Plan to cull pest birds

The A.C.T. government have been "looking into it" for the last 9 years, so i don't hold to much hope here.

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/parks-recreation/plants_and_animals/invasive_species/vertebrate_pest_management/pest_animals/animals/indianmynabirds 

Maybe the ACT government isn't doing so much, but judging by that link you provided Shorty, the Myna Action Group in Canberra is making good progress. The group's bulletins are interesting, as is the information under "Happenings Elsewhere", such as in Cairns where 16,000 birds have been despatched. I have to admire the people in that Canberra group.

Not surprised its controversial. I understood, mainly from anecdotes on this forum, that proliferations of noisy miners are due to habitat destruction ie removal of understorey plants. It makes sense to me, because if the miners don't get a clear line of sight on "trespassers" from a distance, their defendable territory is reduced and scattered. 

How fascinating that humans should severely alter habitat & then consider culling noisy miners. Talk about blaming the victim! Have these potential cullers considered trying to restore habitat to its original state?

Of course, it's not quite as simple as that due to the threat posed by the noisy miners to small bird populations while habitat is being restored. Nevertheless, it seems to me the idea of culling noisy miners while not restoring habitat is an example of extreme short sightedness.

This is the problem. 

http://www.worldometers.info/ 

Just to clarify, I believe it was in relation to an urban environment, though I'm not 100% certain.
As much as I would love to see it, the revegetation of urban and suburban areas is simply not going to restore vegetation of the type and thickness that is needed to reduce it's suitability for Noisy Miners - I think it's just a case where what suits humans suits Noisy Miners (and Currawongs, Magpies, Butcherbirds, Ibis, Sparrows, Pigeons etc).

That said, the prospect of culling native birds does not sit very comfortably, especially if there is no other action to change the conditions that lead to their increase originally.

I'm not so sure, Timmo. There are a number of books about designing bush gardens. E.g., Desigining Australian Bush Gardens by Betty Malone & Jean Walker. If lots of neighbours brought back the bush in their gardens then I'm confident that there would be no need to cull noisy miners because the habitat would be there to advantage smaller native birds.

As well, councils could play a big role by restoring bush in many of their reserves, along creek lines etc. Schools could plant bush as part of their environmental education programmes. There are plenty of opportunities to provide conditions which would take away the advantage of noisy miners.

Given the human-caused extinctions & depletions of native birds & other animals I would have thought that trying to eliminate common mynas would be a walk in the national park if we put our minds to it. After all, we've had plenty of practice at that sort of thing.

I'm wondering what the alternative is, Greg. I'm also wondering if you're being rather defeatist & bowing down in front of the developers & other Earth wreckers instead of lying down in front of their bulldozers (perhaps figuratively speaking.) Surely if we place a high value on the natural environment then we'll act to prevent & rectify environmental damage. Set backs will be many but why should they stop us from doing what we can?

The concept of environmental engineering is interesting. Surely the elimination of common mynas isn't engineering but rather restoration. Wouldn't the reverse be the case? That is, introduction of common mynas constitutes environmental engineering.

Perhaps it depends on your definition of "environmental engineering." One person's environmental engineering is another person's environmental protection or restoration.

 For me it would be a sad day indeed if we sat back & watched the natural environment go to...er...pot.  

I don't claim to have definitive answers, but I do think it is important to think things through. Do we know that trapping some birds is an effective way to solve the mynah problem? might it just disperse the birds to another locality? Is there a long term plan with sufficient funding? Too often the response to a problem is mindless violence, when there may be more positive things we could do to help. I mean environmental engineering as a derogatory term when very coarse tools are used to solve a complex problem - we think we are much more powerful and wise than we really are, so we imagine any action that seems likely to work, will be effective, even when we don't have evidence to justify those actions. Somehow it often seems to end up with killing animals. 

At least with the bilbys we knew the bilbys were being protected (right up until they died). I am not being defeatist, I think the govt should spend a lot more protecting the environment.

In the Bilby situation at least it proved that keeping cats away from Bilbies will allow them to survive, vindicating the removal of cats from the environment (whether than also means culling or enforcing more responsible ownership involving proper containment of all pet animals).

As far as culling Indian Mynahs, those birds will not be moving anywhere else they will be dead and the next area can be tackled. I consider that many pest animals are so widely dispersed that total elimination may not be possible however every bit helps to allow our native animals to recover and regain a presence in the niche currently occupied by pest animals. While I don't condone cruelty and wish that these steps were not necessary, the facts are that in not acting to remove pest species we will, in effect, be culling our native species by proxy.

I think the Myna Group have made quite an impact in Canberra. Quoting from the President's 2011/12 annual report -

the Canberra Ornithologists Group Garden Bird Survey indicates that mynas are the 14th most common bird in Canberra and their aggregate numbers are still declining.  While numbers overall are still declining overall, in the past three years the numbers seemed to have stabilized around the 13-14th most common bird:   this is most satisfying for those interested in reducing the impact of mynas on our native wildlife, remembering that they were the 3rd most common bird some 6 years ago before we started the program.

