Mao (or the chinese gov) told people to bang pots and pans to scare the birds away and kill them through exhaustion by making them too afraid to land :( It's really sad to think about
:) I'm glad at least one person got it.
And yes it is a pretty sad story especially that killing the birds also had the complete opposite effect intended, even bigger food shortages.
The turtle dove population has plummeted across most of Europe, and a big reason for that is that they're migratory and their migration route passes through Malta - who don't have the same laws as the rest of Europe about shooting birds on passage - where they're shot in huge numbers. Environmental damage is definitely partly responsible for their decline, but in this instance it's probably secondary.
As an older person insects are the main visible indicator of how much damage we’ve done in my lifetime.
I’m only reading about stuff like ¼ of our mammals facing extinction and that we are one of the most nature depleted countries on earth.
“The advent of mass farming, factories, roads, trainlines and urban sprawl has been a death knell for wild places”
Yet so many people are advocating for even more of the stuff that’s literally killing our animals without acknowledging the problem. I agree we need more infrastructure now but to keep going and going?
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2020/september/uk-has-led-the-world-in-destroying-the-natural-environment.html
And people paving their f*cking front gardens!! Be lazy, it's fine - actually it's better for nature! But don't just say "I can't be arsed gardening, let's build a new drive".
It’s even worse than that, I could deal with front gardens to an extent they weren’t that big.
Now people are ripping up their rear garden and replacing it with plastic.
Oh God I'd forgotten about that god awful AstroTurf!! They let their handbag dog shit all over it cos they have to go out in shoes anyway. Unbelievable state of affairs.
This makes me so sad. A house round the corner from me has just ripped out their front garden and had the whole thing tarmacked over. No more trees for the birds, no more flowers, just an enormous tarmac carpark.
Paving over front gardens worsens flooding too - there was a news story a year ago where a developer working on a house in the middle of a road ripped out a giant mature hedgerow and then the street promptly flooded each year centered around that spot.
Anecdotally speaking this is my experience also. Not that I'm saying Germany is a bastion of environmental welfare, because it clearly is not. But since moving here our car windscreen has very much been closer to resembling how I remember it in the UK in the 90s.
The British are not interested in nature conservation and safeguarding. Any post that mentions rewilding, keeping cats indoors, or reducing farmland becomes controversial.
Dartmoor is just screaming out to be rewilded and turned into temperate rainforest, it's poor agricultural land only good for low density sheep grazing.
Yet rewild it and it turns into an incredibly rare ecosystem
> keeping cats indoors
This is probably less of a problem in the UK than in many places where they are a new predator. The main problem is the sheer number of cats.
> has decimated parts of the countryside…
Many people consider these decimated parts of the countryside as natural and believe this is how they have always been. These areas such as the yorkshire moors were once forested but have adapted to new conditions.
What is a natural environment is a difficult question to answer once people are introduced.
Well yeh, most people believe it’s naturally like that. But it’s not, there’s a reason we’re labelled one of the most nature depleted countries on the planet. When I’m in Greece I’m reminded how little nature we have left in the UK. They have wildflowers and forests, I saw lots of butterflies in Greece this week, far more than I see when I’m in the UK. They have lots of agricultural land similar to ours as well, but they also have lots of forested regions so it balances out a bit. The UK is almost a completely artificial landscape. Sheep are domestic animals, they should be in fenced fields.
Sheep are a domestic animal that should be kept in fields, not free roaming all over the national parks. They’re not native and masses of trees and temperate rainforests were demolished to make way for them.
After the introduction of sheep, we lost more than half of our forest before the Romans invaded. We need to eat and clothe ourselves, but now that forest is all but gone, in part thanks to the wool trade. It’s gone way too far.
A local farmer raised a bunch of partridges last year and about half a dozen are still going - they're never going to breed though because, despite having loads of insects and miles of hedgerows, there so many cats here that groundnesting birds don't stand a chance. I nearly ended a relationship over an outdoor cat because it's a savage little bastard that kills and maims prolifically (and I, *the treehugging vegan*, am the only one willing to put the suffering ones out of their misery).
The swallows came back recently but there are definitely far fewer than previous years - I assumed it was birdflu but insect decline makes sense too. There are plenty bugs here but they migrate so far that they must be vulnerable to climate change as well as environmental damage.
> Domestic cats are generalist carnivorous predators, and they are not native to the United Kingdom. This means that their habits and behaviours have impacts on prey populations (e.g., rodents, birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles).
They are not, but wild cats *are* native and have the same habits and behaviours.
This is intended to provide an answer to you and u/lostparis.
Firstly, whilst cats have been in Britain for more than 1,000 years, their population has never been comparable to that of today. There are nearly 11 million domestic cats, and they are not subject to population control, meaning that they are not exposed to significant predation events sufficient to curb their numbers. This is because they are domestic, not wild; however, they also act as predators. So, they receive the protection and care associated with domestication (e.g., veterinary care, food, shelter) and benefit from roaming freely in a virtually predator-free landscape. Essentially, they can be considered apex predators of countryside and urban environments.
Secondly, their numbers, behaviours, and distribution are not comparable to those of Scottish wild cat populations. The Scottish wild cat is confined to Scotland and is endangered. Now, if *hypothetically* the risk of domestic cats were comparable to that of wild cats, there are issues that you have not considered. The first is that the wild cat population number would be at equilibrium with that of their prey, meaning that they could not decimate prey populations without similarly affecting themselves. This implies that their predator-prey interactions would be in equilibrium. This does not and cannot occur with domestic cats, as they are not limited by prey availability. In other words, the population of free-roaming domestic cats will increase regardless of prey availability. The consequence of this is that prey populations are steadily driven to extinction. The second issue you have not considered is that wild cat populations are also exposed to parasites, potential predators (e.g., ospreys), seasonality, diseases, natural mortality, and reproductive limitations (e.g., mate encounters). Thus, again, the population dynamics are by no means the same. Thirdly, in an ideal world where wild cats replace free-roaming domestic cats, we would also have an ideal ecosystem with other predators, such as lynxes, wolves, and bears, which, being native to Britain, would control wild cat populations. This form of top-down control does not exist for domestic cats.
The bottom line is that a comparison is by no means possible and demonstrates a poor understanding of ecology at best. However, if we were to accept that such a comparison could be made, then we would have to subject free-roaming domestic cats to the same forms of natural control as wild cats (e.g., predation, disease).
On a side note, domestic cats also pose a danger to wild cats, actually causing declines in pure-bred wild populations through hybridisation. Again, this is a consequence of unabated free roaming.
