next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
withou This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_04C7_01D156BC.862FE060 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Nick & All, Jan 24, 2016 Once again I think your overall approach is sound. One should always = attempt to stand back and identify the major forces before fussing about = possible minor forces. And if the context is species decline then it will be strange indeed = if the three major forces at play are not habitat quantity, habitat = quality and habitat continuity. Abundant food in July is worthless if = May, June, August and September are filled with want. Predation usually has the effect, on average, of removing the less = agile, the less healthy and less the capable and thereby gives the = remaining population better access to food, shelter etc and a better = shot at survival. For a stable population, temporary growth must be = balanced by attrition. So predation can have an effect on population = only in extremely unusual circumstances [ e.g. flightless birds who = evolved in the absence of flightless predators, such as rats.].=20 Swifts, so I understand, land only after they have entered a nesting = or communal roost. And I also understand their decline has been = dramatic. How much of their decline is due to flying cats or other = super-cats who somehow nab them just before or just after landing ? Yt, DW, Kentville ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nicholas Hill=20 To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20 Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Vancouver has new "bird strategy" yes Darrell, they have an impact. My point is that this factor is = overblown and is not put in context of the many other factors that are = truly reducing bird populations in the temperate region: climate change land use (e.g. short rotation forestry) pesticides oil? Cats, cars, windturbines, reflective glass would be minor in = comparison and I'd suggest we first focus on the major causes of decline = and then look at tempering the minor threats which we are not going to = fully eliminate as they are part of our life style: 1. Cat--keep cat in at night, fix feral cats and get them places 2. Car--slow down..I killed a swallow last year when in what I thought = was a hurry 3. Windturbines--research placement of windmills out of flight = pathways 4, Glass--hard to know how to reduce bird impacts on existing windows, = this national geographic article discusses some ways = http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141113-bird-safe-glass-wi= ndow-collision-animals-science/ We won't get anywhere legislating that cats be not allowed out but = increasing attention on barn populations and making people responsible = (or finding funding for) for fixing barn cats on their property, then = suggesting that owners keep their cats in at dusk and night, will have = impacts. Currently, this negative focus on cats creates the impression = that a biodiversity crisis is the fault of cats not their humans who may = also drive cars profligately and eat crops grown using neonicotinoids. Nick On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:43 AM, <darrell@abolitphotos.ca> wrote: I disagree Nick, any animal can become a pest and cats and their = irresponsible owners are exactly that. Myself, living in the countryside = where cats are brought to barns and dropped off and many owners letting = them roam free, I have seen many birds killed. Seen one cat jump up on a = cloths line to kill a saw-whet owl. An impressive predator but way too = many (all) at loose in the daytime and night. Dog owners are not allowed = to let their animals/predators roam free and neither should cat owners. = No pet should be allowed to roam free to kill at will, period. = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:24:43 -0400, Don MacNeill = <donmacneill@bellaliant.net> wrote: I agree Nick. Don Don MacNeill donmacneill@bellaliant.net=20 On 24/01/2016 10:37 AM, Nicholas Hill wrote: Grayson and Calver (2004, Regulation of cat ownership to protect = urban wildlife: a justification based on the precautionary approach. = Royal Zoological Society NSW 169-178) found previously that Cat Density = was not a predictor of passerine numbers but that distance to bushland = and the density of urban housing were (both negative factors). In the = study cited above (regulation of cat ownership etc), they conclude that = "cat welfare is the key issue in a precautionary approach for protection = which respects interests of cat owners". Cat welfare means keeping the = beasts in at night and desexing them so that we do not have a feral cat = problem. In the country here, people let cats breed in outbuildings and = this leads to a desperate situation for these cats and for wildlife. =20 Other authors warned that conclusions drawn in Britain over the = impact of cats (million birds and small mammals killed) were drawn from = data on one single village study in Felmersham. This author (BM = Fitzgerald, 1990. is cat control needed to protect wildlife? = Environmental Conservation 17: 168-169) questioned the extrapolation = which we should in a rural area like NS where birdlife is spread widely = over woodland and clearings We have 3 desexed rescue cats that are in at night and well fed. = There is a local impact on mouse, vole and shrew (no birds seen taken = yet) but the population of these animals is greatly increased by the = landuse round the house..as was observed in Felmersham (rodents and = house sparrows there).=20 Surely all of the following factors need to be considered before = we relegate the cat to the indoors: woodland edges..plant more trees brush piles..dont be tidy, a pile of woody debris is a refuge = for small birds and voles sustainable agriculture..minimize use of pesticide sprays (see = the " Declines in