Re: A Sparrowhawk.
Oz
> I had often seen spars in flight and they seemed
>bigger than the thing I had in my hands, which was really no bigger than
>a dove, but with longer legs and tail. The body was quite small.
Indeed. Quite tiny but very determined.
You can understand why they can't even fly away with a collared dove.
One had a good go at a rook in our garden and only let go when its saw
us peering at it through the window.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Oh No
>It did not seem very frightened, rather the opposite, and remained
>calm with a hostile demeanour.
Among the birds I trapped and released were a few buzzards and an owl.
This describes them too.
>
>I don't know if any of you have ever held a sparrowhawk, but I felt
>myself quite unable to do it any injury it was such an exquisitely
>beautiful animal.
I have held a few birds of prey, but there is nothing quite like
holding
a wild one.
>I went outside and flung it into the air, watching it fly for a minute
>until it perched in a tree a couple of hundred yards off.
>
Holding a wild sparrowhawk would be a bit special. I have seen one
occasionally, but they never bothered our doves. You should allow birds
of prey the occasional meal [1]. If they are like Harris Hawks they
only
eat every few days and then sit around enjoying the effects of the
meal.
Not like corvids. Crows are voracious and apparently ravens are named
after their eating habits.
[1] I suspect that what happens with the doves is that after an attack
half of them fly off. They breed rapidly and soon make up the numbers.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
Oh No
Oh No wrote:
>
> [1] I suspect that what happens with the doves is that after an attack
> half of them fly off. They breed rapidly and soon make up the numbers.
>
Actually, more likely, nothing to do with the hawks. They probably just
get hungry and fly off. Unless you can afford the unlimited supplies of
food, not to mention accomadation that it would take to satisfy their
exponentially increasing population.
Jill
"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l5mseQnP...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article <3130303033303...@zetnet.co.uk>, Gerald L R Stubbs
> <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>>We do have a problem with sparrowhawks. They tend to take our doves.
>>The sparrowhawks never wipe the doves out completely, going away when
>>they have reduced numbers by half. They then wait until the numbers
>>double before they come in again.
>>
>>I am not sure if the spars work this one out and know that they mustn't
>>kill the doves that lay the golden eggs, or if it a co-incidence that
>>exists only in my mind. But it is a fact that they never wipe the flock
>>out and always leave a goodly number.
>>
> This is neither being worked out by the sparrowhawks nor a coincidence, it
> is just a very typical relationship between predator and prey.
If I mention Maynard-Smith do I give the game away :~)
!
!
!
!
I know its behaviour not feeding dynamics :~)
>>
>>Quite an experience, and I don't think I will ever forget those
>>beautiful eyes staring at me.
>>
Stubbsy -- take a trundle into Derry's place
You might have an interesting time by all accounts
:~)
However I understand that once hooked Birds of prey are one of the most
addictive species set
--
regards
Jill Bowis
Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
Working Holidays in Scotland
http://www.kintaline.co.uk
Oh No
>> is just a very typical relationship between predator and prey.
>
>If I mention Maynard-Smith do I give the game away :~)
That's an application of games theory to a very idealised situation
where there is one predator and one prey, and there are no other
changing factors. It is rarely as simple as that in nature. E.g. magpie
and crow populations should be controlled by the fact that they can't
get much to eat for most of the year, so the damage to eggs in the
spring is low. Actually they get to eat road kills and Macdonalds all
the time, so they are out of control and have completely eliminated
other birds in some areas.
In the case of the sparrow hawk, it is a good hunter and does not
depend
solely on the pigeons. Nor does it store food like foxes, who only
reckon
on good hunting at certain times of year and reap a harvest while they
may.
It would take a lot of sparrowhawks to seriously
deplete a pigeon population. They breed like rabbits. Only one or two
eggs at a time, but as soon as they have raised one squab they start on
another, right through the year. The sparrow hawk only raises one
clutch
a year, so it would take much longer to establish the population
required in the Maynard-Smith predator-prey relationship.
>I know its behaviour not feeding dynamics :~)
Nonetheless, this is how doves control their population. Every so often
half of them fly off for no particular reason. It's just doves doing
what doves do. I don't think Stubbsy should put it down to
Sparrowhawks.
>
Cheers
Charles
Old Codger
>
> I don't know if any of you have ever held a sparrowhawk, but I felt
> myself quite unable to do it any injury it was such an exquisitely
> beautiful animal.
> minute until it perched in a tree a couple of hundred yards off.
>
> beautiful eyes staring at me.
Your just an old softie at heart. :-)
Thought about you week before last when I was in Swanage. The only time I
do much book reading is when on holiday and I had taken a Jeffrey Archer
novel. I like his books, entertaining, easy to read, and hard to put down.
I tend to stay awake when reading them. I like his attention to detail with
his characters and their actions. This book was "As the Crow Flies" and I
could really empathise with most of the characters, particularly the main
character, a barrow boy. I could visualise him and almost anticipate many
of his words and actions. When I was about a quarter of the way through the
book I suddenly thought "Archer's writing is not dissimilar to Stubbsie's,
He must be very observant to pick up all the little details so that he can
apply them to his characters."
