RSPB Survey

[Bob Roberts]

Did anyone spot that slot on TV this weekend announcing the RSPB were doing a survey of hundreds of miles of coastline this weekend to count the number of dead sea birds?

Thousands of birds have apparently starved to death because of the over-fishing of inshore waters. Main culprit appears to be the lack of sandeels.

Suddenly the RSPB are concerned about fish. Wonder what the survey outcome will be?

Wonder if the next cause for concern will be dead kingfishers, herons and grebes due to a mysterious lack of coarse fish?

How hypocritical can they get, is this the pits or what?

 

[chubber]

It certainly is Bob but I'm not suprised. They're attitude has always seemed to be that all other wildlife is unimportant unless it has some effect on their precious birds.
I remember some years ago when they opposed the re-introduction of otters to some rivers because they might eat the eggs of various waterfowl. They showed no concern for the fact that the otter was facing extinction and that they and waterfowl had once shared almost every river in Britain without any problems.
I don't think I have to make my feeling known about the RSPB and the cormorant problem. You all probably share them.

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

We should have joined forces with them on the otter issue!

Bob,whats wrong with the RSPB adressing the overfishing of inshore waters as an issue? This after all is what has driven the cormorants in land.Culling is all well & good but unless the overfishing of their habitual feeding grounds is dealt with its not a long term solution.The industrial fishing for sandeels for fertilizer & fishmeal is environmental rape of the highest order with an impact upon not only birds but all the other fish that feed off them.

I can understand the suspicion with which the RSPB is viewed on the cormorant issue & quite rightly so, but lets make common cause where we can.

 

[Wolfman Woody]

Next to religion, the RSPB is the greatest confidence trick of all.

?30 per year they charge just so you can look up in the sky and see birds, which you can do anyway for nowt. What happens to all that money? Any surveys they "carry out" are done by their members, cost to the RSPB - NOWT!

Do they have a bird breeding farm for sparrow and songbirds that are now in decline like we have the EA fish farms to replace fish that are in decline thanks to cormorants? No.

Ok, they've bought a few bits of land and claimed an awful lot of government aid and grants, just so their members can walk around them and they've seen such a wader or a spotted whatchamecallit. Anything happens that endangers the birds and somethign else must be responsible, something will have to be stopped. Really, they're no more than a political lobbying group with a lot of money.

This time it's where are the seagulls? Look on the rubbish tips where there's millions of the gits!

 

[Bob Roberts]

Nigel, I think you're wrong about lack of sea fish driving cormorants inland. Our native cormorants, carbo carbo eat saltwater fish. The main offender in freshwater is an eastern european migrant, carbo silensis.

I agree the sea has been raped but I don't see many puffins, guillemots, razorbills, gannets or albatrosses on the Trent. To the best of my knowledge they survive on a saltwater diet like carbo carbo does.

If overfishing of sandeels for commercial gain is an issue then overfishing of the inland silver fish population by cormorants is equally meritous. We are seeing a decline in species like the grebe. Herons are suffering brittle bone disease in some areas through lack of calcium normally derived from fish bones.

I love wildlife and the countryside as much as anyone and I'd love nothing more than to support the RSPB but I can't when they are so hypocritical in their stance.

In fact they are so blind on the cormorant issue I can't see how they will be able to find any dead seabirds unless they rely upon their guide dogs doing it for them!

 

[swordsy aka The barbarian]

The inland fishing/pollution problem is something I have banged on about for years its a shame the RSPB need a kick up the jacksy like this to see the bigger picture instead of being bloody introverted, nature is a rich and varied tapestry and one thread intertwines with many, no single intrest can stand alone we are in a relationship like it or not!

otters, guillemots, sandeels, cormorants, frogs,eels,crayfish and carp are all nature and as such are dependant on each other. We are also dependant on each other the RSPB and the angler, its time to put the crap aside and look at what we really consider to be important and at the end of the day our agendas are not going to be a million miles apart.

 

[Wolfman Woody]

Bob, can you tell the difference between a carbo carbo and a carbo sinensis?

Apparently carbo sinensis has 33 extra white feathers around it's throat and six more under it's chin, which is worth knowing when you're pointing a shotgun at the wrong ones.

 

[Phil Hackett 2]

Bob a slight corrections to this statement
"Herons are suffering brittle bone disease in some areas through lack of calcium normally derived from fish bones."

A fish's calcium store is not in bones its in the scales.

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

Bob, I wasn't aware of the distinction to be honest.

If the inland cormorants are a seperate species or perhaps more properly a sub species, what is the explanation for their sudden appearence on our lakes & rivers?

Lee, I think we have found something we agree on!

 

[Wolfman Woody]

My comment wasn't just a throwaway statement, it is fact. This is the way to identify the difference in that there are slightly more feathers on sinensis than on carbo carbo.

