Nature in the News

recedite

Mr Dumbacher likened the newly discovered mammal to a small antelope in its physique and sleeping habits....

though probably not the same one Yeats was thinking of when he wrote that poem

Two girls in silk kimonos, both beautiful, one a gazelle...

splish

Natterjack makes a comeback in Ireland
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/natterjack-makes-a-comeback-in-ireland-1.1849555

whyulittle

Three pairs of Golden Eagles bred in Donegal this year

The Glenveagh Golden Eagle Pair incubated their eggs for four weeks before abandoning their nest due to 36 hours of very heavy rain in mid April.

Our other experienced pair have a single male chick, which was ringed last week - see abseiling photo and chick photo below. Thanks to the Gartan Outdoor Centre for setting up the rigging for my abseil and to Johnny for all his support.

A new inexperienced pair bred for the first time this year. They sat the full incubation period but they failed to hatch.

However, it was fantastic to know that the young female was an Irish wild bred chick - reared by reintroduced birds in Glenveagh in 2010. This is the first time an Irish bred eagle has bred here since our projects began.

The nest itself was by far the biggest nest we have seen since 2005, when the eagles started nesting again. Unfortunately, the position of the nest was quite exposed, maybe due to inexperience.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=733125710078678&id=144404808950774

snowstreams

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fianna-fail-senator-dublin-seagulls-have-lost-the-run-of-themselves-completely-and-must-be-stopped-30439338.html

Thought this was funny but typical of what comes out of some politicians.

Bonedigger

snowstreams wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fianna-fail-senator-dublin-seagulls-have-lost-the-run-of-themselves-completely-and-must-be-stopped-30439338.html

Thought this was funny but typical of what comes out of some politicians.

As scavengers and opportunists they're attracted to the city by the filth that's thrown around by humans.Maybe he needs to address the filth problem first before persecuting the birds!

tricky D

If you live in an area with plenty of gulls, you'll realise it's not funny at all with the incessant noise at almost all hours and aerial attacks.

And Bonedigger is right, they're mainly around to scavenge our filth.

recedite

If they are attacted to filth, that must be why the FF politician is plagued with them. WTF is a Dump Gull anyway? Is this some kind of vagrant species?

magicbastarder

fish kill in the tolka:
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/07/22/the-river-tolka-foaming-with-much-sud/

whyulittle

Black Arches moth recorded in Ireland for first time since 1914.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=677883088957778&set=a.136180433128049.37071.136168046462621&type=1&permPage=1

Vivisectus

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/deer-call-over-protected-forests-30453886.html

Half-cocked

magicbastarder wrote: »

fish kill in the tolka:
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/07/22/the-river-tolka-foaming-with-much-sud/

I remember the last fish kill in the Tolka about 10 years ago, an illegal dump had leaked into the river. This one looks even worse:mad:

Looks like the cause has been ID'd: http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0723/632602-fish-kill-tolka-river/

Vivisectus

Damn - I hope they stick a massive fine on those jerks.

magicbastarder

Vivisectus wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/deer-call-over-protected-forests-30453886.html

i know there was a project run out of trinity to study the effect of excluding deer, but it seems to have been a different one, as the article above mentions seven exclosures, but the one i was aware of had about 24; and i think it came to the opposite conclusion, but i don't have a link handy to confirm whether this was the case.

recedite

As a basic principle, if you were mass planting broadleaf seedlings on clear-felled ground, it would be better to exclude deer until the growing tips were well out of their reach.
If planting only a few in an established forest, individual guards on the trees would be better.
They are saying that its good to have deer browsing the undergrowth under biggish trees.

Birdnuts

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/bee-eater-nesting-723.html

Twould be terrific if these birds got a foothold on these islands.

Vivisectus

Shouldn't we exterminate them for not being native? :P

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Vivisectus wrote: »

Shouldn't we exterminate them for not being native? :P

There is a huge difference between a species naturally expanding it's range, or altering it's range due to environmental conditions, and the accidental or deliberate introduction of an alien species.

Vivisectus

Moses Faithful Slime wrote: »

There is a huge difference between a species naturally expanding it's range, or altering it's range due to environmental conditions, and the accidental or deliberate introduction of an alien species.

Apart from the fact that the animal gets there on it's own steam, I do not see a whole lot of difference. Ultimately it seems to boil down to whether or not we like the change.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Vivisectus wrote: »

Apart from the fact that the animal gets there on it's own steam, I do not see a whole lot of difference. Ultimately it seems to boil down to whether or not we like the change.