Don't know your opinion of Jeffrey Archer but I viewed those thoughts as a
compliment to you.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Jill
> Gerald L R Stubbs wrote:
>
> Don't know your opinion of Jeffrey Archer but I viewed those thoughts
> as a compliment to you.
Duck
Incoming
Jim Webster
" Jill" <newsN...@kintaline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4455380a$0$23195$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
> Old Codger wrote:
> > Gerald L R Stubbs wrote:
> >
> > Don't know your opinion of Jeffrey Archer but I viewed those thoughts
> > as a compliment to you.
>
> Duck
> Incoming
>
It will be interesting to see how Archers books are regarded in fifty years
time. They lacked critical aclaim, firstly because they sold really well
(which hacks off those who consider themselves writers whose stuff doesn't
sell) and therefore has to be rubbish, as the 'public' only buys rubbish
Then they lacked critical acclaim because people didn't like the writer.
I suspect he is an excellent story teller, which is unfashionable
--
Jim Webster.
Pat Gardiner, now in the sixth year of raving about bent vets and still no
result
Oh No
Malcolm wrote:
> In article <1146432287....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Oh No
> <no...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes
magpie
> >
> >and crow populations should be controlled by the fact that they can't
> >get much to eat for most of the year, so the damage to eggs in the
> >spring is low. Actually they get to eat road kills and Macdonalds all
> >the time, so they are out of control and have completely eliminated
> >other birds in some areas.
> >
> completely eliminated other birds".
I can't give properly documented evidence. I am talking of the sort of
area a twitcher would not normally go to look at birds, and I have not
heard of any formal research. But I am informed that there are areas in
Manchester (and I would suppose other city/suburbs) where magpies are
the only birds to be seen. Now there are plenty of species which can
live in and around buildings, so I can only think they are absent
because they cannot find anywhere safe to raise a hatch. I have also
been told of Croweries in such urban areas. I was skeptical. As you
know crows are normally solitary. I tried to insist this must be a
rookery. But in the end I have to say the identification seemed quite
positive.
It is actually very difficult to
> show that they have had any effect on numbers of other species at all.
In this case I can cite some personal experience. The first year I
started trapping and shooting I caught over 30 magpies, and eliminated
two nests from our woods. The local effect on the population of small
birds was quite significant. Sadly I did not save the Mistlethrushes
who lost their entire clutch just before I had eliminated the last
magpie from our woods.
> >Nonetheless, this is how doves control their population. Every so often
> >
> >half of them fly off for no particular reason. It's just doves doing
> >what doves do.
>
> I have never heard of this idea before and
Yes, but remember doves are kept as pets. I think you are more
interested in wild birds. I believe it is quite a common experience for
dovekeepers. So much so that it becomes unremarkable. We had a pretty
large dove population, sustained on chicken feed, and plenty of places
to live, so that in the end if a load flew off I would not have even
noticed. But certainly, early on, we did notice a couple of migrations.
it raises some interesting
> questions, like where do they fly to because wherever that is the local
> dove population there must presumably double!
I don't think garden doves survive too well in the wild. I have never
heard of them, or seen them. I do not know whether they can forage well
enough for food on their own in this country, but even if they can, I
doubt they can find places to colonise or breed. They would have to
compete with Rock doves, and I don't think they have much chance. They
are very fussy about nesting sites, and they will not enter a dovecote
with too small an entrance, or use one with too large an entrance in
which they would not feel safe, and they are generally too nervous of
human populations to settle anywhere unfamiliar. Of course, I may be
wrong. They may just join up with colonies of Rock doves in cities and
quarries and the colour may be rapidly bread out of them. However I
would have to suggest that rock doves far outnumber escaped garden
doves, so that the escapees make little direct impact on the total
population.
Doves don't control their
> own population. They react, like every other bird, to what is happening
> around them, especially food availability, predation, ability of find
> nest sites, etc. If half the doves fly off it is most likely because
> they are looking for food.
Indeed. What I mean is that if for any reason they feel that too many
are living in one place, a load leave.
> > I don't think Stubbsy should put it down to
> >Sparrowhawks.
>
> And nor should he put the Sparrowhawks down!
>
Indeed not. I was hoping you might confirm. Do Sparrowhawks, like
Harris Hawks, only need to eat once every few days?
Oh No
>
>In article <1146469207....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Oh
>No <no...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes
>>
>>
>>I can't give properly documented evidence. I am talking of the sort of
>>area a twitcher would not normally go to look at birds, and I have not
>>heard of any formal research. But I am informed that there are areas in
>>Manchester (and I would suppose other city/suburbs) where magpies are
>>the only birds to be seen.
>
>A rightly named urban myth!
Perhaps. Nonetheless I make judgements at levels of belief based on the
available evidence. I only have hearsay evidence, so my level of belief
is not particularly high and would easily be changed. Unfortunately I
also have a singular lack of counter evidence, and I rather doubt that
there are any proper studies to rigorously collect it. You may be able
to counter that.
>
>> Now there are plenty of species which can
>>live in and around buildings, so I can only think they are absent
>>because they cannot find anywhere safe to raise a hatch.
>
>Magpies are unable to raid hole-nesting species, including, e.g.