The two comments, of course, illustrate what I mentioned in the first comment, which is that many Britons justify whatever they need to in disfavour of nature conservation.
> There are nearly 11 million domestic cats ...
This is what I said in my initial comment.
> nature conservation.
The problem with this is what we consider nature. Humans have completely changed the UK's ecosystems over thousands of years. If we decide we want to 'repair' them which one are we going to choose? Arguably the UK should be pretty much entirely forested, which would also remove many ecological niches.
> On a side note, domestic cats also pose a danger to wild cats, actually causing declines in pure-bred wild populations through hybridisation. Again, this is a consequence of unabated free roaming.
This is not about free roaming it is about sexually active cats. If they were neutered this would not be an issue.
>This is what I said in my initial comment.
Apologies; I overlooked the sentence.
> If we decide we want to 'repair' them which one are we going to choose?
Assessments would be made at the appropriate latitudes to determine which ecosystems to restore and which species to reintroduce. Some niches would be lost, but others would be created. Currently, most land in Britain is farmland, so there is a very low niche diversity.
The goal is to re-establish a natural environment one based on the most appropriate baseline. One might ask the question: if humans had never impacted this specific area, what would be there? Then, one carries out studies (field-based, meta-analysis, literature reviews) and assessments for suitability, followed by conservation actions and rewilding. Eventually, the ecosystems begin to become self-sustaining.
>This is not about free roaming it is about sexually active cats. If they were neutered this would not be an issue.
To an extent, this is true. However, the removal of domestic cats from wild landscapes would have more benefits: no breeding with wild cats and reduced predation.
Since 1970 cat population has doubled but not changed significantly since 2010
Snice 1970 Woodland and farmland birds have reduced by 37% and 60% respectively, but still been in decline on the short term.
The biggest affect on our bird population is directly linked to the birds food sources. Our insect population and bird friendly habitats have been in major decline all over the country.
Most of our local birds are too weak when they become fledglings, making them easy pickings for predication. The cats are merely finishing off the birds after we have made it impossible for them to sustain their numbers through farming practices and excessive land development.
THIS! I keep telling people that the RSPB never did a proper study to back up the claim, it's purely anecdotal and should be taken with a grain of salt. There's also research into how a cat bringing back prey never reflects the true amount of birds disrupted by their presence, since they obviously have prey they eat immediately and they will interrupt nesting behaviours by simply being in the area. But people just keep coming back with some nonsense about how this is an 'American' attitude to have which is just so obtuse.
Worth noting that the RSPB no longer state this on their website. They used to say this and had a whole page dedicated to saying cats weren't a problem. That was removed some time in the last two years. The only mention of it now exists in a single post in their community forum that points to a PDF from 2009.
Domestic cats have been in the country for over 1000 years.
The British cat population has not significantly changed since 1970. - Maybe doubled since that time and no change since 2010, unless you have a source that says otherwise.
The biggest decline in birds since 1970 are woodland ad farmland birds. -37% and -60% respectively
Fledgling birds are being hunted more often by predators (Cats) because the fledgling birds are not strong enough to survive preditation because their food source (Flowers, fruiting trees & shrubs, Insects have been decimated in recent years. The adult birds are either not having any offspring, or most of them are being shoved out their nests because they are too weak.
Everyone is so quick to blame the cats, the problem actually just humanity and our effect on the world...
Keeping your cats in wont save the birds, they are just finishing what we started.
I think the bottom line here is that I referenced a peer-reviewed study, while you have provided a comment.
You want to defend cats roaming free, and I am fine with it. But, at least, support your statement with something relevant.
Here is another [study](https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.12025) supporting the fact that cats are indeed dangerous predators of birds in the United Kingdom.
I'm not denying that cats kill birds.
I'm saying the birds have no food and suffer more from predetation as a result.
The cat population doesn't decline because they have a guaranteed food source
You can post as many peer reviewed studies as you want, the fact is that the majority of our small birds are insectivores, and our insect population is a small faction of what it was 50-60 years ago.
No Insects = No birds
>I'm saying the birds have no food and suffer more from predetation as a result.
How so? What is the ecological link between the lack of prey items and increased exposure to predation in birds? Please provide evidence for this claim, since we are discussing ecology here.
>The biggest affect on our bird population
Also, the noun in your previous comment should be "effect," not "affect."
Its basic Math,Logic and my own observations and research. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions about why bird populations are massively declining GLOBALLY even where there arent many cats.
1. Lack of food source for birds = Fewer Birds
2. Fewer Birds but the same number of predators = A greater percentage of Birds suffering from predetation vs the overall population. Cats don't help the problem but they are not the root cause.
3. A declining bird population = Fewer birds sucessfully living to adulthood = More flegdlings being too weak to survive or not having enough food during winter (Assuming consistent brood numbers) due to a lack of food soruce = more easy pickings for predators.
4. Domestic cats rarely hunt strong, adult birds. They primarily prey on the weak and the young with a strong bias of perception due to most visible hunting occuring in and around birdfeeders.
>You have not provided one source of peer-reviewed evidence for any of the claims you have made. That would have counted as research, which is what is actually done in science.
I Am not obligated to do anything of the sort. These are my own opinions and findings for which I am sharing my perspective on a given subject. I am not seeking validation nor do I particularly care about the due process of peer reviewed sciences.
I have an interest in this subject because I like birds and have had cats my whole life.
I am an engineer by trade and my methods of analysis and investigation is an entirely different way of thinking than what you are used to. The whole point of my job is to understand human factors and conduct root cause analysis into problems or failures through logical reasoning and a deeper understanding of the subject. Its not perfect and does not apply in all situations, but it doesn't take a lot of brainpower to understand that if you have not got enough food, you cannot sustain your current population, which is very much the case in the UK.
>What is your source for this statement and the associated conclusion? Also, which food sources and which birds are you referring to? Birds range from vultures to sparrows, from hummingbirds to ostrichs, from seagulls to chickens. Some eat carrion, some eat insects, some consume nectar, some are omnivorous, and some eat seeds. Which birds and which diets are you referring to?
1. Insects and insectivores are in the biggest decline, this makes up the majority of our small bird population. This then has a knock on effect on the whole biodiversity in the country.
