The dangers of bird feeding for wild birds

Ray, consider tourist fed dingos on Fraser Island.  They pull apart tents, eskies, challenge people for food, and will stalk a campsite looking for it.  This was before the big cull a few years back now.  Not the dogs fault at all, just learned bad behaviour to support increasing populations from over breading due to the endless food sources from humans. Be it lazy camp site maintance or feeding them to get that great shot for the collection, hundreds of dogs were killed.  Better education for humans and their habbits has gone a long way with keeping dog numbers balanced with the available natural food sources left on the island.  Not feeding them is the number one bit of advice, be it actively or passively.

I bought a house from an old lady who fed a clan of butcher birds daily.  Every morning at 7.30, every afternoon at 3, 4 birds would squark and demand food at the rear door.  I played along for a while until it became a pain in the backside. 7 days a week twice a day they were there.  So I stopped and the birds over a 2 week period progressively stopped comming.  The dead tree they sat on observing the neighbour hood still stands, and they would swoop down from it and follow me on the lawn mower getting spiders, moths, and so on.  But with the clearing of the bushland over the road caused the birds vanish.  The remaining neighbourhood habitate just no longer supported thier existance. This habiate is mostly exocits and grass.  

Animals and birds share hollows, probably always have. No one has ever cleaned them out, so see no reason why to clean a nest box.  Like wise if the hollow is a good breeding spot, the tree never moved, so whatever uses the hollow has to deal with whatever preditor has realised an opportunity.  Birds deal with cars, cats, dogs, and human interference every day along with its usual daily natural preditors. So finding an oppotunity to breed in a nest box 6 meters above a bike path in a park is most likely a much needed break in the swath of surburbia that keeps consuming its natural home.  

If you don't like that people try and plant indigenous plants, or build nest boxes in an effort to replace, or duplicate lost habitat than that's is OK.  I watch the world around me changing rapidely, and the scientist say its going pear shaped at an unprecendentated rate.  So I try and do my bit and follow nature, instead of the humans who made the problem.  It's about as simple as that.              

i think experiments showed Melbourne rainbow lorikeets, red wattlebirds and little wattebirds were sedentary in urban landscapes, meaning they have successfully adapted to gaining all their needs from exotic/non-indigenous native vegetation (and insects thereby supported). 

The article is very interesting indeed and it makes me wonder too. But like a lot of the millions of people who feed birds I still do so. Its so infrequent and irregular though. The food types I give them will vary for each species. Sometimes I'll throw out a near off chicken egg or two specifically for the Torresian Crows. The Crows just look at me weirdly but soon take the egg/s and begin to eat them if I am not watching. I think it is just wasteful to throw perfectly near good eggs into the bin when I know a Crow would happily gobble it up. Every single time, though, the birds eat the human food they then immediately begin eating their natural food again or immediately go to bed for the night. 

I see bird feeding as a suppliment to the birds' diets. A very small suppliment. They spend most of their time foraging for food and the few minutes they are observed eating human food is just that, a few minutes out of their entire day eating human food. 

Bird seed is the same. Birds prefer variety of foods in their diet. I've seen wild Suplhur-crested Cockatoos here (a flock of over 100) eat seed from almost every single tree species in town (Tenterfield, NSW), then minutes later a few will fly to a neighbour's bird feeder and eat some seed, then fly back to the trees and resume eating tree seeds. But then there are many a bird species that won't touch human food even if they are starving hungry. Human food probably doesn't appeal to many or most bird species, like the local Wood Ducks, Eastern Spinebill, Yellow-rumped Thornbills, Silvereyes, Yellow-faced Honeyeater?, White-faced Heron and Masked Lapwings just to name a few.

To me, human food scraps or bird seed is a waste of food but it is also, for the birds, a quick and easy snack inbetween their natural diet. Whatever we throw out into the garden as food waste, or put in bird feeders, birds will find and eat regardless of whether we want them to eat it or not. If its edible birds will eat it regardless. I believe if we humans just alter what we put out for birds to be more natural for them, and bury the rest in our garden for the worms and bugs to consume, I think the birds would be a lot happier and we'd feel better about feeding them too.

