KCBrittfan wrote:Gertie wrote: I just did a random sampling of the raptor population index website and, with a very few exceptions, the trend is toward declining populations, particularly for accipiters. Check it out for yourself. http://rpi-project.org/2011/graphs.php?rsite=601From these 2 posts it seems that Ezzy's anecdotal evidence and the study Gertie cites are at odds. However, it is very possible that both are correct.ezzy333 wrote: I have not researched the numbers but I do know that the pigeon flyers are seeing more and losing more pigeons to them every year and that is the report across the country. . . .
. . . The first bird I ever lost to hawk at the loft was 5 years ago and since then every year. It now appears that hawks are the major cause of losses during the races across the country and it a leading concern the industry has today.
We have two hunting clubs nearby and their losses from hawks is becoming a major factor for them. One of the clubs use to order 300 pheasants and unload them directly into their cover fields. Had to stop because the hawks were catching over half of them.
Ezzy.
Statistics must always be considered very, very carefully.
Gertie's study showing the decline in raptor numbers does not take into account the decline in habitat over the same time period. If habitat declined faster than the raptor population went down, then raptor density actually increased. When animal density reaches a certain point, the animals often start behaving in ways they wouldn't normally. Increased boldness around humans and their activities may be one such abnormal behavior caused by excessive population density.
Keep in mind that my comments on habitat decline being greater than raptor decline are only hypothetical "food for thought." I have no idea, and make no claims, about the actual habitat numbers.
I found the study Gertie cited (thank you for finding and sharing it) to be interesting. It might be even more interesting if habitat factors were considered alongside the data collected.
To the original poster: I wonder if the "pigeon spikes" used by pest control companies to keep pigeons from sitting on undesireable perches would work on hawks? I know your pigeons need a landing perch, but perhaps you could make it fold down when not expecting incoming birds.
Interesting thoughts. Without doing a bunch of number crunching and data mining, my hunch is that, given the time that surveys have taken place (most from about 1995) and the overall decline in populations (most seemed to be in -1 to -3% range), there is likely a relationship between habitat loss and population decline. Meaning simply that there has probably been about 1-3% overall loss of habitat over the survey period (15-20 yrs) and the population trend is reflecting that loss. I am certainly not stating that this is the case but it seems like a reasonable correlation.
Predators are a tricky subject. They're not easy to live with and a lot of folks would rather just do away with them. It becomes a societal decision as to what is ethical and to what degree the ecological function of an given area should be managed. It's not my business to express my opinion one way or the other as far as that goes but, as with all things when it comes to living adjacent to and venturing into relatively 'wild' areas, there are inherent risks to the safety of people, dogs, livestock, etc. So the question then becomes how much management should be done to ensure that everybody is happy with the degree of risk they and theirs are exposed to? If you can come up with the answer to that question then my hat's off to you.