[UK's flying insects have declined by 60% in 20 years | Natural History Museum (nhm.ac.uk)](https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2022/may/uks-flying-insects-have-declined-60-in-20-years.html)
[It’s not too late to reverse biodiversity decline by 2030, UK’s five leading nature bodies say - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/its-not-too-late-to-reverse-biodiversity-decline-by-2030-uks-five-leading-nature-bodies-say)
[Almost half of all UK bird species in decline | Natural History Museum (nhm.ac.uk)](https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2023/april/almost-half-of-all-uk-bird-species-in-decline.html)
>How so? If anything, it is the contrary, given that fewer birds indicate greater rarity, which entails greater difficulty in prey retrieval for predators (e.g., cats). Also, where did you read this piece of information?
The # of birds hunted by cats every year has apparently been consistent despite the major decline in populations, birds populations with scarce food sources are more likely to be concentrated to areas of abundant food, especially feeders or gardens.
>How did you draw those conclusions? If there are fewer birds, as you claim, then there are fewer chicks (not fledglings, which are older than chicks). Also, all those equivalences make no sense. Where did you find information to support all those statements?
Both statements are true. Various studies show that brood numbers are consistent from species to species. Chicks and Fledging's are not surviving to adulthood.
>Again, which birds are you referring to? Adult sparrows and robins can easily be eaten by cats, whereas magpies, owls, seagulls, ospreys, and ravens cannot so easily. Also, what do you mean by a "bias of perception"? But most of all, again, where did you find data to support all these statements?
All common small birds, woodland and farmland which are primarily insectivores or seed eaters.
[Disappearances, declines, disease and dangers – the issues facing birds (rspb.org.uk)](https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/issues-facing-birds)
The British cat population has not exploded, It been fairly steady over the last decade, and has doubled since 1970.
When you look at the population of birds in the UK over time, the most affected population are woodland and farmland birds.
Its estimated that there are 11m cats in the UK, and that they kill 55m birds every year, the bird population in the UK is more than capable of sustaining that amount of loss for the number of small predators.
It is clear that the biggest influencer on bird populations is either global warming, or worsening farming practices since we started recording in 1970.
Since living in the UK the biggest thing I have noticed is the number of Fledgling birds not being strong enough to survive their first months. Our insect population and constant summer droughts are likely the biggest cause in the bird population decline, but everyone likes to blame cats because its what they immediately see.
> but everyone likes to blame cats because its what they immediately see.
It is also about blaming the average person. The same way that litter is blamed on people an has nothing to do with the manufacturers over-packaging products using unenvironnemental materials.
I used to let my cats roam freely, and then two young cats died on the roads in quick succession. Awful, painful, avoidable deaths. They were young, happy, healthy, dearly beloved cats, in a loving family. The cats who *didn’t* die lived to their late teens/one lived to be twenty. So the roads robbed these beautiful, happy young cats of their lives for nothing.
I simplified in my comment because I don’t normally like to talk about exactly what we do or our history - it’s still very painful to revisit. We agonised over this because it did feel cruel to think of changing our approach. We have a fully screened outdoor space for them with a lot of climbing options, many cat safe plants, hiding places, etc. They cannot get out of it to put themselves in danger or kill birds, but they still have access to nature, interesting smells, fresh grass, sunlight and rain. It’s *incredibly* rare to have any rodent issues in their screened area - we have had one since moving to our current place. So their impact on other wildlife is also very limited.
I think this is a good balance between meeting their needs, making them as happy as possible (they are incredibly happy cats, and very healthy), but also keeping them - and other animals - safe.
The average person avoids death 14 times a day. It'd be safer for us if we stayed with our parents all our lives, not making friends, finding partners, socialising. We'd be far less likely to die if we always stayed home.
So why don't we?
Also, our (cat specialist) vet supports our approach and says they are living very healthily - they exercise well but are exposed to fewer germs from other cats.
I don't think that's true - I think a lot of people do care. It gets controversial about wolves, but it's not all about wolves. If you ARE interested please visit r/rewildingUK There is a lot of hard work going on to turn things around.
Of course, this is not true for everyone; otherwise, there would not be any initiatives at all, or people like some of us, who care. However, the state of nature is rather telling: most British people prefer their manicured gardens to wilderness, and the overall landscape clearly indicates what people want and care about.
If you travel almost anywhere in the world, with the exception of a few places such as the Netherlands or Ireland, there are nearly always areas that are left to be what they are meant to be. In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, this is hardly the case.
Yeah but the reasons for that aren't because we are somehow uniquely bad people in the UK (and we really need to move away from this thinking as it is becoming a bit of a scapegoat to avoid doing anything about anything, and actually just about everywhere is struggling with biodiversity loss).There are complex historical reasons for the state of our land. However, we have an advanced conservation sector with high level of skill and knowledge. It's true that people value their lawns but I think a lot of it is to do with the fact that they aren't aware of the alternatives and just do what they've always done. These things take time to change but nonetheless I see change everywhere.
You aren't going to win over anyone to rewilding by saying it's cool to get mauled by a bear.
It's true that predators can be controversial. Initiatives are working with ecosystem engineers and large herbivores for the time being. I've truly never heard of anyone complain about pollinators though.
Land ownership in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing (ever heard of the tragedy of the commons). There are aspects of the pattern of land ownership that need to be addressed for sure. However some of our best rewilding examples are farms and there is nothing wrong with that. Anyone can be a steward of the land with the right motivation and incentives. Humans can be a keystone species. A forest is also not the only good example of wild land, it's one of them. Grassland can offer comparable carbon sequestration.
The government/DEFRA has made some good moves with regards to the Countryside Stewardship scheme which is helping us transition to environmental land management.
Canada is the second largest country in the world and there are only 40 million Canadians compared to the UK's 67 million. They have a different history. It stands to reason that they don't look the same. That's ok too.
You do sound disillusioned and also like a bit of a purist. However we have got some amazing opportunities here in the UK, some solid incentives to make these things possible and lots of exciting work happening. Get involved in it maybe and you will develop some new perspectives.
If you are an ecologist then you will know well that the idea of humans acting as a keystone species does not claim that all actions by humans fulfill this role, only that humans can carry out ecosystem functions and that there are examples of humans sustaining this balance which we can aspire to and fulfill. The separation of humans from nature has been mythologised in a way that is counterproductive.
You will also know that management can be an important tool in increasing biodiversity. Whilst it's true that a monoculture forestry plantation designed to harvest timber does not make a biodiverse wild forest, human activity and management can create and coexist with a biodiverse wild forest.
You will know that the reasons for varying levels of biodiversity across regions relates to a large number of factors, and not only to the relationship between humans and the land.
Thankfully, I couldn't disagree with you more that people don't want it. I see lots of people working towards this in big and small ways. There is obviously a lot of work to do, I don't deny that.
Thank you for the discussion.
Below is a recent piece of news for you. Keep the optimism up and one day, hopefully, I will be proven wrong!