>starlings, house sparrows, blue tits, some robins, swallows, house
>martins, etc., etc.
And rock doves, of course. But that leaves me without an explanation or
a counter to the evidence, albeit hearsay, which I do have.
>
>>I have also
>>been told of Croweries in such urban areas. I was skeptical. As you
>>know crows are normally solitary. I tried to insist this must be a
>>rookery. But in the end I have to say the identification seemed quite
>>positive.
>>
>There is no such thing as a "Crowery"! Crows are normally strongly
>territorial and rarely allow another pair to nest closer than 200m or
>more. Very exceptionally, this distance can be cut to as low as 20m,
>but then only two nests not several together, as with Rooks. You were
>right to insist it was a rookery!
I would have said so, but in the event I felt myself proven wrong. I
went through all the points of identification, and the result seemed
quite positive, they were crows not rooks. Since when did adult rooks
have black beaks? Or perhaps there is some new variant. At
Kidderminster
wild life park there were huge numbers of crows in among the animals. I
have no idea what they were doing there, but they were too large for
rooks and definitely looked like crows, black beaks and all. Also, I
have seen crows myself nesting too many together in one of these
midland
places. I wish I could remember exactly where. I have come to the
conclusion that it must be an evolutionary behaviour pattern resulting
from the incidence of Macdonalds and Burger King, where the litter
provides a whole new environment. I am sure you are familiar with
studies of birds colonising new islands where evolution can take place
within a few generations, so there is no reason to suppose crows might
not evolve to suit the new environments created by modern society.
>
>> It is actually very difficult to
>>> show that they have had any effect on numbers of other species at all.
>>
>>In this case I can cite some personal experience. The first year I
>>started trapping and shooting I caught over 30 magpies, and eliminated
>>two nests from our woods. The local effect on the population of small
>>birds was quite significant. Sadly I did not save the Mistlethrushes
>>who lost their entire clutch just before I had eliminated the last
>>magpie from our woods.
>>
>Unfortunately, without actual figures the significance is difficult to
>assess. I'm sure there was some immediate effect, but detailed studies
>of magpies and small bird populations have failed to show a direct
>long-term relationship.
After watching magpies systematically raiding the hedgerows, I find
that
difficult to believe. There are far more magpies now than there were
fifty or more years ago, as any old lady who recites "one for sorrow,
two for joy" (as my mother used to) may know.
>
>>> >Nonetheless, this is how doves control their population. Every so often
>>> >
>>> >half of them fly off for no particular reason. It's just doves doing
>>> >what doves do.
>>>
>>> I have never heard of this idea before and
>>
>>Yes, but remember doves are kept as pets. I think you are more
>>interested in wild birds. I believe it is quite a common experience for
>>dovekeepers. So much so that it becomes unremarkable. We had a pretty
>>large dove population, sustained on chicken feed, and plenty of places
>>to live, so that in the end if a load flew off I would not have even
>>noticed. But certainly, early on, we did notice a couple of migrations.
>>
>I had assumed you were discussing wild doves, as Stubbsy appeared to be
>doing.
I think that is a personal colouring. I assumed he was talking of
garden
doves. He didn't actually give much clue, though he did say "our
doves".
>Anyway, domesticated pigeons can no more control their own population
>than their wild relatives.
We are agreed about the mechanism. I'm not interested in arguing
semantics.
>
>>it raises some interesting
>>> questions, like where do they fly to because wherever that is the local
>>> dove population there must presumably double!
>>
>>I don't think garden doves survive too well in the wild. I have never
>>heard of them, or seen them. I do not know whether they can forage well
>>enough for food on their own in this country, but even if they can, I
>>doubt they can find places to colonise or breed. They would have to
>>compete with Rock doves, and I don't think they have much chance.
>
>They don't compete, they interbreed!
Possibly. But one doesn't often see white doves on city streets, or
even
part white, so I wonder.
>
>>Indeed. What I mean is that if for any reason they feel that too many
>>are living in one place, a load leave.
>>
>OK, but I would reword that to say that if for any reason the place
>where they are living becomes less attractive some will leave (or die).
>Being a biologist means I shy away from phrases like "they feel" :-)
It is an aspect of behaviourism in which a scientist is likely to be
trained, I accept. Upsets me on a deep philosophical level, however. I
think it is spurious to take behaviourism so far that one denies that
living creatures have feelings.
>>Indeed not. I was hoping you might confirm. Do Sparrowhawks, like
>>Harris Hawks, only need to eat once every few days?
>>
>They can certainly go for at least a day or two without feeding, but
>normally they will try and feed every day. They're a lot smaller than
>Harris Hawks and so less well able to starve. The average intake of a
>sparrowhawk is 2 or 3 small birds (sparrow-sized) per day, but if one
>takes a collared dove and stuffs itself, then it may well not need to
>feed the following day.
>
Although I don't know exactly where Stubbsy is, my impression is that
Sparrowhawks are not densely populated anywhere. Is it really so that
they are densely enough populated near him that they would make a great
deal of impact on a population of doves. The experience of keepers that
I have heard of has been for an occasional, foiled, attempt. We never
had that to my knowledge, though there were sparrowhawks in the area.