I know that my son living in Melbourne, hopes that they will start trapping there as mynas are about the only bird they see in their garden.

Greg, I agree with you that environmental restoration plans need to be thought through. But from what I'm reading there is little doubt that "trapping some birds" is having a positive impact in Canberra.

Birds will only disperse to another locality if there's an advantage to them in that locality. I doubt that common mynas will disperse because of the trapping & destroying of friends & family in a particular locality. This happens in the case of humans but is there any evidence to support this notion in relation to mynas or other animals which don't have the awareness of humans?

Woko, there was a case in NZ in the 90s when they tried to cull a small colony of crows (exotic). They only succeeded in dispersing the crows over a much larger area. Birds are very intelligent, I think they are capable of making decisions based on the activities of humans, though I don't know if that would happen in the case of mynahs. My main concern would be what happens when the culling inevitably stops. In Canberra they like to kill things, they cull a lot of roos, mainly because they cause damage to cars. Is the number of other birds rising as the number of mynahs falls? Currawongs are the main predators of small birds in cities from my observations, maybe they should be culled.

On my property there are plenty of ferals (not mynahs). I don't worry about them, it is more important to plant trees and shrubs and get things growing well. I have lots of native wildlife, more than plenty of neighbours who put out the 1080. As is often said, humans are the worst ferals, it is hypocritical to blame the animals we brought with us for our mistakes.

They do cull hundreds of kangaroos in the ACT every year. They cull millions of wallabies in Tasmania every year. You may not think these acts are related to culling mynahs but to me they very much are.

Very interesting comments, Greg. I think your last point about planting vegetation for wildlife is the critical one. However, there are some feral species, e.g., rabbits & common mynahs (does that come with or without an aitch? I see it written both ways, often by myself), that seem to be able to adapt so brilliantly to Australian conditions that culling needs to be an integral part of any wildlife restoration plan.

Araminta, I believe you've hit the nail right on the head when you say it's not about blaming the animals for our mistakes but more about correcting our mistakes. Once again it comes back to what we give the highest value. Do we value most highly biodiversity or do we place the highest value on the survival of feral species? In the long run I believe we're making a choice between our own species' survival (which depends so much on biodiversity) or the survival of ferals.

It's not as though Australia is the last refuge of creatures like the rabbit or common mynah. But often, ferals in Australia are causing the actual extinction of native species. 

Getting "things growing well" and giving rabbits free rein seem counter to me. I hope we never have to rely on foxes to keep rabbit numbers down. Hello dust bowl.

"In Canberra they like to kill things"

What an offensive statement I live in Canberra and i don't like to kill things.

Or did you mean that the local government and the Victorian shooters contracted like to kill things?

Perhaps you should have also stated that millions of kangaroos are killed by commercial shooters in QLD,NSW,SA and WA.

I guess that would mean that they like to kill things in Brisbane, Sydney,Adelaide and Perth?

So Greg, you are saying that you a offended with a cull in Canberra (hundreds of roos) but not by a cull in other states because people make money from it (millions of roos)? How is it different?

The people of Canberra did not did not ask the Government to kill the roos because cars and gardens were being damaged, Government depts. and the RSPCA made this decision and for other reasons.

A lot of people protested the roo cull everytime there has been one. They even succeded in stopping one through the courts.

I would like to suggest you do your homework before you spread lies and innuendo to support YOUR views.

It seems there are always people who are happy to see wildlife killed, and people who profit by it. That makes it a very easy decision, when seeking long term solutions seems intractable. There was once a bounty on the thylacine and the wedge-tail eagle. There were enormous flocks of passenger pigeons in N America. Decisions made at the time seem crazy now, but they were deemed sensible when they were made.

Greg, I'm often unclear about the point you're trying to make. I think Armanita put it concisely in post #37. What do you think of what she wrote in that post? I'm also interested in your thoughts on qyn's post #43. To me, these two posts put the issues pretty clearly.

The streaming is no longer active (it first aired March 2008)

My point is that to make assetions about the benefits of killing animals is unfounded and unscientific when those benefits are unproven. You say the impact of these feral animals is bad, but that is not the same as saying that there will be a (long term) benefit from killing these animals, when everyone admits there is no hope of eradication. There is an important gap in the logic here, which results in much death and destruction which quite possibly will be futile. Will there be an improvement in the environment from killing mynahs? Will there even be a long term decrease in the population? These are important questions which remain unanswered, and simply saying "ferals are bad, they need to be got rid of" is not an answer. 

Aside from this there is the moral question whether we have the right to make these decisions about innocent animals without fully investigating the alternatives. That is also an important question, but it is much easier and cheaper to ignore that question.