grrrr!!!....packham the rspb and ring neck parakeets

[Graham Barker]

grrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!

what in this small world is going on....

years ago the rspb had the chance to do something about the parakeet problem in the uk but failed miserably year on year by doing nothing and ignoring the issue.....instead they picked on ruddy ducks supposedly flying to spain to mate with white tailed ducks....without any evidence they supported culling...this is the point where i left the rspb and refuse to be a member any more....full stop....

now on the tv, the one show, that stupid bloke, cant remember his name, some kind of naturalist reporter says they should be left alone, this is supported by guess who....the rspb...'lets see what happens'...what the hell do they mean...i will tell you now....instead of the reported 6,000 birds of a few years ago, when they could have been controlled, we now have a reported 30, 000 birds...and what does this mean, with british birds reported all over as being in trouble, by who, the rspb, we, apparently, are willing to allow the situation of native species displacement to continue to happen....we already know what will happen in 5, 10 or 50 years time, they will spread, displacing biritsh hole-nesting birds as they go, the rspb will report a decline in these native species...and continue to walk round with their heads in the sand over a problem that is right under their noses while they meander around the world telling everyone how to manage their own native species...grrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!

and now, to top the lot, we have chris 'two faced' packham telling us on the one hand that we should simply allow the rare species of the world, panda, rhino, tiger, to simply die out...caused by man....so where is his support for current native birds of reasonable or good numbers in the uk when i t comes to hole nesting birds....nowhere, thats where, simply allow them to become rare by allowing a non-native species to take over, supporting the rspb stand point of pointlessly killing ruddy ducks (they now inhabit just aobut every european country and north africa, no evidence has been found of any british ruddy duck flying to spain)...and then simply apply the packham thinking, let them die out, its pointless....

is there no top ornithologist who is willing to speak up and tell a few home truths here...

this is one subject that so enrages me about birders and birding...the complete stupidness of it all and the supposed good work of people like packham, the rspb (whats their motto...for birds, for life...well, if you're a hole nesting bird it sure aint for life...)

just grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!! aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!!!!!

graham

[TeresaW]

It'll be interesting to know where the BTO stands on the same issues.

[Jennie]

Originally Posted by Graham Barker

....and now, to top the lot, we have chris 'two faced' packham telling us on the one hand that we should simply allow the rare species of the world, panda, rhino, tiger, to simply die out...caused by man....so where is his support for current native birds of reasonable or good numbers in the uk when it comes to hole nesting birds....nowhere, thats where, simply allow them to become rare by allowing a non-native species to take over, supporting the rspb stand point of pointlessly killing ruddy ducks (they now inhabit just about every european country and north africa, no evidence has been found of any british ruddy duck flying to spain)...and then simply apply the packham thinking, let them die out, its pointless...graham

Well said, my thoughts entirely.

[Ukwildlifeo]

To be fair there is no evidence the ring necked parakeets are displacing native tree nesting birds. In fact int Richmond park, a major stronghold, the other tree nesting birds have increased in number

[salukiwhippet]

Reassuring to see that government seem to be getting quicker at amending the OGL.

As for waiting to see what happens, surely anyone who's seen the grey squirrel/mink problem develop wouldn't even think about that as an option....would they?

James

[Elean0r]

I read, somewhere or other, last week that the proposed cull has been branded with the r* word by some specialist, who reckoned that they enhance the diversity of our wildlife, or something like that.

I can't understand why they haven't learned a lesson from the problems with grey/red squirrels, and how they don't know that the wildlife on our island has evolved its own fairly precarious balancing act.

[Adam Cheeseman]

Not wishing to take sides but I would make two points here.

Each non-native species and its effect on our native populations should be studied individually and not all lumped under the 'problematic invasive' banner of Grey Squirrel/Mink/Crassula etc

Secondly that as Neil has pointed out there is no published study by the BTO who are a more scientific organisation than the RSPB stating the negative effects of Parakeets on our hole-nesting species. From where I work the Parakeets are certainly increasing but not to any detriment of our hole-nesting species. In fact Stock Dove, Tawny Owl and GS Woodpecker seem to be on the rise. Less common species hole nesters such as LS Woodpecker have been in a serious decline for a long time and IMHO can't see Parakeets hastening any terminal demise to a particular species.