The doves are safe in the dovecote, and too quick outside of it. The
squabs are vulnerable, but usually not for long, and anyway, picking
off
squabs does not account for the loss of half the population.
Tim Lamb
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
>>That's an application of games theory to a very idealised situation
>>where there is one predator and one prey, and there are no other
>>changing factors. It is rarely as simple as that in nature. E.g. magpie
>>
>>and crow populations should be controlled by the fact that they can't
>>get much to eat for most of the year, so the damage to eggs in the
>>spring is low. Actually they get to eat road kills and Macdonalds all
>>the time, so they are out of control and have completely eliminated
>>other birds in some areas.
>>
>There is no area in the whole country where magpies or crows "have
>completely eliminated other birds". It is actually very difficult to
>show that they have had any effect on numbers of other species at all.
Umm.. We have discussed this before in relation to the claimed impact of
intensive agriculture on farmland species.
In my simple view predated species might prefer the opportunity to be
limited by food resources/nesting opportunities than by predation.
As a child, I was able to add to their problems by egg collecting and
thinning out the Sparrows with an air rifle. Many things have changed
including my attitudes but I still think the most significant for small
birds other than Sparrows, has been the return of the hawks and upsurge
in Corvids.
regards
--
Tim Lamb
Jim Webster
> >
> Yes, indeed, there are more magpies now than formerly, although there is
> actually evidence that a peak has been passed and that some decline has
> set in in parts of the country in the last few years. If you go back to
> the time when not just magpies but every other real or imagined predator
> was ruthlessly persecuted, it is quite possible that this allowed an
> increase in small bird numbers to well above the levels before heavy
> persecution and that what we are seeing now is some further adjustment
> being made. But what it all comes down to in the end, is whether man is
> justified in interfering by killing what to some people is seen as a
> pest.
the problem is that if the fierce culling of magpies allowed small bird
numbers to rise, farmers are now being blamed by government for the fall in
small bird numbers, this further adjustment is being used as a reason for
discussing altering cross compliance conditions etc
Yet if the cause is the end of the magpie cull, then the loss of numbers is
something we have to live with, unless we go back to persecuting magpies
Oh No
>
>
>If you like I will give you the name and contact details of the Greater
>Manchester bird recorder. I am sure she will be able to tell you
>whether there are magpie-only zones in the city.
I would be interested to ask her.
>>have no idea what they were doing there, but they were too large for
>>rooks and definitely looked like crows, black beaks and all. Also, I
>>have seen crows myself nesting too many together in one of these
>>midland
>>places. I wish I could remember exactly where. I have come to the
>>conclusion that it must be an evolutionary behaviour pattern resulting
>>from the incidence of Macdonalds and Burger King, where the litter
>>provides a whole new environment. I am sure you are familiar with
>>studies of birds colonising new islands where evolution can take place
>>within a few generations, so there is no reason to suppose crows might
>>not evolve to suit the new environments created by modern society.
>
>If there are crows nesting in close proximity anywhere in the
>Manchester area, then the county recorder will know about it.
I can't say that was manchester. Just some Northern (to a southerner)
urban sprawl, someone on a newsgroup I no longer use.
> Do you want to contact herself, or shall I do it, as I know her well?
Don't mind. I would be interested in the birds at the Kidderminster
wildlife park too. Rooks would have made sense, but I don't think I can
mistake a rook for a crow at that distance. Krys confirmed. Maybe
rather
than crows becoming communal, it is rooks getting bigger and acquiring
black beaks. It has really puzzled me.
>>>Unfortunately, without actual figures the significance is difficult to
>>>assess. I'm sure there was some immediate effect, but detailed studies
>>>of magpies and small bird populations have failed to show a direct
>>>long-term relationship.
>>
>>After watching magpies systematically raiding the hedgerows, I find
>>that
>>difficult to believe. There are far more magpies now than there were
>>fifty or more years ago, as any old lady who recites "one for sorrow,
>>two for joy" (as my mother used to) may know.
>
>Yes, indeed, there are more magpies now than formerly, although there
>is actually evidence that a peak has been passed and that some decline
>has set in in parts of the country in the last few years.
>If you go back to the time when not just magpies but every other real
>or imagined predator was ruthlessly persecuted, it is quite possible
>that this allowed an increase in small bird numbers to well above the
>levels before heavy persecution and that what we are seeing now is some
>further adjustment being made. But what it all comes down to in the
>end, is whether man is justified in interfering by killing what to some
>people is seen as a pest.
I don't think the current populations of Magpies or Crows reflect a
natural unpersecuted state. On its own nature supplies a certain amount
of carrion, which would support their natural population. They get a
bonus in the spring, and maybe in the winter when stuff drops dead, but
then there population is limited in the summer when everthing is adult
and healthy. Man has changed that, by supplying them with road kills
and MacDonalds. Now their population is supported all year round. So
there
are far more of them than there should be in the spring, when they do a
great deal of damage. In that sense I think it is a good thing to try
and limit their numbers by trapping.
>
>>>>
>>>I had assumed you were discussing wild doves, as Stubbsy appeared to be
>>>doing.