There's a huge debate on that which would drag us off topic, but suffice to say you are wrong in your assertion that it's down to how we respond to the change. Most of our native wildlife found their own way here - birds being the obvious example - would you eradicate them? Natural colonisation is accepted but not introductions for a very good reason.

recedite

Suffice it to say that there are animals considered native but introduced, such as rabbits. Native but exterminated, such as wolves. Even birds can be introduced and then naturalise.
We often make some effort to protect or exterminate such species, as it suits at the time.

Birdnuts

recedite wrote: »

Suffice it to say that there are animals considered native but introduced, such as rabbits. Native but exterminated, such as wolves. Even birds can be introduced and then naturalise.
We often make some effort to protect or exterminate such species, as it suits at the time.

"Naturalized" does not mean "native" - a species can only be classed as native if it arrives under its own steam without any human assistance. Obviously some introductions are less damaging than others but it still doesn't make the likes of rabbits, parrots etc. native to these islands

cameramonkey

Birdnuts wrote: »

"Naturalized" does not mean "native" - a species can only be classed as native if it arrives under its own steam without any human assistance. Obviously some introductions are less damaging than others but it still doesn't make the likes of rabbits, parrots etc. native to these islands

Magpies made their way to Ireland under their own steam but few would consider them native, even though they have been here for hundreds of years.

Capercaille

cameramonkey wrote: »

Magpies made their way to Ireland under their own steam but few would consider them native, even though they have been here for hundreds of years.

They are native and most people would consider them as such.

Capercaille

recedite wrote: »

Suffice it to say that there are animals considered native but introduced, such as rabbits. Native but exterminated, such as wolves. Even birds can be introduced and then naturalise.
We often make some effort to protect or exterminate such species, as it suits at the time.

There is talk in the UK about eradicating the rose necked parakeets.

Vivisectus

Moses Faithful Slime wrote: »

There's a huge debate on that which would drag us off topic, but suffice to say you are wrong in your assertion that it's down to how we respond to the change. Most of our native wildlife found their own way here - birds being the obvious example - would you eradicate them? Natural colonisation is accepted but not introductions for a very good reason.

The way we differentiate between what we consider introduction and what we consider colonization is more or less arbitrary, however. Nor do we really use the introduction part as the criterium. No-one minds eagles being unnaturally re-introduced, for instance: we have decided that they are "native" or that their extinction was "unnatural". We see them as a valued addition to the natural systems that we introduce them to.

However, when it comes to wild boar, which share with eagles the distinction of once having been part of the irish eco-system and which in all probability were wiped out by us humans, then we decide that they are invasive because they change certain biological systems, and because their re-introduction was either accidental or purposeful but not done with our general approval.

The only difference between these two examples seems to be that we like the eagles and like the changes they bring to our eco-system, but that we do not like the changes wild boar bring with them.

Another example are the new, bigger shrews which seem to be colonizing Ireland. We did not plan it and we worry about the changes it will bring, and if they will out-compete other species, even possibly driving them into extinction.

But we don't know what bee-eaters will do either - what if they thrive and put more pressure on the already suffering honey-bee?

In the end, we simply like bee eaters, and we have a tendency to consider things that happen without human intervention as somehow better because it is "natural" - a rather arcane term, the way we tend to use it.

We could also make the point that there is a very low likelihood of them reaching the kind of population densities that would seriously impact other wildlife.

But we should not pretend that the fact that we choose not to counteract the appearance of certain species while we do stop other species has anything at all to do with some arcane quality called "naturalness" or "nativeness".

recedite

Capercaille wrote: »

There is talk in the UK about eradicating the rose necked parakeets.

"Talk" yes. That is exactly the point. On the one hand, they attack fruit crops, but on the other hand many people in built-up areas like to see them around. So the jury is still out for them. Ultimately it seems to boil down to whether or not we like the change.

Capercaille

recedite wrote: »

"Talk" yes. That is exactly the point. On the one hand, they attack fruit crops, but on the other hand many people in built-up areas like to see them around. So the jury is still out for them. Ultimately it seems to boil down to whether or not we like the change.

If they are judged to have a negative impact on native wildlife, they should be removed. Whether people like them or not is irrelevant.

Vivisectus

then we better kill off the bee-eaters. They could very well put extra pressure on the native bees. Besides, if it wasn't for human-created unnatural climate change they may not have gotten here, so it sort of counts as an introduction.

Capercaille

Vivisectus wrote: »

then we better kill off the bee-eaters. They could very well put extra pressure on the native bees.

Are (European) Bee eaters responsible for any decline in bees in Europe? no there not.

Besides, if it wasn't for human-created unnatural climate change they may not have gotten here, so it sort of counts as an introduction.

There are no Bee-eaters breeding in Ireland, the few vagrant we get are over-shoot migrants.

Vivisectus

Are (European) Bee eaters responsible for any decline in bees in Europe? no there not.

Ah, but that is because they are native there no doubt. We have no data on what happens when they are introduced.