With our continued encroachment on the habitation of native animals - can we be held responsible for genetically changing native birds by supplementing their food?

I believe we should help out a bit for the simple reason that smaller bird species seem to be disappearing probably because cats, dogs and predator birds are killing them.

It has been difficult to protect them so for the last few years I've concentrated on the larger birds for the simple reason that they are stronger and the larger the bird, the more intelligent they appear to be. I hand feed a little lean mince to magpies, butcher birds, currawongs, cuckoo shrikes, noisy minors - not the Indian variety and a little seed to cockatoos, corellas, lorikeets and the occasional migratory bird. They love the frogs.

These birds come back year after year with their babies and each year - they've become larger and their coats more velvety and healthy looking. I believe this is a good thing because they're so strong and fast enough to escape a ground predator. I've had some negative comments though that nature should run it's course by letting the weak die any old way - even though human intervention can extend their lives.

Even the large birds have their predators. Sea hawks circle regularly for their feed of a plump bird, so the food chain appears to be working well.

Another positive is by supplementing the food of a breeding pair - it also means that the smaller bird doesn't become a target so regularly.

I find what you're doing admirable. I have no knowledge in this area, but if the only argument against what you're doing is derived from a survival of the fittest mentality, then I would pay no attention. The only problem I can see with it is that if is the same birds coming back, they may become dependent on you. How likely is that?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jul 14^th, 2013 at 11:10am:

I find what you're doing admirable. I have no knowledge in this area, but if the only argument against what you're doing is derived from a survival of the fittest mentality, then I would pay no attention. The only problem I can see with it is that if is the same birds coming back, they may become dependent on you. How likely is that?

The same birds come back intermittently. They only ramp it up when they're feeding babies. The babies when they become independent are driven out of the vicinity, although occasionally they do sneak back when the parents aren't around. This is why I know they're surviving and well. They look fantastic.

Most of the larger birds do have a staple diet of berries and meat. Rather they come to me or someone else doing the same than kill a small bird which has enough trouble staying alive as it is. It gives them a little more of a chance of surviving.

My partner and I have a quiet park we go to for picnics and the birds there will approach him and take food from his hand. Magpies and noisy minors mostly. There are ibis too. I love to watch him feed them - it's a beautiful thing.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jul 14^th, 2013 at 11:29am:

My partner and I have a quiet park we go to for picnics and the birds there will approach him and take food from his hand. Magpies and noisy minors mostly. There are ibis too. I love to watch him feed them - it's a beautiful thing.

It is a beautiful thing and only appreciated by those who love birds, which are far more intelligent than we give them credit for.

I've read that once a magpie has been humanised - they don't attack humans. From what I've seen so far - it's true.

mantra wrote on Jul 14^th, 2013 at 11:39am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jul 14th, 2013 at 11:29am: My partner and I have a quiet park we go to for picnics and the birds there will approach him and take food from his hand. Magpies and noisy minors mostly. There are ibis too. I love to watch him feed them - it's a beautiful thing. It is a beautiful thing and only appreciated by those who love birds, which are far more intelligent than we give them credit for. I've read that once a magpie has been humanised - they don't attack humans. From what I've seen so far - it's true.

Yes, that kind of conditioning makes sense. It's interesting - the birds seem to engage with him. Lots of eye contact and head tilting.

Quote:

I love to watch him feed them - it's a beautiful thing.

him or him feeding the birds?

The naysayers will always be with us. It doesn't matter to them what generous actions you perform on behalf of defenseless animals ~ they'll always invent a reason why you should 'leave well enough alone'.

I remember the poor, sick, misguided souls who filmed the Meerkat Manor series. 

In one episode a little toddler meerkat had become lost as the whole group moved through the bush. This cute little thing was crying and calling and very stressed-out, but these Greenie trendies left her to die of despair and starvation all on her own ~ for 'authenticity'.

I personally would borrow Annie Anthrax's whip to give these wankers the hiding they so richly deserve.

