Mark has raised a few interesting points. When CIMAG was set up in 2006,
there was much debate re “Indian” or “Common” in the title. Personally, I was a
stickler for the correct name (Common myna), but the strong consensus was that
“Indian myna” was much more widely understood by the community in general, that
it might help avoid confusion with “Noisy Miner” and particularly that it
would enable a pronounceable acronym. I believe that all the 40+ groups that
have been set up subsequently from western Victoria to far north Queensland have
used “Indian myna” in their names. Clearly, in papers and even brochures, we all
need to ensure that we point out the correct name early in the text.
The issue of human modifications to the environment leading to native
species becoming pests comes up all over the place, most
controversially here with kangaroos. It is also an issue with Noisy Miners
who thrive in environments where humans &/or their livestock have degraded
or fragmented the top storey or removed the understorey, excluding the small
insect eating birds. In the ACT we have to accept that as a community we
have established splendid nature reserves which are occupying land that
potentially could be sold for many hundred million dollars as real estate over
coming decades. It is unthinkable that we
would not then manage and protect that ‘investment’ and to preserve, as far as
possible, all their biodiversity. Fenner School work in the Riverina has clearly
shown that new plantings/restoration projects with mixed species attract the
little birds,not Noisies. Short of vilification of our ancestors or self
flagellation, I don’t see what we can do beyond learning from past
mistakes!
On another issue, a member of CIMAG committee recently visited Fiji where
in one exclusive resort, Common/Indian mynas were in such numbers and so
aggressive, that it was impossible to enjoy a meal in any of the (unenclosed)
restaurants without being invaded!
Bruce.
From:
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: [canberrabirds] Noisy Miners v Indian
Mynas
One
thing I should have added, please everyone get the introduced birds name
correct, it is the Common Myna (no H after the A). CIMAG
just wouldn’t sound the same if it was called CCMAG! Believe it or not, a
correct name can be important for all sorts of reasons, especially if in a
judicial sense as I saw when working at CSIRO. People often used the wrong name
in court cases, or it was spelt incorrectly, and generally the case was thrown
out because of it.
Mark
From: Geoffrey
Dabb [
Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 8:48
AM
To:
Subject: FW:
[canberrabirds] Noisy Miners v Indian Mynas
My
initial send was rejected under the 200kb rule. Surprising for such a
modest offering. Must be a lot of pixels in the old C of A. They
knew how to make ’em in those days
From: Geoffrey
Dabb
Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 8:15 AM
To:
; 'Rosemary Blemings'; ;
; ; ;
; ;
; ;
; ; ;
'Canberra Birds'
Subject: RE: [canberrabirds] Noisy Miners v Indian
Mynas
I
think the _expression_ ‘more bang for the buck’ was used , the suggestion being
that there is a limit to the resources that can be marshalled in such a
cause, and hence it is reasonable to set (or reset) priorities. The other
view, as Bruce indicates, is that it might not be possible to motivate community
based culling against a native species, which is, after all, as Australian
as the kangaroo. Perhaps. Would Van Helsing have chosen another target if
there were no vampires about? As with so many things (not to mention the
war), it is the simplicity of the case against the Common Myna that is its great
strength. The slightly greater complexity of the argument against the N
Miner is a reason that Miner Rage might be some distance off
yet.
From: [m("bigpond.net.au","blaags");">]
Sent: Sunday, 14 December 2014 10:50 PM
To: 'Rosemary
Blemings'; ; m("gmail.com","ghughf");">; m("grapevine.net.au","handke");">; m("iinet.net.au","iafuller");">; m("hotmail.com","janeandnick");">; m("gmail.com","margpeachey");">; m("hotmail.com","melissa.damico_92");">;
; m("yahoo.com.au","rgbarge_au");">; m("aapt.net.au","rosskd");">; m("hotmail.com","thea_reiman");">; 'Canberra
Birds'
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Noisy Miners v Indian
Mynas
I find the whole
argument of Noisy Miners vs Common (Indian) Mynas really quite pointless and
potentially confusing to a large proportion of the public who have difficulty in
distinguishing the species.
Yes, each pose their
threats to native species, but why link them or rank
them?
Studies have shown
that Noisies can have detrimental effects on native bushland by excluding
smaller insectivorous native birds, but as a native species, they require a
different approach than a community based culling program.
From my own
observations, there are parts of Mulligans Flat, Goorooyarroo and Campbell Park
Nature Reserves where flocks of Noisies are indirectly leading to degradation
(and death) of eucalypts.
Sent:
Sunday, December 14, 2014 7:28 PM
To: ; m("iinet.net.au","alisonrf");
href=""> ; m("bigpond.net.au","blaags");"> ; m("gmail.com","ghughf");"> ; m("grapevine.net.au","handke");"> ; m("iinet.net.au","iafuller");"> ; m("hotmail.com","janeandnick");"> ; m("gmail.com","margpeachey");"> ; m("hotmail.com","melissa.damico_92");"> ;
; m("yahoo.com.au","rgbarge_au");"> ; m("aapt.net.au","rosskd");">
;
Subject: RE:
[canberrabirds] Noisy Miners v Indian
Mynas
The
item was on ABC TV news tonight. If you missed it go to ABC I-view and
look for ABC ACT TV News.
Cheers
Bill
From:
Rosemary Blemings
Sent: Sunday, 14 December 2014 5:12 PM
To: Bill & Jenny
Handke
Subject: Fwd: [canberrabirds] Noisy Miners v Indian
Mynas
I expect Bruce will have picked up
on this but...here we go again....!
Rosemary
Date:
14
December 2014 4:36:30 PM AEDT
To:
"COG_Mailing_List
"
<>
Subject:
[canberrabirds] Noisy Miners v Indian Mynas
Not helpful to compare the two
when they're from different families and just happen to have similar
distinctive markings!
|
|