Carbo sinensis originally came from Turkey, I believe, and gradually spread across Europe. No studies, by RSPB or anyone else, have found which of the two sub- species remains on our lakes because to tell the difference you have to capture them. Perhaps DNA sampling might help there, but by now cross breeding will have proliferated throughout.

Originally, it was carbo sinensis that was thought to be coming inland, but since both varieties have been found it throws the whole thing in doubt. Most birds only stay through the winter period and return to the coasts in summer, but many, possibly crosses and sinensis, are now roosting on stillwaters all year round.

It must be a trait of this particular bird for as Bob says, you never see gannets, for example, on inland waters, not even close to the coast. There is a problem for them in that when they dive they need 20 feet of water and that could be a problem on some stillwaters (otherwise our lake beds would like like dartboards). If you get a licence to shoot them it will only be up to April and after that you must allow the little darlings to breed thus giving us more trouble later on.

 

[swordsy aka The barbarian]

Nigel, I knew there must be some common ground, it was simply a matter of finding it!!

:O)

 

[Bob Roberts]

I stand corrected on the calcium issue Phil - I learn something new every day!

With regard to Lee's point that we and birdwatchers are not miles apart I disagree. STRONGLY!

We are active in creating and maintaining habitat, they are in the main passive.

We have breeding programmes. What to they have?

We aim to protect all fish - predator and prey alike, hybrids too. They are selective in their protection - ruddy ducks, crows, etc. Need I say more?

This is probably the first century in which man has actively tried to maintain the balance of nature and past history tells us our track record leaves is abysmal. Remember the buffalo, tiger, elephant, white rhino, dodo, passenger pidgeon to name but a few. Hunted to extinction or there abouts.

In return we've infested Australia with rabbits and carp. Brought the rabbit to England and caused mayhem for farmers - but didn't we do ourselves proud with mixymatosis? We've spread carp throughout every river and lake system in the US and Canada, allowed signal crayfish to travel the world in our ships and, well, I could go on.

Trouble is when you start something it has to be taken through to conclusion. The culling of a few cormorants is simply not enough.

And where were these tree-huggers when the lapwing all but vanished. Have you seen a skylark in recent years? And where are all the starlings?

No Lee, we ain't all singing off the same hymn sheet. The RSPB is no more and no less than another wing of the anti-angling and field sports brigade. Those who stand up and say, "I'm a member and I'm nothing like that!" are simply the flowers on a cactus. The RSPB is happy to allow, nay, it supports the piscine equivalent of a genocide. That is so wrong that I despise their stance and their organisation. I am NOT one of them.

Only now are they showing some concern because sea birds are starving to death. They want to end what they see as the rape of the seas yet they continue to fight for the rape of our freshwaters.

Hypocrits - every man, woman and child among them. If you are a member and cannot see this then sorry, you are no better than they are. You are one of THEM.

It's black and white, us or them. There's no room for fence sitters on this issue. Damn the lot of them!

 

[swordsy aka The barbarian]

The issue with inland predation of fish by what would normally be classed as sea birds has to boil down to a character trait of the bird in question, to search out other means of food when the usual food supply runs short.

A prime example of this type of behaviour would be the blue tit pecking through the top of a milk bottle and sipping the fat rich cream, the blue tit searched out a new food source and soon the behavoiur becomes a species trait and set. You would not see a green finch or house sparrow doing the same thing, even though they share similar urbanised areas

 

[swordsy aka The barbarian]

Now thats more like it Bob!

That could have been one of my rants!

Agreed the RSPB are enemies of fishing but the average member simply wishes to experience a bit of wildlife at close quaters and bird watching like fishing (in my opinion) all stem from the hunter/gatherer instinct within us all. What spoils the RSPB is the top rank millitants who as you quite rightly point out opperate on a totally selfish agenda and with two faces when faced with problems that they consider as threats to their pastime.

The RSPB cannot be changed from outside maybe its time for a little infiltration and pro-active modification?

Check out my mini-rant in the angling star this month we are not a million miles apart.

Saw a flock of lap-wings about three months ago, it was the first big gathering I have seen in about ten years, starlings and sparrows, now that is a mystery maybe the new roofing facias and soffits are restricting nesting sites, maybe the increase in raptors is a factor , I do not know but there are definatly a lot of questions that need to be answered.

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

Bob, I note what you say but you haven't yet given an answer to my question as to what has caused the increase in inland cormorant numbers, other than suggest that the particular genus of the bird causing the problems is an inland variety & therefore habitually frequents inland waterways.

This is significant because if the cause is increased degredation of inshore fisheries,which i believe it is, then if the RSPB are assisting in adressing the problem then fine by me.I say again that culling of cormorants is not a long term solution to the problem.