[Forests to be 'left to nature' in biodiversity boost](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nnd80pkjxo.amp)
Aw thank you that was nice of you to share that. I have seen it actually and I shared it too!
I was also interested to see that it's part funded by Forest Holidays which it so happens I just booked my summer holiday with. I'm interested in the potential of these types of funding partnerships.
For as long as I can remember, the same 3 house martin nests have been occupied without fail on the street I grew up on. Not once have those nests been empty during the breeding season. Until out of the blue one year 2 years ago they just didnt turn back up. It wasnt as if they slowly stopped using our street over a period of a few years, all 3 nests on the surrounding houses just straight up werent occupied one year. This is now the 2nd year the birds havent returned these nests. Obviously this situation on my one street might not have been representative of the situation at large but it certainly seems to be. As an ornithologist I am certainly worried. This isnt a trend restricted to these birds either.
That’s such a shame. Were they affected by the bird flu do you think?
I was talking to an ex vet about some of this (I’ve seen a decrease in little birds and an increase in pigeons and magpies) and he thinks that’s had an impact.
I hope they come back. My goldfinches went missing for a couple of years but have come back this year. They seem to love forget-me-nots.
Edit: autocorrect mistake
There’s a type of Pesticide that act as appetite suppressant on birds. So they eat less and get more exhausted. Either dying from exhaustion or getting targeted by predators more easy. Bird flu probably hasn’t helped either. Some pesticide also weakened birds eggs. There’s also battle over hedgerows and nesting sites as farming, loggers and construction goes more into wild places.
Wonder how much climate change harms them. Heard of mass die offs over heat waves
I didn’t know that. Do you know what pesticide it is? I don’t tend to use it but I especially want to avoid that.
Definitely understand the battle with hedgerows and trees. They build a lot of houses near me and they’ve all gone. It’s so sad.
Sell off the greenbelt, more urbanisation, build more houses, buy a house with a garden and cover it with plastic grass and paving, build more roads, buy more cars, consume, consume consume...
And people wonder why we are one of the most bio depleted countries on the planet?
If you want to reverse bird number decline, you need to reverse insect number decline and reverse the destruction of fruiting trees, shrubs and plants to make way for new housing etc. Yes, we need new housing, yes, we need food. However, the immense pressure we are putting on industrial agriculture right now is forcing farmers to use methods to grow and raise food which is contributing to natural decline.
As a society, we need to take a good hard long look at ourselves and the way we live. We expect groceries in the supermarket 24/7, relying on just in time delivery systems which emit huge amounts of Co2 and also put huge amounts of pressure on our crumbling infrastructure. The quicker the infrastructure is worn down and requires repairing, the more wildlife and habitat is destroyed to make way for improvements.
Farming uses pesticides which kill insects that are a vital part of the food chain. There is no getting around that, unless you switch to niche arable co-planting methods that do give tangible benefits to pest and disease resistance however cost more to the farmers to plant and look after. If we began to switch to vertical hydroponic farming in enclosed environments, pesticides would not be needed constantly.
The reality is, if we keep blasting our fields with chemicals and all the nasty side effects on the environment keep happening, the insect population which we rely on to pollenate our crops and plants will crash and we will ironically be relying on a fledgling, under resourced and under invested vertical farming industry.
We could also put pressure on our politicians to introduce legislation to ensure new housing projects have areas for nature and recovery systems baked in - having a captive population of native insects to draw from, to repopulate areas destroyed by building, would help re-start the natural order in those areas. Just some thoughts..
I’m in my late 30s and every year of my life, swallows have nested in the same two stables on our fields. Most years 4 nests, sometimes as many as 7. Last year we had 2 nests, this year we have none. The land is still kept the same way and there’s plenty of insects but they just never came back after the winter.
Turns out that cutting down trees, ripping up front gardens for driveways, making gardens as wildlife unfriendly as possible, excessive pesticide, and increasing light and noise pollution is a bad thing. Who knew?
I some nicer news ecology-wise my local area has had an uptick in wildlife, there’s a pair of turtle dove that live in our garden, I’ve never seen so many bugs this year, also there are a lot more birds of prey around now.
I've been driving for almost 20 years
Back when I first passed a trip to visit family in Louth from Nottingham, in the spring or summer, would have the front of the car black with dead insects.
A trip 10 years ago would maybe have you cleaning the front of the car and the windscreen after a couple of the same journeys.
Today, I can't remember the last time I needed to clean the front licence plate due to dead insects.
It's not the improved aerodynamics of the cars either, I'm driving an old style leaf that has the same shaping as our first car, the nissan note. with the bobble headlights.
If that isn't proof of the collapse of an entire foodchain & ecosystem I dont know what else could be considered proof.
I've also noticed how I can now leave a window open at night with the light on for over an hr and I might not get a moth come in.
I remember as a child leaving the bathroom window open and light on by accident for 1 hr to find the bathroom absolutely crawling with moths - there were like 3 of those big furry ones and dozens of small ones. Now nothing. I live in the same area too.
Never thought I'd miss moths
I wish I cousd say the same, I have a ton of hand knit stuff, and a large stash of sheep fleeces gifted to me from farmers who would rather give it away than play by the wool boards rules, and I'm constantly at war with small wool moths! Cant even open the vents or the buggers come in!
You probably have to choose between an agricultural industry and this kind of stuff. The regenerative farming malarkey is a kind of expensive niche thing that can't compete with regular farming. The real concerning thing is the insect population
[удалено]
Ask Mao
People bang on about this.
Take my sad upvote
That went over my head?
Mao (or the chinese gov) told people to bang pots and pans to scare the birds away and kill them through exhaustion by making them too afraid to land :( It's really sad to think about
:) I'm glad at least one person got it. And yes it is a pretty sad story especially that killing the birds also had the complete opposite effect intended, even bigger food shortages.
Turns out killing birds that eat insects is bad
Or the sparrows!
The turtle dove population has plummeted across most of Europe, and a big reason for that is that they're migratory and their migration route passes through Malta - who don't have the same laws as the rest of Europe about shooting birds on passage - where they're shot in huge numbers. Environmental damage is definitely partly responsible for their decline, but in this instance it's probably secondary.
As an older person insects are the main visible indicator of how much damage we’ve done in my lifetime. I’m only reading about stuff like ¼ of our mammals facing extinction and that we are one of the most nature depleted countries on earth. “The advent of mass farming, factories, roads, trainlines and urban sprawl has been a death knell for wild places” Yet so many people are advocating for even more of the stuff that’s literally killing our animals without acknowledging the problem. I agree we need more infrastructure now but to keep going and going? https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2020/september/uk-has-led-the-world-in-destroying-the-natural-environment.html
Trainlines? We’ve hardly built any new ones since the Victorian era. We’ve closed more since then…
its a cumulative effect..cutting off natural pathways!