Maybe parachute them into Lion Country and let them chance their luck trying to hike out. Give them mobile phones so we can hear their pleas for clemency, while all the while I'd be telling them ...

... "Sorry guys.. we've got to keep it real so the audience doesn't start doubting our authenticity. Yes, I hear you telling me a pack of lions have appeared on a ridge a half mile away, and they seem to be looking in your direction.

Stop whimpering, guys. I know this is a bad situation for you, but we promised the BBC Programming Department authenticity, and I've just got a call from Sir Davin Attenborough urging me to keep it real.

Stop shouting, guys. So the lions are coming down the slope in your direction. Panicking won't help you."

To be continued ...  8-)

It's a bad idea, and all serious environmental organisations agree with me on this. There are several unintended consequences when you do this. The main one is that you upset the balance of nature. The reason these animals should die in the tough times is so they don't kill too many of whatever it is the prey on. It sounds to me like you are not saving any endangered birds, but are mostly just helping the ones that are already benefitting from human intervention. All this modification to the environment that humans are doing, you are just making it worse. A second reason is that getting these birds dependent on an aritificial source of food is not sustainable. If you can always increase the food supply faster than the birds breed, you will always have lots of healthy looking birds raising lots of offspring. But one day you are going to find yourself with a lot of hungry birds that are dying because the local environment simply cannot support them and you cannot afford the food bill any more. The local cats will probably take care of it for you so you don't see the disaster you have created by trying to help, but that will still be the reality. You will have upset the local ecology and caused untold suffering.

Imagine someone complaining about farmers chopping all the trees down to farm cattle, and they try to help the situation by chopping trees down and growing grass to feed to the cattle so they don't go hungry. That is what you are doing. There is more to helping the environment that artificially propping up the population of crows and parrots.

freediver wrote on Jul 14^th, 2013 at 5:17pm:

It's a bad idea, and all serious environmental organisations agree with me on this. There are several unintended consequences when you do this. The main one is that you upset the balance of nature. The reason these animals should die in the tough times is so they don't kill too many of whatever it is the prey on. It sounds to me like you are not saving any endangered birds, but are mostly just helping the ones that are already benefitting from human intervention.

I'm aware of all this, but then in the scheme of things, helping an animal to survive for a while couldn't be worse than not helping it to survive at all.


Quote:

All this modification to the environment that humans are doing, you are just making it worse. A second reason is that getting these birds dependent on an aritificial source of food is not sustainable. If you can always increase the food supply faster than the birds breed, you will always have lots of healthy looking birds raising lots of offspring. But one day you are going to find yourself with a lot of hungry birds that are dying because the local environment simply cannot support them and you cannot afford the food bill any more.

This is true and not just because of people who supplement their feed, but their habitat is being razed so quickly, that their very existence depends on help from humans.


Quote:

The local cats will probably take care of it for you so you don't see the disaster you have created by trying to help, but that will still be the reality. You will have upset the local ecology and caused untold suffering.

Ground predators are a real threat. A cat or dog is more likely to attack a small, weak animal than a large strong one - I assume. Helping larger birds to cope with the dangers in suburbia surely must be better than letting many of them succumb to the ravages of domestic predators.


Quote:

Imagine someone complaining about farmers chopping all the trees down to farm cattle, and they try to help the situation by chopping trees down and growing grass to feed to the cattle so they don't go hungry. That is what you are doing. There is more to helping the environment that artificially propping up the population of crows and parrots.

Of course your comments make sense and I hear them often and it makes me feel guilty, but when I see generations of a particular species thriving, which were once rarely seen, then I have to look at them as pets of a sort. While I'm alive and can afford the meat and seed bill - not only do the birds appear healthy, but it gives me pleasure.

Selfish I know and it can't continue indefinitely.

Quote:

I'm aware of all this, but then in the scheme of things, helping an animal to survive for a while couldn't be worse than not helping it to survive at all.

I'm sure it would be fine if you were the only person doing it. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who think like you. It's like saying that chopping down one tree is insignificant in the scheme of things, or leaving one piece of rubbish lying around doesn't matter.


