dgraham@kean.ucs.mun.ca (David Graham) (09/12/90)
One of the Sunday papers here carried a story this past weekend about pigeons infesting the local kids' hospital, where they are collecting in large numbers not only over the entrances and on windowledges but at the air intakes for the ventilation units. Apparently the guano turns to dust and is sucked in through the intakes, causing worries about possible respiratory problems in kids with allergies, and the medical staff are also concerned about diseases from parasites being transmitted to premature babies and kids recovering from cancer operations, i.e. whose immune systems are being suppressed. I'm not sure why this hasn't surfaced before, except that apparently the hospital has tried spiking the windowledges, which has led to some complaints to the SPCA that some pigeons were being impaled (a though some will find repulsive, while others will rejoice). Seems they're going to try to find a humane way to repel the 'winged rats' (phrase used by a doctor, coinciding with one appearing here last week... All this has moved me to think about the three great introduced bird species in North America; all successful, none now considered especially handsome, two normally considered active pests (Rock Dove and Starling, of course). What do you suppose prompts the kind of change in attitude towards birds that would make people bring in the three big European imports which now infest our cities? I mean, if I were emigrating from Europe, I wouldn't choose House Sparrows or the other two to bring with me (gimme Merops apiaster any day :-)). Were these birds chosen simply because they were commensals of man in Europe? because they were easily carried from one continent to another? Anybody know? Blue Jays are getting more vocal around here now, either moving into the city for the winter or just passin' through. No signs of any substantial warbler movement, though. *************************************************************************** David Graham dgraham@kean.ucs.mun.ca ***************************************************************************
wander@csa2.lbl.gov (ADRIAN WANDER) (09/13/90)
In article <133704@kean.ucs.mun.ca>, dgraham@kean.ucs.mun.ca (David Graham) writes... > {re: stuff about House Sparrow, Starling and Rock Dove} >Were these birds chosen simply because they were commensals of man in >Europe? because they were easily carried from one continent to >another? Anybody know? > As I understand it, someone decided that the US should have all the birds mentioned in the works of Shakespeare, and hence started to import various species. I don't know where I heard this, does anyone have a reference? Adrian.
teexmmo@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Matthew Moore) (09/14/90)
David Graham) writes: stuff about pigeons... > >All this has moved me to think about the three great introduced bird >species in North America; all successful, none now considered >especially handsome, two normally considered active pests (Rock Dove >and Starling, of course). What do you suppose prompts the kind of >change in attitude towards birds that would make people bring in the >three big European imports which now infest our cities? I mean, if I >were emigrating from Europe, I wouldn't choose House Sparrows or the >other two to bring with me (gimme Merops apiaster any day :-)). Were >these birds chosen simply because they were commensals of man in >Europe? because they were easily carried from one continent to >another? Anybody know? > Here in sunny London there are press reports that in Covent Garden, (a touristy area in the West End), the local authority has hired a hawk (with its keeper) and they go prowling together every morning. The nut cutlet brigade has been placated by claims that the (evident) reduction in pigeon numbers has been achieved because the birds are afraid, and have gone elsewhere. Its only occasionally that the hawk actually catches a pigeon.
mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) (09/14/90)
In article <133704@kean.ucs.mun.ca>, dgraham@kean.ucs.mun.ca (David Graham) writes: > > All this has moved me to think about the three great introduced bird > species in North America; all successful, none now considered > especially handsome, two normally considered active pests (Rock Dove > and Starling, of course). What do you suppose prompts the kind of > change in attitude towards birds that would make people bring in the > three big European imports which now infest our cities? I mean, if I > were emigrating from Europe, I wouldn't choose House Sparrows or the > other two to bring with me (gimme Merops apiaster any day :-)). Were > these birds chosen simply because they were commensals of man in > Europe? because they were easily carried from one continent to > another? Anybody know? I believe that the House Sparrow was introduced as a predator control of the Linden Moth. The Starling was introduced by a society (I forget the name) that was interested in introducing into the U.S. every bird species that was mentioned in the works of Shakespeare. I don't know about the Rock Dove, off the top of my head. Mike
q1ygq@turing.newcastle.ac.uk (J.M. Spencer) (09/14/90)
