Page 21 of 22

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 20 Jul 2019, 10:17pm
by NATURAL ANKLING
Hi,

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 21 Jul 2019, 9:14am
by mercalia
nice place also for rats or mice?

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 21 Jul 2019, 10:08am
by kwackers
mercalia wrote:nice place also for rats or mice?

We get lots of mice, they steal food out of the hedgehogs box - particularly chunks of cat meat (I thought they were vegetarians!)
Only ever had one in the garage, caught it in a humane trap and threw it back in the garden.

Did see a rat just once, it triggered the wildlife camera running past the hedgehogs box. Must be more out there but I've never seen them.

Been finding feathers in the hedghogs food box. I think the blackbirds have figured out how to get into the box and steal food although it seems to happen during the day when the camera isn't usually active.

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 21 Jul 2019, 10:08am
by NATURAL ANKLING
Hi,
mercalia wrote:nice place also for rats or mice?

The rat which was in a escaped domestic one Died off a year or so ago.
We have a few mice probably nothing special.
Cats are more problem when feeding hogs, And cats needlessly kill the birds.
The trick is not to put too much feet on the ground, attracts lots of pigeons And many more bigger birds.

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 21 Jul 2019, 10:15am
by NATURAL ANKLING
Hi,
Don't forget water, on the bird table and on the floor for the hogs And birds feeding off the ground, I made a ramp to go over the wall, I caught a hog climbing over the wall, also standing on his rear legs drinking out of the bird water container.

I see the hogs drinking from water containers all the time, Watching a program on TV about hogs, Many coming in dehydrated then die off.

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 21 Jul 2019, 10:17am
by brynpoeth
Why are hedgehogs so popular?

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 21 Jul 2019, 10:37am
by kwackers
brynpoeth wrote:Why are hedgehogs so popular?

Mrs Tiggy-Winkle?
Classic British wildlife, numbers in massive decline too.

It's one of the few remaining bits of actual wildlife folk might see that they don't consider vermin.

You could argue why is any animal popular. Why do people watch birds? Feed ducks and swans?

I personally like all the wildlife in my garden, I'm made up to see hogs, foxes, mice, birds.

Funnily enough the previous owner having lived here for near 30 years claimed they'd never seen a hog and yet I reckon there are several different hogs that visit the garden. Step out at dusk, stand still for a few minutes and you'll hear and the see them as they snuffle around. They can't half shift too when they 'lift up their skirt'.

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 21 Jul 2019, 10:49am
by brynpoeth
Positive Thread Alert, Plus One!
Yes they are harmless, do not mess from above like birds, cute, come out in the gloaming, have a distinctive silhouette
Whether they are declining, who knows?Great fluctuations in numbers are normal for many birds and other creatures
Birdwatchers are a bit suspect in their choice of favourite beast mind, I read about how they rejoice in being dive-bombed, terrorised, by skuas :?

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 21 Jul 2019, 11:13am
by kwackers
brynpoeth wrote:Positive Thread Alert, Plus One!
Yes they are harmless, do not mess from above like birds, cute, come out in the gloaming, have a distinctive silhouette
Whether they are declining, who knows?Great fluctuations in numbers are normal for many birds and other creatures
Birdwatchers are a bit suspect in their choice of favourite beast mind, I read about how they rejoice in being dive-bombed, terrorised, by skuas :?

Fluctuations are usually short lived, hogs have been declining since the 50's and the reasons are pretty well known.

The good news is there is a bit of a resurgence in the 'burbs countering the continual decline in the countryside.
Folk have stopped using slug pellets (I believe the active ingredient that killed hogs is now banned?) you can buy fence panels in particular gravel boards with hog holes cast into them and folk are starting to use them or make holes in existing fences to allow them through (hogs roam 2 or 3 miles a night so need plenty of access) and of course daft fools like me and NA spend time and money putting food and boxes out for them.

One of the best ways of estimating hog numbers is to count the amount of roadkill... :?

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 22 Jul 2019, 12:04pm
by mercalia
I was wondering whether to post this as a separate thread.

I bought for just £2 a BBC nature set of blu rays with David Attenborough doing the voice over, Planet Earth. One scene that upset me was seeing this young deer or some thing being run down by a lion, it then gives up sinks to the ground then the lion grabs it, the deer bleats for its mother then is dead/scene cut.

It got me wondering about the so called policy of "serious" nature watchers not to interfere with what they are "studying" I cant help but feel their policy is quite immoral. If they put themselves in a position like the above they cant stand idly by, in my opinion, and do nothing, it seems they regard their subjects as "just animals" and they are on the moon so they cant do anything. They occupy a false position. Thats one video I dont want to watch again.

Compare this to 3 stories I read about, both in cold climes.

One a couple of trappers came across a dog stuck in frozen water, they cut it out and put in in the back of their car where it layed down without fuss, and took it to the vets who identified it as a young wolf - it recovered and was put back into the wild.

Another story some fishermen came across a mother bear with 2 young uns on its back trying to swim thru frozen water, it was in deep trouble so for self preservation dumped them in the water and swam to the bank. The fishermen managed to haul the bear cubs into their boat and set them free and the mother re claimed them.

