Leila Swift Apricot wrote: » I really can't believe what I have been reading here for the past couple of days. Some people still believe magpies are evil birds wiping out songbirds. They do not. It has been studied over and over and stated over and over but still the falacy persists..
Gucky wrote: » Is it time for a cull on these birds? I don't know about the rest of the country, but in the Naas/Kill area were pretty much overrun with them. They may have their place in the Eco system, but I feel their are just too many about, raiding rubbish tips, bins etc. They also have been raiding small birds (especially song birds) nests and killing young chicks in our area. I don't know about you lot, but I'd much prefer to wake up to a blackbird or song thrush singing than a crow squawk any day! Has the time come for a cull?
jwshooter wrote: » i had 3 magpies in my larson trap yesterday ,all adult birds .it is so easy for any one to keep a larson trap . like i have been saying on another thread management is the key ,no one wants to see them wiped out ,there has to be a balance .
Judgement Day wrote: » I find it difficult to believe that your area, or indeed any part of Ireland, is overrun by Ravens - whatever about Magpies. Rooks are in decline in many parts of the British Isles although here in the Sunny South East they seem to be doing quite well due to their adaption to street scavenging - fast food waste/bin sacks etc. I wouldn't be rushing to cull anything except perhaps those people who throw their rubbish about which helps support scavenging birds.
Gucky wrote: » Where can I get a trap ?
Leila Swift Apricot wrote: » There is no way any area of Ireland is over-run with Ravens. And, no offence , but it's this lack of knowledge that taints discussion on wildlife. Now, as to the bigger issue of culling Magpies and Rooks. The only place their numbers are any higher than what the natural balance dictates is around areas where we have thrown our waste for them to feed on it. BryanL if you quoted the entire text of the RSPB Report on The Predation of Wild Birds in the UK you would have added "One of the most powerful, UK-wide studies involved analyses of songbird population changes recordedover 30 years on nearly 300 lowland farmland and woodland sites (Thomson et al. 1998). From the early 1960s until 2000, the BTO organised the Common Birds Census (CBC) in which volunteer birdwatchers conducted surveys of bird populations on these sites. Because the CBC recorded avian predators as well as songbirds, it was possible to test whether the presence or absence of sparrowhawks and magpies influenced changes in songbird numbers at those sites. If these predators were affecting songbird populations, we might expect songbird numbers to fall (or increase less) when predators were present and vice versa. The study considered 23 songbird species that fall prey to sparrowhawks, or whose eggs or chicks are taken by magpies. In only two out of the 46 comparisons made (23 songbird species, two predators) did a songbird species decline more when a predator was present than when absent. This number is fewer than expected by chance alone (Figure 12). Thus, it is very unlikely that sparrowhawks or magpies could have caused these songbird population declines (Thomson et al. 1998)." Study after study of the long term affects of predation has shown that Magpies do not influence the Population Trend of Song Birds. The real confusion I find here is among those who want to control Magpies not to protect Songbirds but so they can go and hunt gamebirds. So we decide on an acceptable population density for certain birds! Based on what? How last season went? The available Pheasants? A census of songbird numbers nationally over 10 years? What? A whim? There are 2 very clear issues here. Do Magpies affect songbird number? Yes they do but no more so than any natural predator. No more than your Blue Tits affect Butterfly numbers. No more than Squirrels take chicks. It's part of the natural cycle and birth rates reflect it. Food supplys depend on it. Then should we cull Corvids because we don't want them around the rubbish dump or them taking young game? Only if you want to give up the pretense that you understand or respect Nature. Protect an alien species at the expense of a native one - that makes sense. Save birds so we can shoot them for sport. Fine, nothing wrong with that. Provided you cut the nonsense of claiming to be culling in the interests of the environment. Do we cull Gulls that have landfill sites or fishing quays "over-run"? Where do we stop? Sorry I'm ranting but these are such mis-understood issues.
jwshooter wrote: » the facts are we ,well some of are top of the food chain , where there is a imbalance we step in and sort it out . grey squirrels are culled in a lot of areas again by people in the no . reds are in decline and protected there not a problem . yes we do cull gulls , red grouse ,grey partridges have been one of the biggest losers as there nests are on the ground and easily found by watch full corvids .
jwshooter wrote: » yes we do cull gulls .
Leila Swift Apricot wrote: » How many Times???? Magpie numbers are showing the same trend as Songbirds. The research proves it. We are certainly not all agreed on the numbers based on your observations alone. Show the figures on a population trend basis not just that there are lots were you live. Again, I object to references to Magpies as vermin on a Nature & Bird Watching Forum. I never denied that Magpies eat eggs and chicks. So do Red Squirrels. Blue Tits eat the young of Butterflies. I don't deny any of this. What I do deny is that they have a detrimental affect on the population or survival rate of songbirds. Do you know why a single Blue Tit pair would fledge 7 or 9 chicks every Summer? Yes you do. And imagine if these birds all were protected from predators. Are Sparrowhawks more entitled to take birds than Magpies? Don't twist the argument. Yes, Magpies take eggs etc. No, they are not responsible for songbirds population declines. The bit I don't understand, as you have asked, is the fiction and twisting of facts to achieve your desired results. I have no hidden motives or vested interest here, other than to ensure that those reading this thread are presented with the facts about our wildlife. I don't like seeing Magpies raid nests. I've even been known to shoo them from my bird table but I will not accept anybody demonising any species that has it's place in our eco-system in Ireland. Our diversity is limited enough without reducing it any further.
Leila Swift Apricot wrote: » BryanL if you quoted the entire text of the RSPB Report on The Predation of Wild Birds in the UK you would have added "One of the most powerful, UK-wide studies involved analyses of songbird population changes recordedover 30 years on nearly 300 lowland farmland and woodland sites (Thomson et al. 1998). From the early 1960s until 2000, the BTO organised the Common Birds Census (CBC) in which volunteer birdwatchers conducted surveys of bird populations on these sites. Because the CBC recorded avian predators as well as songbirds, it was possible to test whether the presence or absence of sparrowhawks and magpies influenced changes in songbird numbers at those sites. If these predators were affecting songbird populations, we might expect songbird numbers to fall (or increase less) when predators were present and vice versa. The study considered 23 songbird species that fall prey to sparrowhawks, or whose eggs or chicks are taken by magpies. In only two out of the 46 comparisons made (23 songbird species, two predators) did a songbird species decline more when a predator was present than when absent. This number is fewer than expected by chance alone (Figure 12). Thus, it is very unlikely that sparrowhawks or magpies could have caused these songbird population declines (Thomson et al. 1998)." The real confusion I find here is among those who want to control Magpies not to protect Songbirds but so they can go and hunt gamebirds.
BryanL wrote: » the prey populations concerned had been limited by predation, and once predators were removed, prey populations rose.[/B] "
Angus Og wrote: » Sorry, I was just answering the 'open their eyes and look around them' thing. I'll leave you experts to discuss.
BryanL wrote: » I didn't quote the entire study as it runs to 53 pages, your only quoting one study.But a review of All Relevant studies"
Leila Swift Apricot wrote: » Of course I only quoted one study as it was the RSPB document that was referenced. I don't deny that removing predators has been shown to increase breeding success. Predators. Not just Magpies, by the way. Also breeding success, it has been shown, does not lead to an increased long term population due to other factors such as habitat loss, ability of habitat to sustain a population etc. Let's not use survey result in isolation to deflect from the subject in hand. SParrowhawks have been priven to have long term affects on populations but we don't hear calls to cull them, thank goodness. Perspective is important and a wider view of the natural environment.
