controlling predators can save the curlew

[captivebolt]

I'm not sure if this thread is in the right place, but it seemed the most appropriate. The title is the headline above an article by Magnus Linklater in the Times. He describes how the last surviving pair of curlews have arrived on the moorland near his home in Perthshire. They were accompanied by a lone lapwing. The numbers of these birds have been dropping steadily. He says "just another sad account of a declining species? Not quite"
"Less than 30 miles away, in the glens of Angus, there is a different story".
Waders and other ground nesting birds are back in profusion.
The birds are back because they are safer there. The local landowners have decided to redevelop the grouse moors. They are spending serious money on trapping carrion crows, stoats and weasels, and shooting foxes. They are also controlling deer that destroy vegetation.
Let us be clear on this. The landowners are doing this to improve the productivity of the grouse moors, which can be a nice little earner. None the less, native bird species are benefitting, and biodiversity is climbing.

I'll leave it here for now, but anyone interested might care to look up the Otterburn survey. Meanwhile, I would welcome reasoned responses to this post. A for-profit organisation is killing predatory species, and in the process benefitting wild life in general. Your ethical position?

Captivebolt

[Jaeviatrix]

They are not benefitting wildlife in general. At best they are temporarily, and utterly incidentally, allowing unnaturally high numbers of quite desirable, pretty species to thrive, by sheer coincidence. These birds have co-evolved with their predators. My ethical position is that the habitat is obviously of high quality, and should be being managed for conservation, and not for ritual bloodletting.

If I became aware of someone killing birds of prey to protect their grouse I can assure you my position would not be very ethical at all.

Jay

[earthdragon64]

According to the RSPB, the decline in Curlews is "largely due to loss of habitat through agricultural intensification". I'd think that any increase in an area where agricultural intensification is lessening is just as likely to be down to that than increased predator control.

Having googled the Otterburn Upland Predation Survey, the first few hits are the Countryside Alliance, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Shooting Times. Of course they couldn't possibly have an ulterior motive could they.

As far as I understand it, the survey is ongoing and covers more than just the effect of predators, it may be a bit premature to state exactly what the state of play is until all the results have been analysed. I doubt it will be quite as simplistic as "Killing Predators saves Waders".

[captivebolt]

As of now, I am merely quoting from Linklater's article, ok? He says that "A remarkable nine-yearsurvey has just been completed at Otterburn. . . .Two main areas of moorland, one where predators were controlled, one where they were not. . . .Waders were three times more likely to raise their chicks in areas where trapping took place than in those which remained wild."

Captivebolt

[Jaeviatrix]

Does it say that the survey considered the levels of pollution at the two sites?

Has it included a full vegetation survey, including looking at structural aspects of the vegetation?

Has it examined the level of disturbance by walkers or motorists, and the nature and proximity of any other human activity, including but not limited to highways, towns, power lines?

Have the invertebrates been surveyed, including the soil fauna?

Are both sites comparable in drainage regime, aspect, altitude, historic land use?

All these things could have a highly significant impact on breeding birds, the comparison of two sites, even over long periods, does not give the power to generalise. It implies the two areas were separate, how can they be sure predator control is the cause of the differences?
Also, maybe it is nature's way that waders loose a lot of their chicks to predators, as adults they are long-lived birds, they have plenty of chances to reproduce!

Hope all is good

[animartco]

I agree with Captivebolt. (although that is an unfortunate nom de plume CTB!!!) Everyone agrees that culling is occassionally necessary. But people are very loath to cull species they have recenty been spending a lot of money reintroducing! The fact is that the peregrine and other large raptors are now in such good numbers again that they are now threatening other species with extinction, and remember it is WE that have caused this. The shooting of predators by gamekeepers has been going on since the middle ages and before. You can't expect nature to survive the sudden decline of that increasingly endangered species homo Sportiens!!!
I put it to you Jaeviatrix, you can argue that it is not true, if you have proof, but IF it were proved to your satisfaction that areas used for blood sports had a significantly greater species diversity than other areas managed to a different regime, would you still condemn homo sportiens and wish to see him become extinct?

[aeshna5]

Which species are Peregrines + other large raptors supposedly driving to extinction?

I don't think this is credible at all!

[Jaeviatrix]

Personally, yes I would. There are enough people dedicated to the cause of conservation for its own sake to effectively manage that land which is currently managed for sport hunting. Some of the jobs can be saved if the individuals agree to work with the conservation movement. The only obstacle to this is money and heredity.

There is an element of "who do you trust?" here. Personally I trust scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying avifauna more than I trust vested business interests, in the same way I trust climatologists over oil companies, and experienced sociologists over tabloid newspapers.

The peregrine was not introduced, its populations were reduced to very low numbers by agricultural poisoning, now they are recovering, but their recovery remains fragile. You cannot argue "not poisoning them with industrial chemicals" is the same as maintaining their numbers at an artificially high level. Their population growth will eventually come to an end as they reach an equilibrium level with their prey species, and, with the exception of those in the shooting and farming community who largely seem to be motivated by habit to shoot them, have heard no serious, peer-reviewed literature claiming birds of prey are causing declines in anything. If you know of any I would be very interested to read them, although I would wonder if populations of some prey species may be unnaturally high. Our experience is limited to our lifetimes, and we can get the false impression things have always been this way, which is not the case. Once these birds of prey were much commoner, and at the same time, many of our songbirds were commoner too.

It is important to remember that red kites (which are scavengers and not active predators) and peregrines are not yet common everywhere. Indeed the former is rapidly declining in parts of it's european range. The populations in Britain represent a sub-population from which a recolonisation of these areas remains a potential option.

Further, I reiterate that these creatures have co-evolved, the wader/songbirds/whatever have always been subject to predation by raptors, and raptors have always been dependant on them for food.

Finally let me put to you this: I remember seeing a documentary in which an insectivorous bird, it may have been a reed warbler, was filmed feeding its chicks on endangered Large Copper butterflies. By your logic, we should be culling reed warblers. Do you think we should be doing this?

I would love you to show me something that demonstrates that, on more than one trophic level shooting estates are generally higher in biodiversity than comparable nature reserves. I would eat my hair.

Jay

[astarsdad]

I live near Croxteth Hall, near Liverpool. Lady Sefton bequeathed the estate to Liverpool City council in the early 70s. The estate was made up of agricultural land and woods. Up until then predators were eliminated by gamekeepers and I now feel that it created a sterile environment as regards to wildlife. We now have foxes, squirrels, buzzards, kestrels, magpies, jays, herons etc. The estate is now made up of woods, scrubland, housing estates and developed with the local population in mind as regards conservation, paths, play areas, horse riding etc. All in all, these benefits certainly outweigh the way the estate used to be run, however nostalgic I am becoming in my old age. I just wish someone would start culling the magpies, carrion crows and wood pigeons.

Terry

[nigel_b]

Originally Posted by captivebolt

As of now, I am merely quoting from Linklater's article, ok?

Captivebolt

Can't wait to see what comes next then.

Would not have thought that on a forum intended to promote interest in British wildlife there is going to be an awful lot of support for landowners killing it in order to make more money.