It would be far better for the birds to replace every single native plant ever chopped down and add lots of different plant species than to not feed birds. But who in their right mind would do such a thing? Even just growing a few additional native plants in the garden may help one or two species over the course of a few months, when in flower or seed, but the overall state of our country's plant life is devoid of such plant species diversity and its getting worse by each passing day. 

I think you're trying to convince the wrong people here, Woko. Sometimes you just remind me of Homer Simpson pulling out his own hair and having only 3 strands of hair left. We all know on this forum what should be done to correct things in nature, to restore the balance. I often think your "Voice" could be put to better use. Have you ever thought of running for office? Make a difference. I'd vote for you!

Ray, you may as well man up and say Woko and I.

I think however the "I" culture society has created will do whatever it feels like.  It's a bit like "becaue you deserve it", and there has never been a race on earth more deserving than humans.   Distruction of natural habitate is the same weather it's at Cape York, the Victorian High Country, or Ningaloo Reef.  To broard acre clear natural bush for sparcly populated cows, or to call brumbies part of the natural ecology because 150 years has passed and it's to expansive to catch and kill them, or build a resort on perhaps Australia's most beautiful reef shows a lust for money and an arogance only humans are cabable of achieving.

It does't matter weather it's in my part of the counrty or your part, it's the same.  Many just go along with things because it's easy. However to have a bit of passion and argue it's wrong to keep taking what was pretty much a virgin country to arguably a trashed one in just 227 years is not such a bad thing.  You have issues with National Parks, I will assume over access.  But they may well see you as one eyed if you want more. I don't like it either, but I have been convinced by Greg L and Woko it's not such a bad thing afer all.  Loosed up, you never may know what might happen.  

My biggest problem with 4wds is the contribution to carbon pollution and global warming of these heavy,thirsty vehicles. We have known for a long time that we need to reduce the fuel consumption of vehicles but the 4wd lobby has too much political power and politicians are afraid or unwilling to do anything about it. It shows how selfish and inconsiderate many Australians are that they choose their own convenience over the health of the whole planet.You can talk all you like about the impact of modern living but no-one needs to drive a big thirsty car around, there are plenty of other options. At some stage we will have to bite the bullet and mandate compulsory vehicle emission standards, there really is no avoiding it when many cities are faced with inundation in the next century, but 4wd owners will resist with their last breath.

Ray, I understand what you are saying and I agree with it. I'm 50 and I spent most of my life in South Australia and have seen a lot of the country there but not all of it. I've been to Victoria just twice. I've travelled through Queensland just once. I've never been to Sydney, Brisbane nor to any of the other states/territories I mentioned above. I've seen things that most city folk have never seen. I've experienced things in 3 states that a lot of people would never experience. I've lived in various accomodations, including caravans and a shack, and know a bit about the activity of jetskiers along the backwaters of the Murray River, and the mentality of bee keepers and wheat growers, and now loggers. I've had dealings with shire councils and a lot more. All I'm saying is each and every one of us has had their own experiences with things. I'll happily admit I don't understand why people are so destructive nor why they think like that. Have they given up? Have they lost respect for themselves and others? There just has to be answers to all of our questions. Without answers we can't find solutions.

My 3 pet peeves, moreso than logging, in this country are jetskiers; dirt bikers; and those f---wits who churn up our beaches in their f***ing cars. The damage these people do is so destructive to the environment, and displaces the wildlife to avoid the areas where these human activities happen. 

I think we need to look at the impact our "hobbies" have on the immediate environment and change it. Here is just one example, insignificent as it may seem:

When someone goes bushwalking and they decide to unlawfully uproot a plant and take it home; they should be made to replant 2 new seedlings of that same species in the immediate vicinity of the plant they removed, and then keep the seedlings watered until they have established or they are 3 years old. Seriously, people would stop taking home plants from the environment if they were forced to do that for the next 3 years as their punishment. 