 

[Bob Roberts]

The inland cormorant has spread in a westerly direction across Europe. The UK is the end of the road because they cannot fly on to the next island - ie. the USA.

It found an abundance of food in our rivers and lakes. It found suitable breeding habitat and no predators due to EEC legislation lending them protection - protection by default I should add because the intended law was meant to look after the endangered pygmy cormorant only.

Coastal cormorants, by nature, live in a much harsher environment, breed less successfully and the survival rate is lower, as is the average lifespan. Consequentially the population growth has been exponential.

We will eventually (soon?) reach a critical mass whereupon the cormorant population will cease to grow because there will not be sufficient food to support more birds. Just enough fish will survive to reach maturity and spawn more cormorant fodder.

I don't believe the RSPB are addressing the inshore fishing problem for one minute. They are milking public sympathy by expressing concern in the run-up to an election. The seas were not denuded yesterday, nor last week or last year even. So where have the RSPB been until now?

I agree with you on one point, culling isn't the answer. Outright bloody carnage is the answer. If the RSPB wants to start a breeding programme for sandeels, fine. If they can stop inshore fishing tomorrow, fine. Meantime we should remove all cormorants from inland waterways now. Get rid of the lot. They have no place here, they offer no positive benefits but they have the potential to tip the environmental balance.

I have no truck with endemic predators. Alien species should be removed - what's good for the topmouth gudgeon is good for the cormorant.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

I see your argument Bob, in that if the inland cormarants are a seperatate species from coastal cormorants that would have come inland irrespective of fish stocks at sea, then there is a greater argument for a total cull.Is the species split accepted opinion or as Jeff indicates is it less clear cut?

 

[Bob Roberts]

The solution is quite simple. Shoot first, ask questions later.

We are told that scaring tactics (like shooting) causes the birds to move away. Ergo, if shooting was widespread they would go away completely.

Why do I think we're being fed a load of bull there?

Maybe it's because I know of a one-man crusade that has seen off some 1600 cormorants, yet still they come...

It is a fact of life that animals and birds die when food is in short supply. We cannot avoid that. When crops fail in Sudan people die. When floods sweep Bangladesh more people die. I guess the local wildlife populations suffer worse because hungry humans will eat them given half a chance.

The cormorant is intelligent by avian standards. Like the cockroach it is a survivor. It adapts and moves on, seeking out fresh waters to fish. No-where is safe.

The solution is to reduce the inland population dramatically. Let's get the numbers down to sustainable levels, say ten per cent of what we see now and manage that level (In fact 10% of the true level is somewhere close to the numbers the RSPB claim we have in total now!). We'll suffer the fish losses for say 10 years with a clenched jaw while the RSPB puts the seas back in order.

Indeed, if they'll sign up to that and set milestone achievement goals I'll join up immediately and pay 'em ?50 a year while ever they are on course to deliver.

If they fail we get to eradicate the inland cormorant completely and close down the RSPB. After all, they will have failed miserably and why should anyone need to join a society so they can go rubber-necking?

I have a bird book on the window ledge of my conservatory, it contains all the information I'm likely to need when watching birds that visit my garden. I've been actively interested in birds all my life but the RSPB do not represent my needs or my feelings. They are political activists, iron fists in velvet gloves with myopic tendencies.

 

[Wolfman Woody]

"For Birds, For People, For Ever" - is the RSPB's latest slogan.

The seas have been affected over the years not just with the odd disaster, Sea Empress was 10 years ago and folowing that many cormorants started to come inland, but many BCVs clean and flush their tanks out at sea and the waste ends up on the bottom. That Sea Empress disaster, 6 weeks after the Governement were say how well it had all been cleared up and the beaches were spotless. The company that carried out a lot of that work also had divers and they reported that the sea bed had a 1-2foot covering of oil sludge on it for miles. It is an on-going thing though and how do you stop tanker cleaning in open waters?

I wouldn't be so quick to brand all bird watchers the same. On our local lake, which is a haven for waders and other birds, many of the watchers would agree with us and shoot every blessed cormorant they could.

I only met one who insisted that cormorants have every right to be on our lake - and he was being serious. At the time he was talking to us the main flock of birds took to the air and he shouted "I'll bet that's a fox." I said "Well the fox has been around a good many years now, he certainly has a right to be here." I couldn't believe what I heard next from him - "No, they haven't. They should be shot."

Thankfully, cretins like him are in the minority, but I agree with you Bob, I would shoot every one of them found more than 5 miles from the coast. (and I would put their heads on spikes as a warning to the rest)

 

[Colin Brett 3]

Now that's what I call a well stated thread!

Pinning our colours to the mast, in no uncertain terms!

Brilliant.

Colin