feathered dilemma

[learner]

I am in the habit of feeding the birds in my garden. Nothing wrong with that i suppose as long as i use Rspb recommended quality food, you would think!

I am quite proud that my feeding them may have caused the local population of tree sparrows to increase and thrive (against national figures) My dilemma is that I seem to have created a "dinner table" for a local Sparrowhawk.

Whats to be done?

If I stop feeding?
1/ Will the Sparrow population drop
2/ Will the sparrowhawk population drop
3/ Are 1/ and 2/ good things?
4/ Should I get a life and stop worrying about birds?

Thoughts please.

[WildCat]

Hey, it's nature. Last year I saw a Cooper's Hawk catch and eat a pigeon, and watching a pigeon getting eaten by a hawk is a good thing. It was a quiet winter day with no wind, and I could hear the hawk ripping apart the pigeon...

[learner]

Hey, it's nature. Last year I saw a Cooper's Hawk catch and eat a pigeon, and watching a pigeon getting eaten by a hawk is a good thing. It was a quiet winter day with no wind, and I could hear the hawk ripping apart the pigeon...

Yes, I agree Wildcat its a good thing to see. my dilemma is the unnatural situation that ive caused. Lots of benefits to an enquiring mind though. Watching the sparrows reaction when the hawk attacks is fscinating, Of about twenty birds thier reaction nearly always follow a set pattern.
About a third go for the bushes, a third hide under the garden furniture and a third go for the open skies.
As fo the cllared doves, i think ive solved the question I had been asking myself as to why they fly, vertically, 7/8 foot then tear off a sfast as they can.
I think its because as a foreign import thy have evolved a response to a predator that is not present here,(uk)
It seems to me that the 7/8 foot is the height that thier natural predator, the euopean lynx, jumps as it swipes them down. fascinating sight, cant link but im sure youtube has examples

[TX50]

A no.4 cartridge is best (use steel shot).

[DouglasL]

.......my dilemma is the unnatural situation that ive caused.

Why do you assume that you are not a part of nature? The same situation would arise if the sparrows found a concentrated "naturally available" food source.
Sorry, I have never really understood the mind set that humans are not "natural" or that humans are some how outside of the natural world. A dam build by beavers, for the purposes of beavers, that floods out the habitat of an endangered snail is some how "natural". While a dam built by humans, for human purposes is unnatural.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If you provide some cover for he sparrows as they would naturally have in a natural environment, somewhere they can go where the hawk can not catch them, then you restore the natural balance between predator and prey.

I just used an American flag waving in the wind, the hawk many times misses the prey because of the movement of the flag on approach to the feeding area, it is constantly getting in his way and frustrates his efforts.

He still gets the occasional bird, but at least now he has to work for his dinner.

[Kotatsu]

If I stop feeding?
1/ Will the Sparrow population drop
2/ Will the sparrowhawk population drop
3/ Are 1/ and 2/ good things?
4/ Should I get a life and stop worrying about birds?

Thoughts please.

I certainly don't think you should stop feeding them; I fail to see how that would give any good results at all. The result may very well be a decline in both the sparrow population and the sparrowhawk population. Instead, you should be content that while before you were supporting only one population of birds, you are now supporting two, of different species. If you are lucky, your collared doves will attract goshawks or buzzards as well!

As was suggested, make the feeding station less approachable for hawks if you don't want them there. If you are really into it, constructing a cage of chicken wire approximately 5x5 metres and 2 metres high and placing it around the feeding station will give the sparrows a safe haven. It'll lock the doves out, though.

Also: if you are at all interested in birdwatching in general, please consider contributing to the forum bird list, a link to which you can find in my signature. A goal is to see 1000 species together before the year is up. We also discuss birdwatching in general, and help each other with identifications.

[Nick Bogaerts]

If I stop feeding?
1/ Will the Sparrow population drop
2/ Will the sparrowhawk population drop
3/ Are 1/ and 2/ good things?
4/ Should I get a life and stop worrying about birds?


Yes, yes, no and no. The presence of a predator is usually a sign of a healthy ecosystem. While the Sparrowhawk isn't endangered any more, the populations are still recovering, and it remains a protected species.

Linky: http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/s/sparrowhawk/index.asp

[learner]

Thanks for all of your comments on my first post. il carry on as i do. feed them and watch them. Douglasl, you are of course correct.