>>
>>I think that is a personal colouring. I assumed he was talking of
>>garden
>>doves. He didn't actually give much clue, though he did say "our
>>doves".
>>
>Perhaps he will elucidate. When I talk about "our doves" they are the
>collared doves which breed in my garden.
Come on Stubbsy, we are waiting.
>>Although I don't know exactly where Stubbsy is, my impression is that
>>Sparrowhawks are not densely populated anywhere. Is it really so that
>>they are densely enough populated near him that they would make a great
>>
>>deal of impact on a population of doves.
>
>Perhaps he will tell us.
Oi, Stubbsy, we need some answers.
>
>>The experience of keepers that
>>
>>I have heard of has been for an occasional, foiled, attempt. We never
>>had that to my knowledge, though there were sparrowhawks in the area.
>>The doves are safe in the dovecote, and too quick outside of it. The
>>squabs are vulnerable, but usually not for long, and anyway, picking
>>off
>>squabs does not account for the loss of half the population.
>>
>Racing pigeon owners get very fussed about sparrowhawks, to the point
>of applying to, e.g., the Scottish Executive for licences to kill them.
>For that reason, the Central Science Laboratory was commissioned to
>carry out a study into the impact of birds of prey on racing pigeons.
>The impact was small, but it was difficult to take into account the
>value put on individual birds by their owners.
>
Yes. It's funny. Having lived in an area where there were a fair number
of birds of prey (esp buzzards and Kites, but I have seen quite a few
others too, and having kept chickens, ducks, geese, all where they
might
be vulnerable, I can't say a bird of prey ever troubled us. Magpies and
Crows were a different matter. Possibly a heron had some chicks. It
certainly learned to raid the larsson trap.
Oh No
>Young rooks have black beaks until towards the end of their second
>winter, i.e. birds born in 2006 won't get a white beak until February-
>March 2008.
That is longer than I realised. I assumed the colour changed after the
first winter.
>
>Crows often occur in flocks outside the breeding season, but don't
>breed in colonies.
>
Probably were crows then. Heck of a lot of them. I couldn't think what
attracted them in particular.
Oh No
Malcolm wrote:
> In article <1146496159.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Oh
> >>
> >Probably were crows then. Heck of a lot of them. I couldn't think what
> >attracted them in particular.
> >
>
Yes. But what was the food. This was in a wildlife park among the
herbivores. A load of bison, deer, lamas, stuff like that.
Jill
news:1146500968.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
- All being fed on-ground concentrates and fibres?
The grazing is rarely sufficient so they are usually fed
- Being visited by lots of peoples eating picnics and burgers etc?
Ideal waste disposal units :~))
Oh No
>> herbivores. A load of bison, deer, lamas, stuff like that.
>
>- All being fed on-ground concentrates and fibres?
>The grazing is rarely sufficient so they are usually fed
Very much so. Most of the concentrates available at about £3 per 100g
to
the tourist.
>
>- Being visited by lots of peoples eating picnics and burgers etc?
Not actually in the same place as the animals. But yes, I guess the
birds just hang around with the animals during the day and clean up
when
the tourists go home.
>Ideal waste disposal units :~))
>
In many ways I would say so. If I didn't know how much damage they do
to
other birds in the spring, before the tourist season starts.
Oh No
>
>there's a substantial amount of food for such birds in the droppings of
>herbivores, especially the larvae of dung flies and dung beetles, as
>well as the general invertebrate fauna which such beasts attract. All
>the corvids are also very fond of leatherjackets with which I am sure
>you are familiar.
>
I think Jill has it right. The birds were mooching rather than
grubbing.
And there were loads of them. You don't get flocks like that just for
the dung beetles of cattle load of cattle and stuff. It illustrates
what
I was saying about modern society maintaining an overpopulation. I
can't
think why I didn't see the obvious before.
Jill
I had a further thought after posting - and it tallies up with Malcolms too
These beasties are often winter housed ! as well as having shelters
Somewhere there is an almighty muck heap !
Old Codger
>
> It will be interesting to see how Archers books are regarded in fifty
> years time. They lacked critical aclaim, firstly because they sold
> really well (which hacks off those who consider themselves writers
> whose stuff doesn't sell) and therefore has to be rubbish, as the
> 'public' only buys rubbish Then they lacked critical acclaim because
> people didn't like the writer.
> I suspect he is an excellent story teller, which is unfashionable
I doubt they will become classics, they will probably sink along with most
of the other "popular" fiction as new writers come along. I do believe you
are right to suggest he is an excellent story teller. His books are easy to
read and compelling. Once I start on one of his books I am reluctant to put
it down. I can usually envisage the scenes he sets and the characters in
those scenes. I assume his eye for detail, and his ability to recall the
smallest of details, is very similar to Stubbsy's. How else could he
construct such believable characters.
Someday I might try the book that was inspired by his incarceration. It
will be interesting to see how he copes with describing reality and also
interesting to try to assess what is reality and what is reality based
fiction.