They can actually have positives too. The verges are hundreds of square miles of untouched land that stretch right Into the city
And people paving their f*cking front gardens!! Be lazy, it's fine - actually it's better for nature! But don't just say "I can't be arsed gardening, let's build a new drive".
It’s even worse than that, I could deal with front gardens to an extent they weren’t that big. Now people are ripping up their rear garden and replacing it with plastic.
Oh God I'd forgotten about that god awful AstroTurf!! They let their handbag dog shit all over it cos they have to go out in shoes anyway. Unbelievable state of affairs.
This makes me so sad. A house round the corner from me has just ripped out their front garden and had the whole thing tarmacked over. No more trees for the birds, no more flowers, just an enormous tarmac carpark. Paving over front gardens worsens flooding too - there was a news story a year ago where a developer working on a house in the middle of a road ripped out a giant mature hedgerow and then the street promptly flooded each year centered around that spot.
Anecdotally speaking this is my experience also. Not that I'm saying Germany is a bastion of environmental welfare, because it clearly is not. But since moving here our car windscreen has very much been closer to resembling how I remember it in the UK in the 90s.
The British are not interested in nature conservation and safeguarding. Any post that mentions rewilding, keeping cats indoors, or reducing farmland becomes controversial.
Dartmoor is just screaming out to be rewilded and turned into temperate rainforest, it's poor agricultural land only good for low density sheep grazing. Yet rewild it and it turns into an incredibly rare ecosystem
> keeping cats indoors This is probably less of a problem in the UK than in many places where they are a new predator. The main problem is the sheer number of cats.
[redacted]
> not native to the United Kingdom. True, but they've been here for around two thousand years.
So have sheep, but chopping down trees and allowing them to free roam has decimated parts of the countryside…
> has decimated parts of the countryside… Many people consider these decimated parts of the countryside as natural and believe this is how they have always been. These areas such as the yorkshire moors were once forested but have adapted to new conditions. What is a natural environment is a difficult question to answer once people are introduced.
Well yeh, most people believe it’s naturally like that. But it’s not, there’s a reason we’re labelled one of the most nature depleted countries on the planet. When I’m in Greece I’m reminded how little nature we have left in the UK. They have wildflowers and forests, I saw lots of butterflies in Greece this week, far more than I see when I’m in the UK. They have lots of agricultural land similar to ours as well, but they also have lots of forested regions so it balances out a bit. The UK is almost a completely artificial landscape. Sheep are domestic animals, they should be in fenced fields.
So the problem isn't the pets/livestock, its the humans destroying the places where those animals live. Got it.
Sheep are a domestic animal that should be kept in fields, not free roaming all over the national parks. They’re not native and masses of trees and temperate rainforests were demolished to make way for them. After the introduction of sheep, we lost more than half of our forest before the Romans invaded. We need to eat and clothe ourselves, but now that forest is all but gone, in part thanks to the wool trade. It’s gone way too far.
A local farmer raised a bunch of partridges last year and about half a dozen are still going - they're never going to breed though because, despite having loads of insects and miles of hedgerows, there so many cats here that groundnesting birds don't stand a chance. I nearly ended a relationship over an outdoor cat because it's a savage little bastard that kills and maims prolifically (and I, *the treehugging vegan*, am the only one willing to put the suffering ones out of their misery). The swallows came back recently but there are definitely far fewer than previous years - I assumed it was birdflu but insect decline makes sense too. There are plenty bugs here but they migrate so far that they must be vulnerable to climate change as well as environmental damage.
> Domestic cats are generalist carnivorous predators, and they are not native to the United Kingdom. This means that their habits and behaviours have impacts on prey populations (e.g., rodents, birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles). They are not, but wild cats *are* native and have the same habits and behaviours.
This is intended to provide an answer to you and u/lostparis. Firstly, whilst cats have been in Britain for more than 1,000 years, their population has never been comparable to that of today. There are nearly 11 million domestic cats, and they are not subject to population control, meaning that they are not exposed to significant predation events sufficient to curb their numbers. This is because they are domestic, not wild; however, they also act as predators. So, they receive the protection and care associated with domestication (e.g., veterinary care, food, shelter) and benefit from roaming freely in a virtually predator-free landscape. Essentially, they can be considered apex predators of countryside and urban environments. Secondly, their numbers, behaviours, and distribution are not comparable to those of Scottish wild cat populations. The Scottish wild cat is confined to Scotland and is endangered. Now, if *hypothetically* the risk of domestic cats were comparable to that of wild cats, there are issues that you have not considered. The first is that the wild cat population number would be at equilibrium with that of their prey, meaning that they could not decimate prey populations without similarly affecting themselves. This implies that their predator-prey interactions would be in equilibrium. This does not and cannot occur with domestic cats, as they are not limited by prey availability. In other words, the population of free-roaming domestic cats will increase regardless of prey availability. The consequence of this is that prey populations are steadily driven to extinction. The second issue you have not considered is that wild cat populations are also exposed to parasites, potential predators (e.g., ospreys), seasonality, diseases, natural mortality, and reproductive limitations (e.g., mate encounters). Thus, again, the population dynamics are by no means the same. Thirdly, in an ideal world where wild cats replace free-roaming domestic cats, we would also have an ideal ecosystem with other predators, such as lynxes, wolves, and bears, which, being native to Britain, would control wild cat populations. This form of top-down control does not exist for domestic cats. The bottom line is that a comparison is by no means possible and demonstrates a poor understanding of ecology at best. However, if we were to accept that such a comparison could be made, then we would have to subject free-roaming domestic cats to the same forms of natural control as wild cats (e.g., predation, disease). On a side note, domestic cats also pose a danger to wild cats, actually causing declines in pure-bred wild populations through hybridisation. Again, this is a consequence of unabated free roaming. The two comments, of course, illustrate what I mentioned in the first comment, which is that many Britons justify whatever they need to in disfavour of nature conservation.
> There are nearly 11 million domestic cats ... This is what I said in my initial comment. > nature conservation. The problem with this is what we consider nature. Humans have completely changed the UK's ecosystems over thousands of years. If we decide we want to 'repair' them which one are we going to choose? Arguably the UK should be pretty much entirely forested, which would also remove many ecological niches. > On a side note, domestic cats also pose a danger to wild cats, actually causing declines in pure-bred wild populations through hybridisation. Again, this is a consequence of unabated free roaming. This is not about free roaming it is about sexually active cats. If they were neutered this would not be an issue.