Quote:

Ground predators are a real threat. A cat or dog is more likely to attack a small, weak animal than a large strong one - I assume. Helping larger birds to cope with the dangers in suburbia surely must be better than letting many of them succumb to the ravages of domestic predators.

It's better for the birds you feed, but remember many of those birds are predators. Just like cats. And they will all become weak once they outbreed your food supply.


Quote:

Of course your comments make sense and I hear them often and it makes me feel guilty

This is a good thing. You should feel guilty, especially if you are convincing yourself you are helping the environment.


Quote:

but when I see generations of a particular species thriving, which were once rarely seen, then I have to look at them as pets of a sort. While I'm alive and can afford the meat and seed bill - not only do the birds appear healthy, but it gives me pleasure

Which is the real reason you are doing it.


Quote:

Selfish I know and it can't continue indefinitely.

It can continue. We could replace our entire ecosystem with cats and crows and dogs and cornfields, if we get so much pleasure out of it. If you ever fly over Ireland or somewhere similar, you'll see how things can end up - nothing but field after field of nicely tended cropland, with the only variation being different directions of plowing rows and the occasional highway or town. I'm sure there are lot of cats and crows and happy people down there.

freediver wrote on Jul 16^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

[quote] It can continue. We could replace our entire ecosystem with cats and crows and dogs and cornfields, if we get so much pleasure out of it. If you ever fly over Ireland or somewhere similar, you'll see how things can end up - nothing but field after field of nicely tended cropland, with the only variation being different directions of plowing rows and the occasional highway or town. I'm sure there are lot of cats and crows and happy people down there.

Sounds beautiful.

As long as they don't suffer, then I'm okay with a little extinction here and there because of the Europeanisation of the wilderness areas.

I personally place people's interest above that of endangered worms, wood lice, termites and leeches.

The Australian government agrees with this point of view, hence we had Gillard calling for a higher rate of immigration and refugees influx ~ as though they're all going to live up trees and not own pets or need concreting for their homes.

It's a very simple matter of protecting endangered insects and other species from extinction by creating Jurassic Parks for them on a few of Australia's thousand or so small islands. It's a no-brainer.

No endangered species need become extinct if the government sets aside certain islands as National Parks free of predators.

Why hasn't this been done?

Because the truth is NO creatures out there in our bushlands are heading for extinction due to pussy-cats and feral dogs. University zoology departments routinely bang on about 'threatened species' in order to ensure further grants from the government.

What does it say that no government has yet introduced heavy penalties for people neglecting to have their cats de-sexed?

In the Australian vernacular : They're not fair dinkum ~ and this is because their own research has told them that no species are heading for extinction.

And incidentally, it has been calculated that there are now infinitely more kangaroos hopping about in the Australian bush than when Capt Cook anchored at Botany Bay.

******

Don't let freediver make you feel guilty, Mantra.

While YOU are feeding the birds ... HE'S slaughtering the beautiful fish in our rivers and coastal waters.

Stabs them with spears. Hooks them cruelly in the mouth. Hammers their heads when they're gasping for air and flapping around on the tinny's floor. OMG I can't go on ... this is horrible. I think I'm going to be sick ...

8-)

Those dull flashes of light you see late at night on the sea's horizon?

freediver and his Vietnamese mates dropping dynamite in the water to stun hundreds of beautiful endangered fish which then rise to the surface for them to scoop up with nets for the Fish Market and the salt water aquarium shops.

Quote:

Because the truth is NO creatures out there in our bushlands are heading for extinction due to pussy-cats and feral dogs. University zoology departments routinely bang on about 'threatened species' in order to ensure further grants from the government.

Sounds like a conspiracy. How did they get away with inventing all those species they claim are now extinct?


Quote:

What does it say that no government has yet introduced heavy penalties for people neglecting to have their cats de-sexed?

That you shouldn't mess with crazy old cat ladies?


Quote:

In the Australian vernacular : They're not fair dinkum ~ and this is because their own research has told them that no species are heading for extinction.

