Hi,
bird status sometimes has to be looked at in a historical context. :)
For instance Starlings. I am fairly certain they are a recent widespread breeder in Britain. I think they only really colonised from the end of the 19th century. Prior to that they were winter visitors only I think. Starlings as a family tend to be irruptive so maybe this is cyclic.
Woo! That should cause some discussions!
:)
S
For advice about Birding, Identification,field guides, binoculars, scopes, tripods, etc - put 'Birding Tips' into the search box
If it was only starlings or another single species then the cyclical argument would possibly hold some weight depending on circumstances (if starlings were being highly persecuted for example then their isolated decline would have a very easy answer), however it isn't only starlings that are disappearing, there are a lot of different species (not only birds) suffering similar declines and so broadening out the picture. It supports the theory that something is causing the decline of a number of species and all the evidence points to human activity. I do agree that species go through cycles with populations rising and falling, however these are rarely as drastic as what is happening with a so many species in the UK. Starlings are a just a single piece in a bigger puzzle, put all the pieces together and it is apparent that there is a problem somewhere.
The data that is used to determine trends is generally over a longer time frame, it has to be. It isn't possible to make a judgement based on changes from one year to the next, even changes over 5 years. It takes a lot of data to determine what is happening in a population because of natural fluctuations from year to year and for some species that data stretches back to the 1800's so there is a lot of information on historic trends. The red-listed status takes into account various factors not only population trends in one area but across the continent or even worldwide, so a red status species may be common in the UK, but still have a red status due to its rarity elsewhere so it isn't a simple thing to determine what status a species has, a lot of infomation has to be gathered first.
Millie & Fly the Border Collies
Its certainly an interesting area for discussion!
In many cases we are blaming reductions in the numbers of certain species on changes in agricultural practice. But does that just have to be the traditional "awful modern farming practices" view. How about the radical - its a rebalancing of numbers artifically inflated by earlier farming practices which were just as "unnatural" as the modern ones!
To really stir the pot, if we are reintroducing species lost to human intervention during the last 50,000 years or whatever it is, then should we also reforest the whole country to pre-agrarian levels and watch that generate a massive shift in species representation?
Or bring back horses (& their dung) to the streets of our cities to improve the lot of urban sparrers! (& urban rose & rhubarb growers ;-)
Every action we take individually and as a society has any number of consequences - good & bad, expected and surprising. We can't stop that, we just have to do the best we can with it. Red listing is a part of that, flagging major changes going on. As interested and concerned individuals we should know its the story behind the headline that is most important - the headline is just to get our attention.
I'm surely not the only person who feels a but foolish if I go to a wildlife reserve and find that most of what I see is around the feeders. Maybe our expectations of population density for wildlife are sometimes too high, fuelled by our apparent conviction as a race that there is no limit to the density of human population.
Bit too deep for this time of night and my brain hurts now - time for bed.
Light the blue touch paper and retire .............
Its also worth noting that 99% of all speices to ever have lived on earth are now extinct, so are we fighting a losing battle anyway, I can see us ending up on that red list too.
There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed.
I also agree with Kat, I think it is too down to human activity the declining numbers of all kinds of species. The Loss of a species has always surely been due to major changes in the climate, and I think the major changes happening to our climate at the moment is surely down to us, the most destructive species to have ever lived, with our disregard for all living creatures, using chemicals in everything we do, from cleaning our teeth, to chucking bleach down the toilets spraying the land with poisons, and polluting the the air we breath, and all this goes back into the earth, surely effecting all kinds of species on this planet.
Sorry I keep adding posts but I'm having no end of trouble on the forum at the minute I had added this in my last post but keet losing what I have written because it keeps timing out, I forgot to add this again, so here it is,
Also our population is exploding at an amazing rate, surely this means less natural habitat for all species of animals out there, so we must be playing a huge part in the declining population.
As described earlier, these declines have been slow and gradual, rather than sudden. Most of the declining species are farmland birds. On the other hand, most woodland species such as the blue tit, nuthatch and great spotted woodpecker are still doing well due to available supplemented habitat in the form of gardens, parklands and estates. However, declines are now also evident in some woodland habitat also, with lesser spotted woodpecker and willow tit now red-listed because of their severe declines.
Extensive research as mentioned by KatTai has shown that these fluctuations are intrinsically linked to changes in agriculture or the way we manage the wider landscape.
It is important to note that the vast majority of the British/European landscape is indeed managed/altered by human hand (80%+ in the UK). The proliferation of such intensive “management” has only arisen within the past few centuries. Although agriculture has been around for thousands of years, it certainly has not been as widespread or as intensive as present day, due to supply/demand and the increasing global human population. Simple logic therefore indicates that the fine tuned (fluctuating) balance of the world’s ecology, which has evolved over millennia, is further thrown by human activity.
Extensive research shows that the main factors and changes in agriculture which are further driving species declines therefore include the following:
1. Increased efficiency has resulted in:- grubbing up of hedgerows to create larger fields,- ploughing up closer to the edge of the field to increase the planted area,- drainage to dry out damper areas and remove wet flushes from others, all to increase production.
2. Changes in cropping practices etc:- shift from spring to autumn sown cereals,- as soon as one crop is harvested, next one goes in - the land has no time to rest and lay fallow.
3. Specialisation of farms and regions to either arable or livestock production, resulting in loss of the habitat diversity that many birds need to survive.
4. Increase in the use of farm chemicals – fertilisers and pesticides.
5. Increased efficiency in grain and animal feed storage, and exclusion of wild birds from cattle feeding stations etc because of Government policy.
6. Changes in farm buildings to exclude birds, replacement of old buildings with modern ones.
To take a conservationist stance, it is vitally important to flag such changes in population demographics (i.e. traffic light system for conservation declines/increases) because it helps us bear witness to the impact WE as a species are at very least fuelling along. By monitoring and researching we can at least summarise the causes in population changes in a more objective rather than subjective manner and make informed decisions on how to best manage and counter the decline. I wonder why Peregrines have successfully moved to the green listed species and now have a stable (steadily fluctuating) population? hmmm
At present there are estimated to be as many as 8/9 million Starlings’ in the UK each summer. This sounds all very well in itself, but this figure represents a decline of –72% in 25 years.
Read the BTO/RSPB research findings of the population trends of Starlings trends here. I’ll let you make up your own minds as to whether or not this is natural or spurned on by humans!
Oh dearLloyd Scott think you need to look at your own RSPB website before starting farmer criticism some facts on there which absolutely contradict what you say are.
Woodland birds are in the steepest decline.
Farmers with help from RSPB actually increased numbers of Cirl Bunting quite dramatically.
Feel you ought to take a leaf out of Mark Avery book and try working with farmers to improve numbers instead of criticising,for instance new houses and other householders tearing hedges out to make parking spaces probably result in more hedgrows pulled out than farmers but did you mention that,of course not also farmers have in the recent past planted many hedges,did you mention that,of course not.
Do not kick farmers while you have a full belly from their cheap food.
Quite a cheap jibe at farmers and a negative response from presumably a RSPB employee who we had hoped were getting better informed but it is hard work.