Hi John,
The `humanity' of killing large numbers of other species probably can be
debated, but I won't go there. The main problem with culling, as I see it,
is that the population of the species will repleinish itself via annual
breeding so long as the food supply is there. Culling equates with
destroying large groups of animals year after year (potentially). Even if
the practice is supported ethically, it is not an efficient solution.
Whatever the Galahs are eating would be a better focus. Reduce that, and the
population will reduce itself naturally and disperse. I doubt that one man's
bird feeder is the sole food supply in the area. There would be species of
grasses and seeds in local ovals and backyards that would attract them also.
Off the cuff, a bit of council spraying could help.
And where are these parrot's- Corella, Galahs- natural predators? What
happened to them?
On Jan 31, 2008 10:38 PM, John Tongue <> wrote:
> Hi Natalia, et. al.I didn't see the ABC show in question, so can't claim
> to speak to the specifics of that case - I'm not sure whether the Corellas
> built up in numbers there because of habitat destruction nearby, or some
> other reason. What I was commenting upon was that, for whatever reason,
> they had built up in numbers there (presumably because of some form of human
> intervention), over and above what they would normally have been without
> that human intervention. Also, that if we are happy to countenance
> eradication of introduced species, then surely we should be ready to at
> least consider culling in some areas to reduce numbers back to what they
> might otherwise have been.
>
> If the problem in Mt Gambier is that playing fields, etc. provide an
> additional food supply, and attractive habitat to the birds, then I suspect
> supplying 'decoy food' elsewhere (aka. Carl Clifford's suggestion) is more
> likely simply to transfer the problem to another place (did people see the
> show on the Scrub Turkeys, where one gardener thought he'd plant twice as
> much - some for the birds, and some for him? The birds got the lot!).
>
> Here in Ulverstone, NW Tas. We are beginning to have a problem with
> Galahs. There have been small numbers of Galahs in various parts of
> Tasmania for many years (there is some debate about whether they were ever
> truly native to Tassie, self-introduced, or human assisted). However, here
> in Ulverstone, there is one noted resident who feeds these birds every day
> with a trail of commercial bird seed laid along the river park. Numbers in
> surrounding areas don't seem to have changed much - up or down - but here in
> town, we now have large (and growing) numbers. People have tried to
> convince him to stop feeding the birds, but he sees it as his right to
> continue. Other residents are beginning to complain about damage the
> increased numbers of Galahs do to their gardens, trees, and council and
> electricity supplier's infrastructure (not to mention the lights on our
> church bell tower). This man does not want to stop feeding the birds. To
> lay 'decoy feed' elsewhere will just repeat the problem. There may be
> other, "more humane" methods, but eventually, 'the authorities' may have to
> consider a humane cull to keep numbers in check.
>
> We also have growing numbers of Rainbow Lorikeets, which are definitely
> not native to Tasmania, but let's not get started on that topic.
>
> John Tongue
> Ulverstone, Tas.
>
> On 31/01/2008, at 3:32 PM, Natalia Atkins wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I am curious to know if the birds are really existing in plague
> proportions, or whether their natural food source has been so depleted that
> they are forced to congregate in urban areas to find food? I feel that the
> `congregation' of birds can create an illusion of a plague, when the problem
> may well be loss of habitat (and that actually sounds more plausible to me
> too).
>
> Birds go where food is.and breed proportionally. I think a more humane and
> effective approach to populaton control would be to control their food
> supply. Maybe the Corella's in question have lost a lot of natural habitat?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2008 3:22 PM, John Tongue <> wrote:
>
> > I also will 'stick my neck out' (like Greg) - and please don't get me
> > wrong, I am all for conservation, and protecting endangered species,
> > beach nesting sites, etc.
> >
> > HOWEVER
> >
> > It's interesting that many on this list are advocates of Myna
> > control, and eradicating Canada Geese before they get established,
> > etc. (both of which I support), but are not in favour of culling a
> > native population to reduce local numbers to more manageable levels.
> > Introduced pest species clearly do not belong in an area, and are
> > only there because of human intervention - hence many feeling little
> > compunction about control/eradication. However, as Peter Crow
> > rightly pointed on this thread yesterday, the only reason these
> > Corellas (and many other native species which achieve 'pest' status)
> > have done so is also because of human intervention. For the sake of
> > consistency (if nothing else), surely there can be a morally
> > defensible case mounted for population control, through humane
> > methods, to keep such 'pest' species at levels more akin to what they
> > would have been without the 'positive' human interference which led
> > to what is clearly sometimes a population explosion???
> >
> > I'll be interested to see whether I've stuck my neck out far enough
> > for someone to want to chop it off!
> >
> > John Tongue
> > Ulverstone, Tas.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