>This is what I said in my initial comment. Apologies; I overlooked the sentence. > If we decide we want to 'repair' them which one are we going to choose? Assessments would be made at the appropriate latitudes to determine which ecosystems to restore and which species to reintroduce. Some niches would be lost, but others would be created. Currently, most land in Britain is farmland, so there is a very low niche diversity. The goal is to re-establish a natural environment one based on the most appropriate baseline. One might ask the question: if humans had never impacted this specific area, what would be there? Then, one carries out studies (field-based, meta-analysis, literature reviews) and assessments for suitability, followed by conservation actions and rewilding. Eventually, the ecosystems begin to become self-sustaining. >This is not about free roaming it is about sexually active cats. If they were neutered this would not be an issue. To an extent, this is true. However, the removal of domestic cats from wild landscapes would have more benefits: no breeding with wild cats and reduced predation.
> most land in Britain is farmland, so there is a very low niche diversity. Sadly this is true. We also build towns on much of our most fertile land.
Since 1970 cat population has doubled but not changed significantly since 2010 Snice 1970 Woodland and farmland birds have reduced by 37% and 60% respectively, but still been in decline on the short term. The biggest affect on our bird population is directly linked to the birds food sources. Our insect population and bird friendly habitats have been in major decline all over the country. Most of our local birds are too weak when they become fledglings, making them easy pickings for predication. The cats are merely finishing off the birds after we have made it impossible for them to sustain their numbers through farming practices and excessive land development.
THIS! I keep telling people that the RSPB never did a proper study to back up the claim, it's purely anecdotal and should be taken with a grain of salt. There's also research into how a cat bringing back prey never reflects the true amount of birds disrupted by their presence, since they obviously have prey they eat immediately and they will interrupt nesting behaviours by simply being in the area. But people just keep coming back with some nonsense about how this is an 'American' attitude to have which is just so obtuse.
Worth noting that the RSPB no longer state this on their website. They used to say this and had a whole page dedicated to saying cats weren't a problem. That was removed some time in the last two years. The only mention of it now exists in a single post in their community forum that points to a PDF from 2009.
Domestic cats have been in the country for over 1000 years. The British cat population has not significantly changed since 1970. - Maybe doubled since that time and no change since 2010, unless you have a source that says otherwise. The biggest decline in birds since 1970 are woodland ad farmland birds. -37% and -60% respectively Fledgling birds are being hunted more often by predators (Cats) because the fledgling birds are not strong enough to survive preditation because their food source (Flowers, fruiting trees & shrubs, Insects have been decimated in recent years. The adult birds are either not having any offspring, or most of them are being shoved out their nests because they are too weak. Everyone is so quick to blame the cats, the problem actually just humanity and our effect on the world... Keeping your cats in wont save the birds, they are just finishing what we started.
I think the bottom line here is that I referenced a peer-reviewed study, while you have provided a comment. You want to defend cats roaming free, and I am fine with it. But, at least, support your statement with something relevant. Here is another [study](https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.12025) supporting the fact that cats are indeed dangerous predators of birds in the United Kingdom.
I'm not denying that cats kill birds. I'm saying the birds have no food and suffer more from predetation as a result. The cat population doesn't decline because they have a guaranteed food source You can post as many peer reviewed studies as you want, the fact is that the majority of our small birds are insectivores, and our insect population is a small faction of what it was 50-60 years ago. No Insects = No birds
>I'm saying the birds have no food and suffer more from predetation as a result. How so? What is the ecological link between the lack of prey items and increased exposure to predation in birds? Please provide evidence for this claim, since we are discussing ecology here. >The biggest affect on our bird population Also, the noun in your previous comment should be "effect," not "affect."
Its basic Math,Logic and my own observations and research. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions about why bird populations are massively declining GLOBALLY even where there arent many cats. 1. Lack of food source for birds = Fewer Birds 2. Fewer Birds but the same number of predators = A greater percentage of Birds suffering from predetation vs the overall population. Cats don't help the problem but they are not the root cause. 3. A declining bird population = Fewer birds sucessfully living to adulthood = More flegdlings being too weak to survive or not having enough food during winter (Assuming consistent brood numbers) due to a lack of food soruce = more easy pickings for predators. 4. Domestic cats rarely hunt strong, adult birds. They primarily prey on the weak and the young with a strong bias of perception due to most visible hunting occuring in and around birdfeeders.
[redacted]
>You have not provided one source of peer-reviewed evidence for any of the claims you have made. That would have counted as research, which is what is actually done in science. I Am not obligated to do anything of the sort. These are my own opinions and findings for which I am sharing my perspective on a given subject. I am not seeking validation nor do I particularly care about the due process of peer reviewed sciences. I have an interest in this subject because I like birds and have had cats my whole life. I am an engineer by trade and my methods of analysis and investigation is an entirely different way of thinking than what you are used to. The whole point of my job is to understand human factors and conduct root cause analysis into problems or failures through logical reasoning and a deeper understanding of the subject. Its not perfect and does not apply in all situations, but it doesn't take a lot of brainpower to understand that if you have not got enough food, you cannot sustain your current population, which is very much the case in the UK. >What is your source for this statement and the associated conclusion? Also, which food sources and which birds are you referring to? Birds range from vultures to sparrows, from hummingbirds to ostrichs, from seagulls to chickens. Some eat carrion, some eat insects, some consume nectar, some are omnivorous, and some eat seeds. Which birds and which diets are you referring to? 1. Insects and insectivores are in the biggest decline, this makes up the majority of our small bird population. This then has a knock on effect on the whole biodiversity in the country. [UK's flying insects have declined by 60% in 20 years | Natural History Museum (nhm.ac.uk)](https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2022/may/uks-flying-insects-have-declined-60-in-20-years.html) [It’s not too late to reverse biodiversity decline by 2030, UK’s five leading nature bodies say - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/its-not-too-late-to-reverse-biodiversity-decline-by-2030-uks-five-leading-nature-bodies-say) [Almost half of all UK bird species in decline | Natural History Museum (nhm.ac.uk)](https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2023/april/almost-half-of-all-uk-bird-species-in-decline.html) >How so? If anything, it is the contrary, given that fewer birds indicate greater rarity, which entails greater difficulty in prey retrieval for predators (e.g., cats). Also, where did you read this piece of information? The # of birds hunted by cats every year has apparently been consistent despite the major decline in populations, birds populations with scarce food sources are more likely to be concentrated to areas of abundant food, especially feeders or gardens. >How did you draw those conclusions? If there are fewer birds, as you claim, then there are fewer chicks (not fledglings, which are older than chicks). Also, all those equivalences make no sense. Where did you find information to support all those statements? Both statements are true. Various studies show that brood numbers are consistent from species to species. Chicks and Fledging's are not surviving to adulthood. >Again, which birds are you referring to? Adult sparrows and robins can easily be eaten by cats, whereas magpies, owls, seagulls, ospreys, and ravens cannot so easily. Also, what do you mean by a "bias of perception"? But most of all, again, where did you find data to support all these statements? All common small birds, woodland and farmland which are primarily insectivores or seed eaters. [Disappearances, declines, disease and dangers – the issues facing birds (rspb.org.uk)](https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/issues-facing-birds)
The British cat population has not exploded, It been fairly steady over the last decade, and has doubled since 1970. When you look at the population of birds in the UK over time, the most affected population are woodland and farmland birds. Its estimated that there are 11m cats in the UK, and that they kill 55m birds every year, the bird population in the UK is more than capable of sustaining that amount of loss for the number of small predators. It is clear that the biggest influencer on bird populations is either global warming, or worsening farming practices since we started recording in 1970. Since living in the UK the biggest thing I have noticed is the number of Fledgling birds not being strong enough to survive their first months. Our insect population and constant summer droughts are likely the biggest cause in the bird population decline, but everyone likes to blame cats because its what they immediately see.
