Hey Peter,
I took those stats to mean the same as you did- that even when supplement
food is provided on an unlimited basis, studies showed that wild birds would
not take more than 10% of their food from human sources. Admittedly, apart
from reading similar assertions elsewhere, I only ever completely read one
study from beginning to end, by the professor at UQ who did the in depth
study of Brisbane Magpies. He also said mortality rate is 90% of Baby
magpies in Brisbane within the first 12 months, much higher than in
non-urban areas.
I thought the fat Kookaburra was cute:) Because they weren't able to
determine the cause of the obesity, I reckon its just as likely to have been
a genetic defect. But who knows, the answer is unknown and I am hapy to
leave it that.
Cheers!
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Peter Shute <> wrote:
> Belinda, I took the line I quoted from the BOCA policy to mean that
> there's little evidence for any birds developing a dependency, rather than
> meaning that there's evidence that only a few birds do. I didn't intend the
> story to be used as proof of anything, although I do appear to have worded
> it exactly that way. I was just thinking more along the lines of "check this
> fat little kooka out". I do doubt though, that any bird can possibly get
> that fat without human help.
>
> What do your percentages mean? That 10% of birds in Qld have a feeding
> dependency, or that all birds in Qld have a 10% dependency? I assume it's
> only for urban birds, but either way, it's higher than I expected.
>
> Peter Shute
>
>
===============================
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:
===============================
|