Cheers,

Adam

[eeyore]

and also why should the rspb lead or pay for the cull - it is not their place to do so - if you own land with ring necked parakeets on it you can apply to NE for a licence to cull them (whether you'd get it difficult to say as you'd have to demonstrate either nuisance, economic loss, or ecological damage and the evidences isnt there for any of those) - so in the case of richmond park the lead agency would be the corporation of london - not the RSPB (i'm not aware of any RSPB reserves with a significant RNP population)

there is no evidence that hole nesting birds are being impacted by the RNP and thus it seems unfair to criticise the rspb for not acting on a non problem - also their motto is actually "a million voices for nature"

on the chris packham question - to be fair again he is somewhat misquoted what he actually said was that trying to preserve species with a tiny gene pool such as the giant panda is an effort doomed to failure and therefore huge ammounts of cash - from the finite ammount available for conservation programes shouldnt be wasted on lost causes - imo he has a good point.

[Picidae]

Agree with the points made by Adam and Eyeore.

Graham if you are going to provide us with an aggressive and emotional tirade against the RSPB, it would be better if you could back it up with some links/evidence to at least show you've done some research into what effects RNPs actually have on hole nesting birds and what the 'role' of the RSPB actually is. (The decision as to what comes under 'general licence' has nothing to do with the RSPB btw, they didn't even know about the decision made by NE and I suspect the 'reported' comments by the RSPB have been primarily directed towards those who may now, in the light of that decision, think it's ok for members of the 'concerned public' to call an open season in Richmond Park and blast every RNP out of the trees!)

(as for the Ruddy Duck, it's an imported American species that has spread from Britain to the rest of Europe and hybridises readily with the now threatened WHDuck.) Personally I don't hold much faith for widespread culling since I don't think it's a long term solution notwithstanding shoots tend to cause lateral damage to other species including disturbance and injury. The decline of the WHDuck was already well underway by hunting in Spain and depletion of it's habitat, unless those issues are effectively dealt with, shooting thousands of RD in the UK won't make much difference to it's long term survival imo and if they are hybridising so easily, part of the reason I suspect (DNA compatibility aside) is because we are coming close to a non sustainable wild population of WH Ducks in Europe. When this happens to species/local populations, hybridisation occurs with increasing regularity (or the species just dies out completely leaving no gene pool at all).

Chris Packham's comments (not the representative views of the RSPB btw) are discussed in this thread (best to try and address one issue at a time eh?!)

Chris Packham and giant pandas

[Stinky Bob]

The RSPB were involved in the consultation process as were a few other organisations.
Here is the link to the summary report in PDF format:
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Ima...tcm6-13924.pdf

Here is the pertanant section:

The RSPCA, RSPB & WWT see general licensing as disproportionate for Monk Parakeet, and they question the evidence of damage by Ring-necked Parakeet in context of General Licences permitting what they believe amounts to an unmonitored „free-for-all‟ to kill them. The RSPB further suggested that the addition of the latter species is contrary to Natural England‟s five stated principles of licensing2; stating that they do not believe there is a genuine problem to resolve nor that the licensed action will contribute to resolving the problem. These organisations all suggest that there‟s no evidence to support the recommendation. West Sussex Wildlife Protection goes further still, suggesting that any action is just an excuse for sport and that these species are a welcome addition to our fauna.

And from the Independant:
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds today displayed what might be described as an uncomfortable acceptance of the move. “We can see why Natural England have put these species on the general licence, for good conservation reasons,” said Dr Mark Avery, the RSPB’s conservation director. “Non-native species cause problems for native wildlife across the globe, sometimes leading to species extinctions. At the moment these species aren’t causing conservation problems in the UK, but they might in future. However, you still need a legitimate reason under the general licence to kill them."