Muntjac v Nightingale

captivebolt · #1 (**permalink**) 24-04-2010, 11:59 AM

Guess which is losing? A report in the Independent today describes a study which shows good evidence that the 60% decline in nightingale numbers over the last 20 years is directly attributable to destruction of the understorey by muntjac.

The only way muntjac numbers can be kept down is by shooting.

I pass no comment, but your views would be of interest. We kept my last thread civilised until the last few posts. Please try to keep this one on a level of discussion, not name-calling and ad hominem "arguments"

Captivebolt

animartco · #2 (**permalink**) 24-04-2010, 12:28 PM

Oh Hi Captivebolt! It isn't only muntjack of course though I do agree, and as I have said all along, if you can't do anything about the worst factors in the decline of any species, then you should tackle the factors that you CAN do somethng about, and controlling muntjack, which are an introduced species anyway, is obviously going to go some way towards helping nightingale numbers.
With nightingales I would imagine that the worst factors affecting the species is the recent upsurge in the numbers of cats kept by each household, and the general increase in the irresponsibilty of the public in ignoring signs that say dogs must be kept on the lead. In fact I think dogs should not be allowed on nature reserves AT ALL, or perhaps our national debt could be helped a bit by a more stringent use of fines for 'dog related' crimes. I am not of course getting at any responsible dog owners here! I love well behaved dogs. I also love responsible cat owners who keep their cat in at night, although this would not help the nightngale. The hundred or so cats living in all the new builds along all the margins of our woods in the SE are ensuring that in five years time no one will ever hear a nightingale in England. Oh better reiterate what you have already stated, that Nightingales are PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE to disturbance of the understory because of almost all wood birds they nest closest to the ground.

Artful Codger · #3 (**permalink**) 24-04-2010, 12:45 PM

Have to agree re the cats, and although the poor so-and-so's are only doing what comes natural they are decimating my wildlife friendly garden, I frequently find dead frogs, sloworms, and piles of bird feathers when I have my morning walk round, they even took a hen Blackbird off the nest last year, they really are a problem, we also have major problems with feral cats which the local CPL seems indifferent to.
But on the main subject of the Muntjac - I guess that I really do not know what the answer could be, on the one hand I am against interfering with nature, but on the other????????
I guess that I feel there is a place for everything - it is merely the management of it that may be the failure, although having said that - there are now a lot of "set aside" areas which allow species to co-exist, so is this the answer or is it economically impossible?

salukiwhippet · #4 (**permalink**) 24-04-2010, 12:58 PM

Unfortunately, the case with munties, as with grey squirrels, mink and brown rats (and cats!) is they're too established to get rid of.

All we can do is cull them hard, especially where they share ground with sensitive species. Little rascals ain't half tasty though!

James

Artful Codger · #5 (**permalink**) 24-04-2010, 01:43 PM

Gotta say that I would not say no to a leg

thunder · #6 (**permalink**) 24-04-2010, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by animartco

With nightingales I would imagine that the worst factors affecting the species is the recent upsurge in the numbers of cats kept by each household, and the general increase in the irresponsibilty of the public in ignoring signs that say dogs must be kept on the lead.

Can you quote some figures on the "recent upsurge in the numbers of cats"? Are there any published records of cats predating Nightingales? What harm do dogs do to Nightingales?

henrya

captivebolt · #7 (**permalink**) 24-04-2010, 04:57 PM

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this, but according to one part of the report, two amall areas of woodland were observed. In one, muntjac were allowed free rein, and in the other they were kept out. (I must add here that keeping muntjac out of woodland is a Sisyphean task.) The number of nightingales in the muntjac free area was 15 times that in the area where they were roaming freely. Bearing in mind that destruction of the understorey affects many species other than nightingales, what action should we take about muntjac?

I know what I do, but does anyone have a practicablealternative?

Captivebolt

AshLee · #8 (**permalink**) 24-04-2010, 05:15 PM

I had heard other species such as Lesser Spotted Woodpeckers may similarly be affected by understorey destruction. The article (Deer to blame for the decline of England's nightingales - Nature, Environment - The Independent) does not mention these.

If this research is to be believed I'd be in favour of a cull.

captivebolt · #9 (**permalink**) 24-04-2010, 05:28 PM

AshLee - thankyou. By all means let's establish that the research is valid. If it is, then culling becomes the only practical method of preserving our indigenous species. Reluctantly undertaken, carefully observed to ensure that no excessive reduction of the culled species takes place, but still the only way that works.

Captivebolt

aeshna5 · #10 (**permalink**) 24-04-2010, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunder

Can you quote some figures on the "recent upsurge in the numbers of cats"? Are there any published records of cats predating Nightingales? What harm do dogs do to Nightingales?

henrya

I would guess that cats are a negligible factor, because there are rarely cats in Nightingale habitat; the latter are hardly regular garden/farm birds.