that these measures have been imposed to solve an
entirely imaginary problem. I know of no example of contaminated grains
and animal feeds that have ever resulted in human infection, certainly
in the last 50 years.

One should also point out that the work with badgers at night showing
them eating exposed animal feedstuffs and urinating on it now makes
farmers even more careful because of TB. Its a pity that badgers, until
recently looked on as rather nice wild animals to have on the farm, are
now regarded with suspicion since they may now very well be infected
with TB, whereas 10 years ago one could be confident that they were not.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Jim Webster writes

This is something that wants pointing out firmly, and with any luck some of
the environmental organisations might have the courage to pick up on it. I
note that these organisations have eventually caught on to the idea of the
importance of grazing (The RSPB is very big on it) so I think there is hope
they will take on the supermarkets tidyness fetish

Its probably too late. I doubt it is possible to return to the more
casual days when grains were spilt casually and left for wildlife to
clear up. This inevitably encourages small rodents which are a complete
bete noir as far as all the regulatory authorities are concerned. The
prescribed sealing of buildings and feeders from bird access is to do
with various ec and uk laws (eg salmonella) and is unlikely to be
reversible. This latter change immediately and obviously reduced small
bird numbers and collared doves within a few months.

It is worth noting that these measures have been imposed to solve an
entirely imaginary problem. I know of no example of contaminated grains
and animal feeds that have ever resulted in human infection, certainly
in the last 50 years.

One should also point out that the work with badgers at night showing
them eating exposed animal feedstuffs and urinating on it now makes
farmers even more careful because of TB. Its a pity that badgers, until
recently looked on as rather nice wild animals to have on the farm, are
now regarded with suspicion since they may now very well be infected
with TB, whereas 10 years ago one could be confident that they were not.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

"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?
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?
Another consideration may be that garden feeders may have increased,
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 have not noticed this myself, rather the opposite after more than 7 years.
T.

"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?
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?
Another consideration may be that garden feeders may have increased,
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 have not noticed this myself, rather the opposite after more than 7 years.
T.

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.

Thur writes

sparrowhawks (another post)
Predators may lower the population if they recover themselves from
population losses such as the agro-chemicals combined with
gamekeeper slaughter.

Apart from raptors, and then many years ago, I haven't heard of
gamekeepers shooting birds other than some corvids.

Shooting crows/pigeons was once the only shooting allowed to
farmworkers, which kept populations down 30 years ago.

Apart from DDT, banned in the early 1970's, do you have any evidence of
significant bird losses due pesticides?

Once established though, there should be a "natural" balance between
prey and predator numbers?

Yes, but this need not be, and often is not, a stable population as in
the same every year.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

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.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Thur writes

sparrowhawks (another post)
Predators may lower the population if they recover themselves from
population losses such as the agro-chemicals combined with
gamekeeper slaughter.

Apart from raptors, and then many years ago, I haven't heard of
gamekeepers shooting birds other than some corvids.

Shooting crows/pigeons was once the only shooting allowed to
farmworkers, which kept populations down 30 years ago.

Apart from DDT, banned in the early 1970's, do you have any evidence of
significant bird losses due pesticides?

Once established though, there should be a "natural" balance between
prey and predator numbers?

Yes, but this need not be, and often is not, a stable population as in
the same every year.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

I do hear that the Goshawk is now returning to some areas,
and I see with my own eyes Buzzards wheeling overhead
(and searching our nesting sites) which were once completely
absent from my area. (North Midlands)
I hear (tv) that these predators were reduced by one or both of
the problems mentioned.
Poisoning and egg stealing and capture still go on if we are
to believe the Courts, where the odd one or two of those found
are fined.
Your trust in gamekeepers is heartening, but to a cynic like me,
mistaken. Their job is to increase their crop of game by suppressing
natural predation which increases with the increased prey supply.
How else can they keep their jobs?
But the point is that as predator numbers have risen, populations
of their prey will have reduced to a balance. Whether this accounts
for the sudden drop in sparrows mentioned is another matter.
I should have quoted that part of the other post to which I had been
referring.
T.

Thur writes

sparrowhawks (another post)
Predators may lower the population if they recover themselves from
population losses such as the agro-chemicals combined with
gamekeeper slaughter.

Apart from raptors, and then many years ago, I haven't heard of
gamekeepers shooting birds other than some corvids.

Shooting crows/pigeons was once the only shooting allowed to
farmworkers, which kept populations down 30 years ago.

Apart from DDT, banned in the early 1970's, do you have any evidence of
significant bird losses due pesticides?

Once established though, there should be a "natural" balance between
prey and predator numbers?

Yes, but this need not be, and often is not, a stable population as in
the same every year.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Thur writes

I do hear that the Goshawk is now returning to some areas,
and I see with my own eyes Buzzards wheeling overhead
(and searching our nesting sites) which were once completely
absent from my area. (North Midlands)

We have had buzzards (SE england) since I came here in 1975.
They bred here from then on too. Note the date carefully.
Kites and spars (occasional others eg hobby) common.