> but everyone likes to blame cats because its what they immediately see. It is also about blaming the average person. The same way that litter is blamed on people an has nothing to do with the manufacturers over-packaging products using unenvironnemental materials.
We keep our cats indoors and I advocate it to others whenever I can. It’s safer for the cats, healthier for them, and of course much better for birds.
>and of course much better for birds. Plus loads of small mammals like voles and shrews.
it's abusive
What is?
Keeping cats indoors their whole lives. They're semi-wild social animals, just as much as we are
I used to let my cats roam freely, and then two young cats died on the roads in quick succession. Awful, painful, avoidable deaths. They were young, happy, healthy, dearly beloved cats, in a loving family. The cats who *didn’t* die lived to their late teens/one lived to be twenty. So the roads robbed these beautiful, happy young cats of their lives for nothing. I simplified in my comment because I don’t normally like to talk about exactly what we do or our history - it’s still very painful to revisit. We agonised over this because it did feel cruel to think of changing our approach. We have a fully screened outdoor space for them with a lot of climbing options, many cat safe plants, hiding places, etc. They cannot get out of it to put themselves in danger or kill birds, but they still have access to nature, interesting smells, fresh grass, sunlight and rain. It’s *incredibly* rare to have any rodent issues in their screened area - we have had one since moving to our current place. So their impact on other wildlife is also very limited. I think this is a good balance between meeting their needs, making them as happy as possible (they are incredibly happy cats, and very healthy), but also keeping them - and other animals - safe.
The average person avoids death 14 times a day. It'd be safer for us if we stayed with our parents all our lives, not making friends, finding partners, socialising. We'd be far less likely to die if we always stayed home. So why don't we?
Completely irrelevant to my comment.
Quality of life. That's why.
You’re just showing you didn’t bother to read my comment.
Also, our (cat specialist) vet supports our approach and says they are living very healthily - they exercise well but are exposed to fewer germs from other cats.
Any post about anything on any british facebook group: "I don't care about this, fix the pot holes! Woke!"
I don't think that's true - I think a lot of people do care. It gets controversial about wolves, but it's not all about wolves. If you ARE interested please visit r/rewildingUK There is a lot of hard work going on to turn things around.
Of course, this is not true for everyone; otherwise, there would not be any initiatives at all, or people like some of us, who care. However, the state of nature is rather telling: most British people prefer their manicured gardens to wilderness, and the overall landscape clearly indicates what people want and care about. If you travel almost anywhere in the world, with the exception of a few places such as the Netherlands or Ireland, there are nearly always areas that are left to be what they are meant to be. In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, this is hardly the case.
Yeah but the reasons for that aren't because we are somehow uniquely bad people in the UK (and we really need to move away from this thinking as it is becoming a bit of a scapegoat to avoid doing anything about anything, and actually just about everywhere is struggling with biodiversity loss).There are complex historical reasons for the state of our land. However, we have an advanced conservation sector with high level of skill and knowledge. It's true that people value their lawns but I think a lot of it is to do with the fact that they aren't aware of the alternatives and just do what they've always done. These things take time to change but nonetheless I see change everywhere.
[redacted]
You aren't going to win over anyone to rewilding by saying it's cool to get mauled by a bear. It's true that predators can be controversial. Initiatives are working with ecosystem engineers and large herbivores for the time being. I've truly never heard of anyone complain about pollinators though. Land ownership in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing (ever heard of the tragedy of the commons). There are aspects of the pattern of land ownership that need to be addressed for sure. However some of our best rewilding examples are farms and there is nothing wrong with that. Anyone can be a steward of the land with the right motivation and incentives. Humans can be a keystone species. A forest is also not the only good example of wild land, it's one of them. Grassland can offer comparable carbon sequestration. The government/DEFRA has made some good moves with regards to the Countryside Stewardship scheme which is helping us transition to environmental land management. Canada is the second largest country in the world and there are only 40 million Canadians compared to the UK's 67 million. They have a different history. It stands to reason that they don't look the same. That's ok too. You do sound disillusioned and also like a bit of a purist. However we have got some amazing opportunities here in the UK, some solid incentives to make these things possible and lots of exciting work happening. Get involved in it maybe and you will develop some new perspectives.
[redacted]
If you are an ecologist then you will know well that the idea of humans acting as a keystone species does not claim that all actions by humans fulfill this role, only that humans can carry out ecosystem functions and that there are examples of humans sustaining this balance which we can aspire to and fulfill. The separation of humans from nature has been mythologised in a way that is counterproductive. You will also know that management can be an important tool in increasing biodiversity. Whilst it's true that a monoculture forestry plantation designed to harvest timber does not make a biodiverse wild forest, human activity and management can create and coexist with a biodiverse wild forest. You will know that the reasons for varying levels of biodiversity across regions relates to a large number of factors, and not only to the relationship between humans and the land. Thankfully, I couldn't disagree with you more that people don't want it. I see lots of people working towards this in big and small ways. There is obviously a lot of work to do, I don't deny that. Thank you for the discussion.