I have been guilty of doing this in the past. I'm sure we all have. As humans are so destructive I think there should be laws set up in place to make us pay for our destructive activities that enhances the environment to create genetic diversity within it. Humans are just as good at creating as what we are at destroying. The problem is our government and our society has taken away our own sense of "being responsible for our own actions". Australia IS FOLLOWING THE PATH of the USA in that sense.

How would you change things to make it better? And why would you do that? And let's get this thread back on topic again, somehow.

Shirley, there are a lot of folk who would see much of this discussion to be off topic. However, I believe this reflects the fact that we still have a long way to go to improve the awareness that everything is connected. This is one of the principles of ecology.

One of the things that strikes me about our discussion is that there is a huge need to increase humans' sensitivity to & understanding of the natural environment & the critical role it plays in our very existence. So many people, consciously or unconsciously, believe they have the unalienable right to wreck the bush because it's there & because it makes them feel good. There are so many humans on our planet & so many of them believe the natural environment is a resource to be exploited to meet not just needs but wants. I suggest that the impact on the environment of meeting wants now far exceeds the impact of meeting needs partly because of our overpopulation but also because of the huge footprint made on the environment by our modern technologies.  

The middle ground & compromise argument holds no water, I suggest, especially in today's world. For too long those who would protect the natural environment have compromised to those who would "develop" & destroy it - otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. That latter attitude was so ably expressed by former prime minister Abbott who said in relation to Sydney "It's hard to think that back in 1778 it was nothing but bush." So for the former PM the bush was nothing. It's an attitude which expresses a strong sense of entitlement & one which is held, I suggest, by the majority of Australians who are inclined to go near the bush, that they can do, out of ignorance &/or carelessness, whatever they like in the bush because it's "nothing". I say "majority" because the fact that there is so much concern being expressed about the dreadful state of our environment one can hardly conclude other than that the majority are happy for it be thus. I suggest that even most folk who would express a love of the bush & a need to protect it would be happy to compromise it if it meant they could holiday in a flash tourist lodge in the middle of it.

Others of our fellow countrymen/women destroy our environment quite deliberately. The number of vehicles I've observed eroding sand dunes (in spite of KEEP OUT signs) & driving on beaches where Hooded Plovers are nesting is nothing short of hooliganism. I've even seen people walking their dogs through fenced off, signed areas where these birds are present. One wonders whether Australia's illiteracy problem is far greater than currently realised. So violence on the environment is also a big issue as is violence in the family, on the streets, on our TV sets. The violence industry is huge business so little wonder the environment suffers. It's all connected.

So herein lies the argument to exclude large parts of our natural environment from humans. Perhaps only feral animal & plant eradicators should be given the right to enter it for the purposes of restoring it. To open up our bushland to further exploitation is to speed up our journey to self destruction. If we're to protect our own species we need to reverse our current headlong rush & restore the natural environmnet rather than futher exploit it otherwise we'll do to ourselves what we're doing to other life forms on our planet.

Ray, I share your concern about the increased frequency & intensity of the wildfires afflicting the bush these days. Unfortunately, we've made this ash bed & now we have to lie in it as comfortably as we can. Part of the long term solution lies in ameliorating climate change but fortunately or unfortunately depending on one's values, we're a long way from being serious about this. But to increase our comfort on our bed of ash we need to reduce the number of humans in the bush because of their propensity for lighting fires regardless of conditions, reduce the biomass of feral, annual grasses which provide such a heavy fuel load for fires, stop access of vehicles because they transport feral weed seeds into the bush, & cease, even reverse, the building of housing estates next to the bush.

There are glimmers (this debate being one) that things need to be done. We've left it oh, so late to begin in any serious way but sooner or later we're likely to find ourselves restricted on many fronts as we suddenly become aware that we have to chose between life & death. But the natural course of events will ensure that the status quo is simply not an option.

Thanks Woko, I only got half way through before I became depressed.  I will read the rest later but the report would mirror current thinking accross the country.