[lenny]

Sorry, I have never really understood the mind set that humans are not "natural" or that humans are some how outside of the natural world. A dam build by beavers, for the purposes of beavers, that floods out the habitat of an endangered snail is some how "natural". While a dam built by humans, for human purposes is unnatural.

i'd agree we'd do better not viewing ourselves as "outside" the natural world.

but doesn't our ability to foresee the impacts of our actions, limited though it is, place a natural responsibility on us that does not fall on beavers?

(but would fall on any other natural non-human being with such foresight)

[Dancing David]

This is part of the world. I love butterly gardens (larval food sources and nectar sources), when you do plant one then you get predators.

Same for birds and any sort of garden.

[Roboramma]

Why do you assume that you are not a part of nature? The same situation would arise if the sparrows found a concentrated "naturally available" food source.
Sorry, I have never really understood the mind set that humans are not "natural" or that humans are some how outside of the natural world. A dam build by beavers, for the purposes of beavers, that floods out the habitat of an endangered snail is some how "natural". While a dam built by humans, for human purposes is unnatural.

We are, of course, a part of nature.

On the other hand there is something that makes us quite different from the other animal species on this planet - culture. Our culture is ever changing, meaning that the way in which we interact with our environment and the ecosystems of which we are a part are also always changing. Sometimes that means entering new ecosystems as an invasive species, sometimes that means new farming practices or new industries, sometimes it means higher population densities. In total it's a combination of all those things and more.

The fact that our interaction with our ecosystem changes much more frequently and quickly than that of other species means that the ecosystem (through, for example, the evolution of the species that make it up) doesn't have as much time to adapt to us as easily as to other creatures.

The idea that nature is unchanging is, of course, false. But the impact of most of life (aside from things like viruses) on its environment changes at a different time-scale than we do. In this respect viewing ourselves as something different from, and thus having a unique position to either damage or protect, the rest of life has some validity. This shouldn't, though, be taken too far.

Regarding the OP - feed the birds, they're cool, as are their predators. :)

[bruto]

I would be inclined to temper the "go ahead and feed them" consensus, depending on circumstances. If what you are doing is basically moving the inevitable to your front yard, then by all means, go ahead, feed them and watch the drama. And of course, if what you're doing is increasing the population of both sparrows and hawks in proportion, then all the better. I would be a little more hesitant, though, if the process ends up being the equivalent of baiting the prey away from safer feeding habits and giving an "unnatural" advantage to the hawks. Unless your interest is in the hawks. Then of course anything goes.

[Dancing David]

If I lived in a rural situation, I would try to attract crows and raptors, but people would wonder about the McDonalds and great grisly bits on a post in the city.

[shadron]

Why do you assume that you are not a part of nature? The same situation would arise if the sparrows found a concentrated "naturally available" food source.
Sorry, I have never really understood the mind set that humans are not "natural" or that humans are some how outside of the natural world. A dam build by beavers, for the purposes of beavers, that floods out the habitat of an endangered snail is some how "natural". While a dam built by humans, for human purposes is unnatural.

Ahhhhh...another reader of RAH - 'tis good to find.

'There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who “love Nature” while deploring the “artificialities” with which “Man has spoiled Nature.” The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of “Nature"-but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers’ purposes) and hatred of dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the “Naturist” reveals his hatred for his own race-i.e., his own self hatred.

'In the case of “Naturists” such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most at any rate.'

[Robert A Heinlein, "Time Enough for Love", 1973]


I also see this has been carried over from a number of recent blogs and such, such as Cafe Hyeck (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/04/commerce-and-na.html).

[lenny]

Ahhhhh...another reader of RAH - 'tis good to find.

"You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting."

as can i; but can a beaver?

[learner]

Ahhhhh...another reader of RAH - 'tis good to find.

'There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who “love Nature” while deploring the “artificialities” with which “Man has spoiled Nature.” The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of “Nature"-but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers’ purposes) and hatred of dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the “Naturist” reveals his hatred for his own race-i.e., his own self hatred.

'In the case of “Naturists” such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most at any rate.'

[Robert A Heinlein, "Time Enough for Love", 1973]


I also see this has been carried over from a number of recent blogs and such, such as Cafe Hyeck (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/04/commerce-and-na.html).

Another RAH reader here. see my location. Yes tis good to find.