Jim Webster
"Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
news:4456555a$0$692$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> Jim Webster wrote:
> >
> > It will be interesting to see how Archers books are regarded in fifty
> > years time. They lacked critical aclaim, firstly because they sold
> > really well (which hacks off those who consider themselves writers
> > whose stuff doesn't sell) and therefore has to be rubbish, as the
> > 'public' only buys rubbish Then they lacked critical acclaim because
> > people didn't like the writer.
> > I suspect he is an excellent story teller, which is unfashionable
>
> I doubt they will become classics, they will probably sink along with most
> of the other "popular" fiction as new writers come along.
Dickens has survived ;-))
And he was frightfully popular at the time, Trollop (sic) not as well, it
will be interesting to watch
I do believe you
> are right to suggest he is an excellent story teller. His books are easy
to
> read and compelling. Once I start on one of his books I am reluctant to
put
> it down. I can usually envisage the scenes he sets and the characters in
> those scenes. I assume his eye for detail, and his ability to recall the
> smallest of details, is very similar to Stubbsy's. How else could he
> construct such believable characters.
>
> Someday I might try the book that was inspired by his incarceration. It
> will be interesting to see how he copes with describing reality and also
> interesting to try to assess what is reality and what is reality based
> fiction.
yes, his command of detail might be a mixed blessing, will he try and use
too much as he has it?
Old Codger
> "Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
> news:4456555a$0$692$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Jim Webster wrote:
>>>
>>> It will be interesting to see how Archers books are regarded in
>>> fifty years time. They lacked critical aclaim, firstly because they
>>> sold really well (which hacks off those who consider themselves
>>> writers whose stuff doesn't sell) and therefore has to be rubbish,
>>> as the 'public' only buys rubbish Then they lacked critical acclaim
>>> because people didn't like the writer.
>>> I suspect he is an excellent story teller, which is unfashionable
>>
>> I doubt they will become classics, they will probably sink along
>> with most of the other "popular" fiction as new writers come along.
>
>
> Dickens has survived ;-))
> And he was frightfully popular at the time, Trollop (sic) not as
> well, it will be interesting to watch
Indeed, some popular fiction will stand the test of time and Archer might be
amongst that small bunch.
> I do believe you
>> are right to suggest he is an excellent story teller. His books are
>> easy to read and compelling. Once I start on one of his books I am
>> reluctant to put it down. I can usually envisage the scenes he sets
>> and the characters in those scenes. I assume his eye for detail,
>> and his ability to recall the smallest of details, is very similar
>> to Stubbsy's. How else could he construct such believable
>> characters.
>>
>> Someday I might try the book that was inspired by his incarceration.
>> It will be interesting to see how he copes with describing reality
>> and also interesting to try to assess what is reality and what is
>> reality based fiction.
>
> yes, his command of detail might be a mixed blessing, will he try and
> use too much as he has it?
We might see just how good an author he really is. That book could be
interesting in a number of ways.
Jim Webster
> Jim Webster wrote:
> > "Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
> > news:4456555a$0$692$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> >> Jim Webster wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It will be interesting to see how Archers books are regarded in
> >>> fifty years time. They lacked critical aclaim, firstly because they
> >>> sold really well (which hacks off those who consider themselves
> >>> writers whose stuff doesn't sell) and therefore has to be rubbish,
> >>> as the 'public' only buys rubbish Then they lacked critical acclaim
> >>> because people didn't like the writer.
> >>> I suspect he is an excellent story teller, which is unfashionable
> >>
> >> I doubt they will become classics, they will probably sink along
> >> with most of the other "popular" fiction as new writers come along.
> >
> >
> > Dickens has survived ;-))
> > And he was frightfully popular at the time, Trollop (sic) not as
> > well, it will be interesting to watch
>
> Indeed, some popular fiction will stand the test of time and Archer might
be
> amongst that small bunch.
because so many people slag him off, I find myself quite hoping he does, a
sort of inverse snobbery ;-))
Tim Lamb
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
>>After watching magpies systematically raiding the hedgerows, I find
>>that
>>difficult to believe. There are far more magpies now than there were
>>fifty or more years ago, as any old lady who recites "one for sorrow,
>>two for joy" (as my mother used to) may know.
>
>Yes, indeed, there are more magpies now than formerly, although there
>is actually evidence that a peak has been passed and that some decline
>has set in in parts of the country in the last few years. If you go
>back to the time when not just magpies but every other real or imagined
>predator was ruthlessly persecuted, it is quite possible that this
>allowed an increase in small bird numbers to well above the levels
>before heavy persecution and that what we are seeing now is some
>further adjustment being made.
Right.
>But what it all comes down to in the end, is whether man is justified
>in interfering by killing what to some people is seen as a pest.
Umm..again. I suppose if all birds not nesting in holes and smaller
than a Magpie, disappeared, we wouldn't be discussing the question.
Alternatively, if Magpies had no impact on other species there would be
no reason to persecute an attractive and entertaining bird.
regards
>
>>>
>>>>> >Nonetheless, this is how doves control their population. Every so often
>>>>> >
>>>>> >half of them fly off for no particular reason. It's just doves doing
>>>>> >what doves do.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have never heard of this idea before and
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but remember doves are kept as pets. I think you are more
>>>>interested in wild birds. I believe it is quite a common experience for
>>>>dovekeepers. So much so that it becomes unremarkable. We had a pretty
>>>>large dove population, sustained on chicken feed, and plenty of places
>>>>to live, so that in the end if a load flew off I would not have even
>>>>noticed. But certainly, early on, we did notice a couple of migrations.