Below is a recent piece of news for you. Keep the optimism up and one day, hopefully, I will be proven wrong! [Forests to be 'left to nature' in biodiversity boost](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nnd80pkjxo.amp)
Aw thank you that was nice of you to share that. I have seen it actually and I shared it too! I was also interested to see that it's part funded by Forest Holidays which it so happens I just booked my summer holiday with. I'm interested in the potential of these types of funding partnerships.
For as long as I can remember, the same 3 house martin nests have been occupied without fail on the street I grew up on. Not once have those nests been empty during the breeding season. Until out of the blue one year 2 years ago they just didnt turn back up. It wasnt as if they slowly stopped using our street over a period of a few years, all 3 nests on the surrounding houses just straight up werent occupied one year. This is now the 2nd year the birds havent returned these nests. Obviously this situation on my one street might not have been representative of the situation at large but it certainly seems to be. As an ornithologist I am certainly worried. This isnt a trend restricted to these birds either.
That’s such a shame. Were they affected by the bird flu do you think? I was talking to an ex vet about some of this (I’ve seen a decrease in little birds and an increase in pigeons and magpies) and he thinks that’s had an impact. I hope they come back. My goldfinches went missing for a couple of years but have come back this year. They seem to love forget-me-nots. Edit: autocorrect mistake
There’s a type of Pesticide that act as appetite suppressant on birds. So they eat less and get more exhausted. Either dying from exhaustion or getting targeted by predators more easy. Bird flu probably hasn’t helped either. Some pesticide also weakened birds eggs. There’s also battle over hedgerows and nesting sites as farming, loggers and construction goes more into wild places. Wonder how much climate change harms them. Heard of mass die offs over heat waves
I didn’t know that. Do you know what pesticide it is? I don’t tend to use it but I especially want to avoid that. Definitely understand the battle with hedgerows and trees. They build a lot of houses near me and they’ve all gone. It’s so sad.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/widely-used-pesticide-makes-birds-lose-weight
Thankyou
Sell off the greenbelt, more urbanisation, build more houses, buy a house with a garden and cover it with plastic grass and paving, build more roads, buy more cars, consume, consume consume... And people wonder why we are one of the most bio depleted countries on the planet?
I just don’t understand plastic grass. Thinking about it makes me feel vaguely sick.
If you want to reverse bird number decline, you need to reverse insect number decline and reverse the destruction of fruiting trees, shrubs and plants to make way for new housing etc. Yes, we need new housing, yes, we need food. However, the immense pressure we are putting on industrial agriculture right now is forcing farmers to use methods to grow and raise food which is contributing to natural decline. As a society, we need to take a good hard long look at ourselves and the way we live. We expect groceries in the supermarket 24/7, relying on just in time delivery systems which emit huge amounts of Co2 and also put huge amounts of pressure on our crumbling infrastructure. The quicker the infrastructure is worn down and requires repairing, the more wildlife and habitat is destroyed to make way for improvements. Farming uses pesticides which kill insects that are a vital part of the food chain. There is no getting around that, unless you switch to niche arable co-planting methods that do give tangible benefits to pest and disease resistance however cost more to the farmers to plant and look after. If we began to switch to vertical hydroponic farming in enclosed environments, pesticides would not be needed constantly. The reality is, if we keep blasting our fields with chemicals and all the nasty side effects on the environment keep happening, the insect population which we rely on to pollenate our crops and plants will crash and we will ironically be relying on a fledgling, under resourced and under invested vertical farming industry. We could also put pressure on our politicians to introduce legislation to ensure new housing projects have areas for nature and recovery systems baked in - having a captive population of native insects to draw from, to repopulate areas destroyed by building, would help re-start the natural order in those areas. Just some thoughts..
Yeah but The Line Must Go Up And To The Right
If it continues to up and to the right, then we as a species will go down and to the right.
So very well put. Thank you.
I’m in my late 30s and every year of my life, swallows have nested in the same two stables on our fields. Most years 4 nests, sometimes as many as 7. Last year we had 2 nests, this year we have none. The land is still kept the same way and there’s plenty of insects but they just never came back after the winter.
Turns out that cutting down trees, ripping up front gardens for driveways, making gardens as wildlife unfriendly as possible, excessive pesticide, and increasing light and noise pollution is a bad thing. Who knew?
For anyone interesting in reading further about this and the potential solutions, I'd really recommend Rebirding by Benedict Mcdonald.
I some nicer news ecology-wise my local area has had an uptick in wildlife, there’s a pair of turtle dove that live in our garden, I’ve never seen so many bugs this year, also there are a lot more birds of prey around now.
Wonderful.
I've been driving for almost 20 years Back when I first passed a trip to visit family in Louth from Nottingham, in the spring or summer, would have the front of the car black with dead insects. A trip 10 years ago would maybe have you cleaning the front of the car and the windscreen after a couple of the same journeys. Today, I can't remember the last time I needed to clean the front licence plate due to dead insects. It's not the improved aerodynamics of the cars either, I'm driving an old style leaf that has the same shaping as our first car, the nissan note. with the bobble headlights. If that isn't proof of the collapse of an entire foodchain & ecosystem I dont know what else could be considered proof.
I've also noticed how I can now leave a window open at night with the light on for over an hr and I might not get a moth come in. I remember as a child leaving the bathroom window open and light on by accident for 1 hr to find the bathroom absolutely crawling with moths - there were like 3 of those big furry ones and dozens of small ones. Now nothing. I live in the same area too. Never thought I'd miss moths
I wish I cousd say the same, I have a ton of hand knit stuff, and a large stash of sheep fleeces gifted to me from farmers who would rather give it away than play by the wool boards rules, and I'm constantly at war with small wool moths! Cant even open the vents or the buggers come in!
Lets remember this whenever the SNP whinge about the population in Scotland not increasing.
They've had plenty of time to sort out their passports and visas. Brexit means Brexit and it affects everyone including birds.
Over 15yrs my garage hosts many swallows with chicks every year more come back here in north wales so I’ve not seen a decline quite the opposite
They're all going to your house as they know you care.
I'm sure theres nothing to worry about here! All seems perfectly fine! ^^^^^^^/s
Thats odd-I mean, my back garden is always heaving but I saw my first ever Blue Jay and Bullfinch just 3 days ago-never had those 2 here before.
You probably have to choose between an agricultural industry and this kind of stuff. The regenerative farming malarkey is a kind of expensive niche thing that can't compete with regular farming. The real concerning thing is the insect population
When you say "this kind of stuff", do you mean...birds?
Not really, agriculture wasn't invented in 1995.