Of course, politicians respond to the "real science" and not what makes people happy.


Quote:

And incidentally, it has been calculated that there are now infinitely more kangaroos hopping about in the Australian bush than when Capt Cook anchored at Botany Bay.

Lots of crows too. That's what biodiversity is right? How many crows and eastern greys?


Quote:

freediver and his Vietnamese mates dropping dynamite in the water to stun hundreds of beautiful endangered fish which then rise to the surface for them to scoop up with nets for the Fish Market and the salt water aquarium shops.

They can them so people can feed them to stray cats and crows and kookaburras. It's the circle of life.

freediver wrote on Jul 16^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

Quote: Selfish I know and it can't continue indefinitely. It can continue. We could replace our entire ecosystem with cats and crows and dogs and cornfields, if we get so much pleasure out of it. If you ever fly over Ireland or somewhere similar, you'll see how things can end up - nothing but field after field of nicely tended cropland, with the only variation being different directions of plowing rows and the occasional highway or town. I'm sure there are lot of cats and crows and happy people down there.

Sometimes as individuals we convince ourselves we are doing the right thing. For more than 20 years I cultivated my large garden to be eco friendly. Hundreds of frogs, possibly thousands of skinks, blue tongues and other weird little creatures lived happily there in a mini-jungle.

I have some beautiful native plants which produce nector and occasionally a breeding pair of small rare honeyeaters or a variety of finches would build nests in the trees. They always disappeared within weeks - never to be seen again. My dogs would deter larger birds and predatory cats - but nothing helped because once they left my garden - there was nothing to protect them and they were killed.

I still have the frogs and small lizards - the blue tongues have been killed by neighbours' dogs and cats. There is a huge natural food source also available to passing birds and sometimes there are hundreds of birds sitting up in the powerlines and not just crows and parrots.

Perhaps I am making excuses for doing something the experts claim is wrong. It is hard at times to resist the variety of song I hear in my garden when I'm being summoned, but I try not to overdo it.

If the majority of people were prepared to make their properties friendly to native creatures - people like me would follow all the rules, but with our ever increasing population, mining, depletion of water supplies, predators and razoring of trees everywhere - those remaining animals need a helping hand occasionally.

Mantra ~ don't let freediver nail you to a cross because of your generosity and care for animals.

The fact that you have so many frogs in your backyard is proof that the ecosystem there is very healthy and viable.

Fish stocks along the Eastern coast have been decimated because freediver and his Vietnamese mates go drift-netting after dark with nets more than a mile long. That's after they've run out of dynamite.

Don't feel guilty.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 16^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:

Fish stocks along the Eastern coast have been decimated because freediver and his Vietnamese mates go drift-netting after dark with nets more than a mile long. That's after they've run out of dynamite.

I don't know whether FD uses dynamite or is Vietnamese, but I've never been a fan of fishing. It is a very cruel recreational sport and together with commercial fishing - our fish stocks are being depleted rapidly to keep up with the demand. Dugongs, turtles, dolphins etc. are all  scooped up in the nets and left to die slowly.

Fish, sea mammals and crustaceans seem to be the food trend today. They're being boiled alive and slurped up by every man and his dog.

Our oceans are in a very sorry state and one day there will be nothing left to feed the masses.

Still FD is very much against factory farming and would probably advocate that we all become hunters because it is less cruel. There is truth in that to a degree, but if it came down to having us all cull our own meat - it would probably be even more cruel and chaotic. It couldn't be regulated.

Mantra, planting trees that provide food for natives is the way to go. You won't find many people complaining about that. It is giving them "handouts" that is the problem.


Quote:

Dugongs, turtles, dolphins etc. are all  scooped up in the nets and left to die slowly.

You left out whales. Ever heard of whale, dolphin and turtle soup? You can get it in Chinatown.


Quote:

Still FD is very much against factory farming

Not exactly. I just use it to point out the hypocrisy of people who campaign against whaling but eat bacon.


Quote:

and would probably advocate that we all become hunters because it is less cruel

I don't think that is a practical solution.