>>>>
>>>I had assumed you were discussing wild doves, as Stubbsy appeared to be
>>>doing.
>>
>>I think that is a personal colouring. I assumed he was talking of
>>garden
>>doves. He didn't actually give much clue, though he did say "our
>>doves".
>>
>Perhaps he will elucidate. When I talk about "our doves" they are the
>collared doves which breed in my garden.
>
>Fine, I just don't go along with anthropomorphism. The fact that we
>have different views on this doesn't bother me at all.
>
>>>>Indeed not. I was hoping you might confirm. Do Sparrowhawks, like
>>>>Harris Hawks, only need to eat once every few days?
>>>>
>>>They can certainly go for at least a day or two without feeding, but
>>>normally they will try and feed every day. They're a lot smaller than
>>>Harris Hawks and so less well able to starve. The average intake of a
>>>sparrowhawk is 2 or 3 small birds (sparrow-sized) per day, but if one
>>>takes a collared dove and stuffs itself, then it may well not need to
>>>feed the following day.
>>>
>>Although I don't know exactly where Stubbsy is, my impression is that
>>Sparrowhawks are not densely populated anywhere. Is it really so that
>>they are densely enough populated near him that they would make a great
>>
>>deal of impact on a population of doves.
>
>Perhaps he will tell us.
>
>>The experience of keepers that
>>
>>I have heard of has been for an occasional, foiled, attempt. We never
>>had that to my knowledge, though there were sparrowhawks in the area.
>>The doves are safe in the dovecote, and too quick outside of it. The
>>squabs are vulnerable, but usually not for long, and anyway, picking
>>off
>>squabs does not account for the loss of half the population.
>>
>Racing pigeon owners get very fussed about sparrowhawks, to the point
>of applying to, e.g., the Scottish Executive for licences to kill them.
>For that reason, the Central Science Laboratory was commissioned to
>carry out a study into the impact of birds of prey on racing pigeons.
>The impact was small, but it was difficult to take into account the
>value put on individual birds by their owners.
>
--
Tim Lamb
Old Codger
> "Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
> news:44566dfe$0$687$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Jim Webster wrote:
>>> "Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4456555a$0$692$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>> Jim Webster wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It will be interesting to see how Archers books are regarded in
>>>>> fifty years time. They lacked critical aclaim, firstly because
>>>>> they sold really well (which hacks off those who consider
>>>>> themselves writers whose stuff doesn't sell) and therefore has to
>>>>> be rubbish, as the 'public' only buys rubbish Then they lacked
>>>>> critical acclaim because people didn't like the writer.
>>>>> I suspect he is an excellent story teller, which is unfashionable
>>>>
>>>> I doubt they will become classics, they will probably sink along
>>>> with most of the other "popular" fiction as new writers come along.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dickens has survived ;-))
>>> And he was frightfully popular at the time, Trollop (sic) not as
>>> well, it will be interesting to watch
>>
>> Indeed, some popular fiction will stand the test of time and Archer
>> might be amongst that small bunch.
>
> because so many people slag him off, I find myself quite hoping he
> does, a sort of inverse snobbery ;-))
He used to be a politician with some power and certainly the ability to
charm. Like so many politicians he thought he could tough out revelations
of his indiscretions but his lies became too great. Now he is just an old
lag who happens to be an author. He may make some restitution in the
remainder of his life, or he may not, that should not seriously affect
folk's views of him as an author.
I don't class myself as a great judge of literature but I would think he is
amongst the better popular fiction authors. If I am right he should be in
with a chance of standing the test of time. If it happens, I suspect we
will both be past caring.
Jim Webster
> I don't class myself as a great judge of literature but I would think he
is
> amongst the better popular fiction authors. If I am right he should be in
> with a chance of standing the test of time. If it happens, I suspect we
> will both be past caring.
>
I agree with you, especially on the latter point ;-)))
Elaine Jones
<1146476363.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
posted on 1 May 2006 by Oh No
I would like to add:
>>Unfortunately, without actual figures the significance is difficult to
>>assess. I'm sure there was some immediate effect, but detailed studies
>>of magpies and small bird populations have failed to show a direct
>>long-term relationship.
>
> After watching magpies systematically raiding the hedgerows, I find
> that difficult to believe. There are far more magpies now than there
> were fifty or more years ago, as any old lady who recites "one for
> sorrow, two for joy" (as my mother used to) may know.
Up until he went into residential care three years ago Dad was gratly
put out by magpies raiding the henhouse for eggs (very rural area). He
made enquiries with the authorities and recieved advice re suitable
traps. However he reckoned that deterance or destruction was a more
viable propersition so we bought him a catapult, super deluxe Luger
(he'd been a crackshot in his younger days as a ploughboy, catapult
being silent).
I'm not saying how many magpies he disposed of, but even after his
vision detriorated and all he could see was a blur of black and white
he could still rattle the henhouse roof with a pebble.