I have to say Ray, if the government allowed it and it was assured, and I did not have a family I might just take them up on the idea of culling.  I often spend my days in a haze, not hard to see the Mt Barker situation every where one looks in SEQ.  Forget feeding the birds, time for a beer.   

I'm considering a nectar feeder for the honey eaters that frequent our Village...I have planted natives, grevilleas, etc, that will take over eventually as they grow bigger...

We have one bottle brush that they feed from at the moment but to get them used to coming into the garden more regularly I'd like to install a feeder...Would this be considered a bad thing...?

While always a controversial topic on this site in particular the threads bring out so much information to consider and absorb!

My take on bird feeding is that by planting as much locally native habitat as I can the birds can then decide for themselves if they want to live here. While I have kept a count of species I have identified on our five acres over the last five years and this year decided to keep count of the species by year rather than overall (I have counted 62 species this year since 1st Jan and photographed 48 of them). In recent months it has become a deep concern for me because while I have preserved the scribbly gums with their hollows providing breeding places for many species, I know they are not a favoured tree in our neighbourhood as I watch my neighbours cut them down on their properties and I am now faced with a need to sell and move, when the property is sold and new people take over it is doubtful that we will find people who treasure the birds and trees as we do and so the trees will soon be removed and I guess my point is that we can only control our own piece of the world while we are alive. Undoubtedly as suburbia presses closer to this block the need for land will rise and council zoning will change (we presently have environmental living) eventually the trees will be gone.

All we can each do is be as mindful as possible of the need for habitat, natural foods, and do our best.

thanks for all of the great points made in this thread.

I do my best to keep my opinions to myself as I've learnt better due to life's experiences and people's reactions to "my opinion". But I have to ask what is so wrong with creating a garden full of perhaps non-native plants when that is all that is available to you? It is a criminal offense to take seed from wild plants unless you have a permit for it. Growing indigenious plants in the garden is no easy feat. We humans have to remember we are not nature and we CANNOT give any type of seed the same conditions for growth as nature does. Plants HAVE TO ADAPT TO US HUMANS during their first few years of growing else they will die. All our tlc means nothing if nature steps in and kills the plants off with a black frost, snow or a heatwave. Plants can adapt if given the right human conditions in the garden.

Our gardens are not natural. We try to create the impossible and for the most part we are fighting against nature itself just to make plants grow. We humans are out of whack with nature.

But what does it really matter if a non-native or exotic is growing in the garden? Birds don't care about any of that as long as the plant has food available to them and it is edible and not poisonous to them. Removing any of these plants will be detrimental to the well being of all the birds and insects in the area. For example pulling out the 5 grevillea plants in my garden would mean the Eastern Spinebill and a few other birds would have no grevillea nectar to eat, which they depend upon up to 5 times a day to feed from. I don't see any other grevilleas around my neck of the woods and nectar producing plants are rare in town. And what about wattle trees. I've counted less than 8 wattle trees in a 2 square kilometre of my place. Maybe in the bush surrounding town there are more indigenious plants like wattles, banksias, etc but in town it is a different story.  Gone are the days of seeing those yellow paper daisies in town. They've been mowed down to extinction by the council itself. Plant extinction levels are extraordinarily high in Tenterfield, NSW. And so is logging in the surrounding areas by the Department of Forestry. 

In my corner of this f***ed up little world I battle mankind and nature alike. Birds have the same problem as I do. Birds seem to appreciate my garden, at least the honeyeaters do anyway. I don't feed any birds except Australian Magpies. The Magpies even appreciate my garden just for the extra bit of shade alone. I can do without the Magpies begging for food once or twice a day from me but they all appear healthy and none have any kind of disease, so that's something. They are just a handful to deal with.

The problem with creating a garden to suit birds is in the design. The thicker/denser the garden is the chances of more things being attracted to it, including snakes, spiders and cats. I don't see anything wrong with using the wrong sort of plants (e.g. a rose bush) to fullfill a job if it will grow in my area. A rose bush, in my eye, is a plant that gives off oxygen, just like any other plant. I need oxygen to survive, therefore I need plants. 