On the BBC news website there was a case of a mantra ray "asking" for help from some divers to remove some hooks caught in its flesh near one of its eyes.

I hope one day to find David Attenborough or the people who make these films being mugged or in a car crash and what I'll do is to take my Lumia phone out and just record the event not wanting to interfere in this case study, as he/they are also "just animals"?

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 22 Jul 2019, 12:52pm
by kwackers
mercalia wrote:I bought for just £2 a BBC nature set of blu rays with David Attenborough doing the voice over, Planet Earth. One scene that upset me was seeing this young deer or some thing being run down by a lion, it then gives up sinks to the ground then the lion grabs it, the deer bleats for its mother then is dead/scene cut.

Lions are carnivores, if they don't eat they and their young starve.

Trying to find morals in nature is a dead end; "Nature red in tooth and claw".

In the case of the lion and the deer your decision can only be based on which animal you prefer, at the more professional end the morality of the argument is simply non-interference rather than bias towards a particular animal.

If you watch enough nature stuff you find that lions don't have it all their own way. They often starve, their young get killed and eaten and occasionally the prey fights back and sometimes even kills them.

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 22 Jul 2019, 1:23pm
by mercalia
kwackers wrote:
mercalia wrote:I bought for just £2 a BBC nature set of blu rays with David Attenborough doing the voice over, Planet Earth. One scene that upset me was seeing this young deer or some thing being run down by a lion, it then gives up sinks to the ground then the lion grabs it, the deer bleats for its mother then is dead/scene cut.

Lions are carnivores, if they don't eat they and their young starve.

Trying to find morals in nature is a dead end; "Nature red in tooth and claw".

In the case of the lion and the deer your decision can only be based on which animal you prefer, at the more professional end the morality of the argument is simply non-interference rather than bias towards a particular animal.

If you watch enough nature stuff you find that lions don't have it all their own way. They often starve, their young get killed and eaten and occasionally the prey fights back and sometimes even kills them.


you re missing the fact of the insertion of human prescence. I am not suggesting we go out and kill all the lions and other meat eaters. But once a human is present it is no longer just Nature red in tooth and claw anymore?

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 22 Jul 2019, 1:38pm
by kwackers
mercalia wrote:you re missing the fact of the insertion of human prescence. I am not suggesting we go out and kill all the lions and other meat eaters. But once a human is present it is no longer just Nature red in tooth and claw anymore?

No I don't think I am.

My argument is simply who am I to chose between lions and deer?

I don't like seeing anything kill something else - if I take stuff out of my pond to study under a microscope I wash the slide back into the pond when I'm done!
But not liking something isn't the same as interfering.

Plus how exactly would you rescue the deer anyway? Shoot the lion?
If you're thinking tranquilliser then tranquillisers are slow acting and the deer will be dead long before they kicked in, plus tranquillising a lion could well condemn it and its offspring to death if it can't protect itself or them (assuming it has any).

I watched a recent nature prog on the beeb not so long ago my vague recollection is of one animal stuck or in distress somewhere. In the 10 minute extra they showed the camera crew rescuing the animal - although that wasn't mentioned in the main feature.

<edit>
Baby turtles apparently.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/12/bbc-planet-earth-ii-filmmakers-defy-convention-save-lost-baby/

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 22 Jul 2019, 3:48pm
by mercalia
Sir David said last year: “If you’re a film cameraman you are trained, as it were, to be the observer, a non-participant. That’s very important.”

It's that attitude that is morally questionable? When you film some like the lion and its prey, or anything else there are not just (2) participants but also your self. Attenborough denies this and trumpets this as a professional value. Simpleminded at best. In the turtle example indicated they justified their actions as they claim the turtles were going astray due to human interferance, so it was ok to "undo" what man had done. Thats still wrong it. It was just the human thing to do? I read a case ( I think was true) of a lady who seem to have picked up a relationship with a squirrel that used to follow her down the path when she went to work. One bad winter when the snow was thick and it couldnt get to its nuts it went to her door and it followed her in and she fed it some nuts. After Winter she found an uneaten confectionary in its wrapper, no teeth marks taken from one of those displensers, out side her door presumably as a thankyou ( There are videos on YouTube of squirrels taking things thus).

I dont know what would the right thing to do in the lion/antelope' case, certainly not Sir Davids response

Re: Feeding the birds

Posted: 22 Jul 2019, 3:59pm
by Vorpal
mercalia wrote:Sir David said last year: “If you’re a film cameraman you are trained, as it were, to be the observer, a non-participant. That’s very important.”

It's that attitude that is morally questionable?

Is it? I think it depends upon the situation. When human interference causes distress or endangerment to the animals they are studying, they can & do help them. When the natural environment causes distress or endangerment, to the animals they are studying, they help only in exceptional circumstances. Predators hunting and catching prey is part of the natural cycle; deer or antelope dying to feed lions also improves the deer / antelope genetics through the survival of the fittest.

Scientists, observers and the folks who bring their work to the public have learned through previous errors to avoid interference.

It has nothing to do with morality. Watching an animal get run over by car when it could have been prevented is morally questionable. Watching one get caught by a lion is not.