In article <1990Sep13.172006.21612@ioe.lon.ac.uk> teexmmo@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Matthew Moore) writes: >David Graham) writes: > >stuff about pigeons...[more stuff deleted] >Here in sunny London there are press reports that in Covent Garden, (a >touristy area in the West End), the local authority has hired a hawk >(with its keeper) and they go prowling together every morning. The nut >cutlet brigade has been placated by claims that the (evident) >reduction in pigeon numbers has been achieved because the birds are >afraid, and have gone elsewhere. Its only occasionally that the hawk >actually catches a pigeon. This sounds rather like the vicar (?) who wanted a recording of "the attack cries of a kestrel" in order to play them inside his church/cathedral to frighten off the sparrows. It doesn't work. The kestrel (and other hawks) make no such noise: what advantage would it be for a predator to announce to its intended victims that it was attacking? (I accept that a pack of barking dogs might confuse a herd of goats etc. and thus aid them to kill, but kestrels hover quietly they don't announce their intentions, nor do any other hawks. Reason: they are solitary hunters.) Gamekeepers often put forward this thesis as justification for shooting hawks, but a moments though will show it to be rubbish. In fact, if the predator's very presence causes its quarry to become afraid and go elsewhere, it means a short lifespan for the predator, doesn't it? Do rabbits become afraid and go elswhere just because they share territory with a fox? No, they carry on as normal but scurry down the bury's during times of danger only to re-emerge once the danger's gone. The best way to deal with pigeons is to remove them, permanently, either by trapping or shooting. But, as you say, Joe Public gets squeemish about such things. If the stories about the hawk-keeper are true then the council responsible has been well and truly hoodwinked. Can you let me have their number as I've got a tin- whistle which will lead away all the capital's rats. (Take with plenty of smileys! :o) :o) :o)
teexmmo@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Matthew Moore) (09/15/90)
In article <1990Sep14.103009.744@newcastle.ac.uk> q1ygq@turing.newcastle.ac.uk (J.M. Spencer) writes: >In article <1990Sep13.172006.21612@ioe.lon.ac.uk> teexmmo@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Matthew Moore) writes: >>David Graham) writes: >> >>stuff about pigeons...[more stuff deleted] >>Here in sunny London there are press reports that in Covent Garden, (a >>touristy area in the West End), the local authority has hired a hawk >>(with its keeper) and they go prowling together every morning. The nut >>cutlet brigade has been placated by claims that the (evident) >>reduction in pigeon numbers has been achieved because the birds are >>afraid, and have gone elsewhere. Its only occasionally that the hawk >>actually catches a pigeon. > >This sounds rather like the vicar (?) who wanted a recording of >"the attack cries of a kestrel" in order to play them inside his >church/cathedral to frighten off the sparrows. It doesn't work. >The kestrel (and other hawks) make no such noise: what advantage >would it be for a predator to announce to its intended victims >that it was attacking? (I accept that a pack of barking dogs >might confuse a herd of goats etc. and thus aid them to kill, but >kestrels hover quietly they don't announce their intentions, nor >do any other hawks. Reason: they are solitary hunters.) > >Gamekeepers often put forward this thesis as justification for >shooting hawks, but a moments though will show it to be rubbish. >In fact, if the predator's very presence causes its quarry to become >afraid and go elsewhere, it means a short lifespan for the predator, >doesn't it? Do rabbits become afraid and go elswhere just because >they share territory with a fox? No, they carry on as normal but >scurry down the bury's during times of danger only to re-emerge >once the danger's gone. > >The best way to deal with pigeons is to remove them, permanently, >either by trapping or shooting. But, as you say, Joe Public gets >squeemish about such things. If the stories about the hawk-keeper >are true then the council responsible has been well and truly >hoodwinked. Can you let me have their number as I've got a tin- >whistle which will lead away all the capital's rats. (Take with >plenty of smileys! :o) :o) :o) An amusing reply! The original intention was to imply that the early morning prowls were indeed providing the hawk with its breakfast. The stories about 'scaring the pigeons away' are for the consumption of press and public. (It should be noted that the prowling is conducted in the early morning, before Joe and Joanna Public are abroad to be horrfied by natural events).
q1ygq@turing.newcastle.ac.uk (J.M. Spencer) (09/17/90)
In article <1990Sep14.195319.6234@ioe.lon.ac.uk> teexmmo@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Matthew Moore) writes: >In article <1990Sep14.103009.744@newcastle.ac.uk> q1ygq@turing.newcastle.ac.uk (J.M. Spencer) writes: >>In article <1990Sep13.172006.21612@ioe.lon.ac.uk> teexmmo@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Matthew Moore) writes: >>>David Graham) writes: >>> >>>stuff about pigeons...[more stuff deleted] [even more deleted] >>The best way to deal with pigeons is to remove them, permanently, >>either by trapping or shooting. But, as you say, Joe Public gets >>squeemish about such things. If the stories about the hawk-keeper >>are true then the council responsible has been well and truly >>hoodwinked. Can you let me have their number as I've got a tin- >>whistle which will lead away all the capital's rats. (Take with >>plenty of smileys! :o) :o) :o) > >An amusing reply! The original intention was to imply that the early >morning prowls were indeed providing the hawk with its breakfast. The >stories about 'scaring the pigeons away' are for the consumption of >press and public. (It should be noted that the prowling is conducted >in the early morning, before Joe and Joanna Public are abroad to be >horrfied by natural events). Even so, pigeon are a difficult quarry to catch even with the best of hawks. So it sounds like the austringer simply got the offcial nod for a bit of early-morning sport. What about the 'infestation' of fowl on the capital`s recreational parks? <chuckle>