> Although I don't know exactly where Stubbsy is,
I don't think he'll mind my saying that it is somewhere in
Caithness/Sutherland.
--
.ElaineJ. Briallen Gifts/Cards catalogue at http://www.briallen.co.uk
.Virtual. Corn Dollies, Cards, Coasters, Mousemats, Kids' Tshirts
StrongArm Jones' Pages at http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/ejones
.RISC PC. Corwen, North Wales; Steam Traction;CMMGB&Yukon Volunteers.
Oh No
Elaine Jones wrote:
> > After watching magpies systematically raiding the hedgerows, I find
> > that difficult to believe. There are far more magpies now than there
> > were fifty or more years ago, as any old lady who recites "one for
> > sorrow, two for joy" (as my mother used to) may know.
>
> Up until he went into residential care three years ago Dad was gratly
> put out by magpies raiding the henhouse for eggs (very rural area). He
> made enquiries with the authorities and recieved advice re suitable
> traps. However he reckoned that deterance or destruction was a more
> viable propersition so we bought him a catapult, super deluxe Luger
> (he'd been a crackshot in his younger days as a ploughboy, catapult
> being silent).
Larrson traps are very effective. Much more so than the air rifle with
which I first tried to control magpies. Once it has been used on them a
couple of times, Magpies seem to have a psychic ability to detect the
presence of a gun even before it is in view. It does act as a local
deterrant, but trapping works better.
>
> I'm not saying how many magpies he disposed of, but even after his
> vision detriorated and all he could see was a blur of black and white
> he could still rattle the henhouse roof with a pebble.
>
> > Although I don't know exactly where Stubbsy is,
>
> I don't think he'll mind my saying that it is somewhere in
> Caithness/Sutherland.
>
I knew that much. What I don't know is how many more sparrowhawks there
are up there than in other areas.
Oh No
Gerald L R Stubbs wrote:
> The doves are barn doves, white domestic type. They get up to about
> 50+ in numbers, then over a period of a few weeks the sparrowhawks
> reduce that by half or more, then go away again.
> Over the years I have been in the habit of killing quite beautiful
> animals, and have never been worried by it, the need of the table
> being greater than a need to indulge in anthropomorphism (sp?), and
> likewise the need to control predators.
Best plan seems to be to eat a few more of the doves to control their
numbers.
Oz
>then there population is limited in the summer when everthing is adult
>and healthy. Man has changed that, by supplying them with road kills
>and MacDonalds.
Yes.
Much less visible where red kites abound....
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Oz
>The doves are barn doves, white domestic type. They get up to about
>50+ in numbers, then over a period of a few weeks the sparrowhawks
>reduce that by half or more, then go away again.
we have had a number of these in our buildings for over 30 years.
Sometimes quite a bit of grey creeps in from x-breeding bit then they
all go white again (as they are at present.
We do not feed them.
Edward
Oz <O...@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote:
> Oh No <no...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes
> >then there population is limited in the summer when everthing is adult
> >and healthy. Man has changed that, by supplying them with road kills
> >and MacDonalds.
>
> Yes.
>
> Much less visible where red kites abound....
>
I saw one for the first time on this farm on Thursday 13th April.
Dad was a lifelong twitcher, plying his trade using glass plates for
photography in the 20's. He died last Summer and missed this red (kite)
letter day.
Jill
news:ed0be721...@freeuk.com...
> Dad was a lifelong twitcher, plying his trade using glass plates for
> photography in the 20's.
Do you by any chance know how to repair one that got sat on?
I hasten to add not in my charge but a question that came up the other night
The folks have secured the plate but do not know what to do for the best
All I had to suggest was to photograph the image so as to at least preserve
that but would be very grateful for any other hints if only to know who to
ask to fix it
Howard Neil
> "Edward" <edd...@invalid.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:ed0be721...@freeuk.com...
>
>> Dad was a lifelong twitcher, plying his trade using glass plates for
>> photography in the 20's.
>
> Do you by any chance know how to repair one that got sat on?
> I hasten to add not in my charge but a question that came up the other night
> The folks have secured the plate but do not know what to do for the best
> All I had to suggest was to photograph the image so as to at least preserve
> that but would be very grateful for any other hints if only to know who to
> ask to fix it
>
There is going to be no physical way to make a good repair. There are
adhesives for glass (harden by being exposed to light) and so the glass
could be brought together in a jigsaw. However, there is likely to be
peeling of the emulsion at the break. Also, the join would interfere
with the passage of light and exasperate the problem.
The best way of restoring that I can think of is the bring the pieces
together on a flat bed scanner and scan in the image. Use a photo
editing program (e.g. Photoshop) to remove the joins, pixel by pixel or
by using a clone tool. You can then print out the image (reversing it if
a negative). If you really want to return to a glass plate, I suggest
you search yellow pages and ring round the industrial photographers.
Anyone who has been a photographer for a few years will probably still
have a plate back for their monorail camera (this is why I stipulate an
*industrial* photographer). They will then be able to copy the photo you
have printed out (or even may be able to work with the image file). I
believe that photographic plates are still available although the range
will be a bit restricted these days.
--
Howard Neil