I hear (tv) that these predators were reduced by one or both of
the problems mentioned.

Many raptors were shot by gamekeepers up until the 70's, and some later,
to this day in more isolated areas we are told.

Poisoning and egg stealing and capture still go on if we are
to believe the Courts, where the odd one or two of those found
are fined.

Except for rate birds, I doubt this is a major source of loss.

Your trust in gamekeepers is heartening, but to a cynic like me,
mistaken. Their job is to increase their crop of game by suppressing
natural predation which increases with the increased prey supply.
How else can they keep their jobs?

Hopefully a gamekeeper will tell you.
The main losses seem to be in rearing pens, which should be netted all
round.

But the point is that as predator numbers have risen, populations
of their prey will have reduced to a balance.

My personal opinion is that the larger english raptors were very badly
hit by myxi. As this has become ineffective (70's and particularly 80's
onwards) numbers have risen. Certainly the recent rabbit disease more-
or-less wiped rabbits out locally for a year (or two) and the raptors
more-or-less vanished.

Whether this accounts
for the sudden drop in sparrows mentioned is another matter.

I suspect less available food and Mr Spar.
He did our farmyard ones in in three years, they have never recovered
but the netting of feed stores and verminproofing of grain stores came
in not so far later, so this might explain why they never recovered.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

In article , Oz
writes
Tumbleweed writes

Thats another factor, cats, though I dont know if there are more than there
used to be.

Shouldn't think so.

And windows. There must be a lot more, and a lot larger windows
than say 50 years ago.

Yes, but the window owners feed birds much more than they used to.
The cat owners tend to as well. We do.

Townies are particularly effective, putting out the bird feed to attract
the birds for their cats.

Windows are responsible for huge numbers of bird
deaths every year.

Yes, but they very soon learn.

True. Once they have killed themselves on a window they never make the
same mistake again.



Regards

--
Charles Francis

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Thur writes

sparrowhawks (another post)
Predators may lower the population if they recover themselves from
population losses such as the agro-chemicals combined with
gamekeeper slaughter.

Apart from raptors, and then many years ago, I haven't heard of
gamekeepers shooting birds other than some corvids.

Shooting crows/pigeons was once the only shooting allowed to
farmworkers, which kept populations down 30 years ago.

Apart from DDT, banned in the early 1970's, do you have any evidence of
significant bird losses due pesticides?

Once established though, there should be a "natural" balance between
prey and predator numbers?

Yes, but this need not be, and often is not, a stable population as in
the same every year.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

I do hear that the Goshawk is now returning to some areas,
and I see with my own eyes Buzzards wheeling overhead
(and searching our nesting sites) which were once completely
absent from my area. (North Midlands)
I hear (tv) that these predators were reduced by one or both of
the problems mentioned.
Poisoning and egg stealing and capture still go on if we are
to believe the Courts, where the odd one or two of those found
are fined.
Your trust in gamekeepers is heartening, but to a cynic like me,
mistaken. Their job is to increase their crop of game by suppressing
natural predation which increases with the increased prey supply.
How else can they keep their jobs?
But the point is that as predator numbers have risen, populations
of their prey will have reduced to a balance. Whether this accounts
for the sudden drop in sparrows mentioned is another matter.
I should have quoted that part of the other post to which I had been
referring.
T.

Thur writes

I do hear that the Goshawk is now returning to some areas,
and I see with my own eyes Buzzards wheeling overhead
(and searching our nesting sites) which were once completely
absent from my area. (North Midlands)

We have had buzzards (SE england) since I came here in 1975.
They bred here from then on too. Note the date carefully.
Kites and spars (occasional others eg hobby) common.

I hear (tv) that these predators were reduced by one or both of
the problems mentioned.

Many raptors were shot by gamekeepers up until the 70's, and some later,
to this day in more isolated areas we are told.

Poisoning and egg stealing and capture still go on if we are
to believe the Courts, where the odd one or two of those found
are fined.

Except for rate birds, I doubt this is a major source of loss.

Your trust in gamekeepers is heartening, but to a cynic like me,
mistaken. Their job is to increase their crop of game by suppressing
natural predation which increases with the increased prey supply.
How else can they keep their jobs?

Hopefully a gamekeeper will tell you.
The main losses seem to be in rearing pens, which should be netted all
round.

But the point is that as predator numbers have risen, populations
of their prey will have reduced to a balance.

My personal opinion is that the larger english raptors were very badly
hit by myxi. As this has become ineffective (70's and particularly 80's
onwards) numbers have risen. Certainly the recent rabbit disease more-
or-less wiped rabbits out locally for a year (or two) and the raptors
more-or-less vanished.

Whether this accounts
for the sudden drop in sparrows mentioned is another matter.

I suspect less available food and Mr Spar.
He did our farmyard ones in in three years, they have never recovered
but the netting of feed stores and verminproofing of grain stores came
in not so far later, so this might explain why they never recovered.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.