I used to consider bird seed and feeding birds by hand as artifically feeding them. But artifical feeding is just a term that has no logic in it's meaning. We don't feed birds plastic, do we? Something like Kraft cheese I consider artifical food. When it comes to bird food how do we really know what birds do not eat given half the chance as most birds are opportunistic feeders anyway, just like us humans. 

To prevent disease if giving human type foods to birds simply feed the birds elsewhere. Change the feeding area every month, so the area gets rested from bird activity. Same with water bowls/bird baths. Change the location every two weeks but also let the water bowls dry up so birds don't rely upon the water bowls for water, unless in a heatwave but still change the location once a week. Its common sense really.

The most common sense about water bowls/bird baths is the water has to be fresh water. Birds don't like tap water, it makes them sick. If you won't drink it don't expect birds to drink it. Birds are used to drinking rainwater. If there is no rainwater then filtered tap water left out in the sun for a few days is the next best thing. Then you can move the water into the shade. It doesn't end there though. It never ends.

You always have to keep up with the ever changing environment. The most any of us could ever do is grow a garden or trees in hope they will produce seed so birds can disperse the seed in the future, and the seed will germinate anywhere it can. After thinking about all of this I've concluded we Aussies are doing it wrong. Our gardens get destroyed because noone can appreciate the beauty of the gardens we make. I reckon if we make our gardens visually beautiful to us humans they won't be destroyed in the future. You could spend 10 years growing a bunch of gum trees with a whole heap of native flora amongst it for it to be bulldozed in half an hour. What madness is that? But if you create something beautiful in the way of a specific design with those same said plants, the chances are they will less likely to be bulldozed. 

Our biggest war as humans is not against nature or even ourselves. It is guaranteeing the survival of all plant species on this planet. We have to make plants visually appealling to our own species to guarantee plants' survival. If we have to manipulate their growth and turn them into something they are not then so be it. I've had my say.

Well put Woko. Thumbs up.

Hi Paul. 

I'm not sure that because artificial bird feeding is a popular activity in the northern hemisphere we should engage in it in Australia. 

One of the reasons I encourage natural habitat restoration as a preferred feeding strategy is that natural habitat provides precisely the food with which Australia's birds have evolved over millions of years therefore it precisely meets the birds' needs & avoids the risk of harm from artificial food. 

I note that you derive lots of pleasure from artificially feeding birds. This raises the question for me: For whom is the artificial feeding? I derive enormous pleasure from watching birds feed in their natural habitats so I consider this a win for both the birds & myself. 

Artificial feeding can also remove birds from their important ecological roles in spreading natural seed & encouraging the natural regeneration of trees, shrubs & other plants in the environment. This is particularly important when we have humans running amock knocking down natural bushland & forests & replacing them with tar & cement. We need more natural environment, I suggest, not less.

So artificial feeing is a complex issue & has much wider implications, I believe, than many folk appreciate. 

I share you're thinking, Rick.

Being aware of why we're doing what we're doing is really important. For example, I became aware that one of the reasons I decided to get into habitat restoration is that I was feeling useless in the work I was doing & needed to give my life meaning. Another motive was that I wanted to be respected by people in Birds SA whom I admired because I felt disrespected by my employer.

I vividly recall meeting some people who kept, legally or illegaly, many Australian birds in many cages. As I got to know them I came to see them as folk who needed to control everything around them - hence their need to keep all those birds in all those cages. To my mind it was a sad state of affairs & ever since then I've tried to be aware of why I'm doing what I'm doing, especially in the environment where human impact is so critical.

I could list a number of other motives for my becoming involved in ecological restoration. I also find it interesting to observe the motives for people in Australia to artificially feed birds. Among these, I believe, is the need to satisfy curiosity, an admirable trait indeed but one which can be satisfied in a variety of other ways without putting birds or the environment at risk. But another is the need to control the behaviour of birds who would otherwise be roaming free doing it naturally.