While looking for something else I found this little article with some good information for attracting small birds to your garden and also detailing some redeeming features for noisy miners.
| Term and Conditions | Privacy Statement | Web Support by Gaia Resources Hosted by Serversaurus |  |
There are a number of very helpful ideas in this article, particularly about untidiness, keeping low branches & the sorts of bird baths which are suitable. These ideas are very good pointers for people who wish to see small native birds in their gardens. However, I would like to have seen an emphasis on the planting of indigenous vegetation. E.g., the idea of spreading millet & other seeds assumes that this food is suitable of small native birds. Perhaps it would have been more helpful to have suggested the planting or regeneration of indigenous grasses to meet the precise needs of small indigenous native birds, not to mention butterflies & other small native creatures.
Very true Woko - honestly I saw the bits I agreed with and missed the part about the millet and seed spreading
that, as you know, I would not want to promote! I just felt it was a good start for people who were not at all aware of how cutting low branches, having roaming cats (and chasing dogs), spraying insecticides etc would be having such a negative effect on small birds. Every time I see that advert for the patio insect sprayers I audibly cringe (if that is possible).
I was thinking that if these issues were rectified and they made their gardens more hospitable then their interest would lead them here for you to address the issues of indigenous vegetation where you know I would back you 2000%. I thought of you when reading the article especially the part about the promotion of insects due to plant and leaf litter - which is part of how I invisage the most successful regeneration projects help to promote wide diversity of species. The cycling of plant materials into more natural levels of soil nutrient content , the insects, arachnids and nematodes involved providing food for birds, amphibians, reptiles and helping fertilise plants which in turn provide food sources for other animals and insects and plants, right on up the food chain. A much more complete and efficient process than planting a few nectar producing plants among the exotics and putting a feeding tray close to the windows for viewing purposes.
Hmmm, I just thought it was a nice little starter article .... barring the provision of millet and seed.
Alison
~~~~~~
"the earth is not only for humans, but for all animals and living things."
I don't think scattering a bit of millet seed around is such a bad thing, but it depends on the quantity. Too much would attract vermin. I think the author intends that the birds would find the seeds in the leaf litter, and some would germinate to provide more food for birds. I see seed-eating birds like finches mostly on weeds. Weeds are adapted to set seed quickly and copiously, so they provide lots of food for birds.
For insect eating birds the best strategy is to encourage more growth on your plants. Insects love fresh green growth, it's common to see the new growth on trees eaten right back, while the old leaves are left alone, very annoying if you are trying to grow young trees and shrubs but great for the birds. Improving the soil and watering through the dry times (like we are now having) is a great help to the local birds.
There's no doubt that weeds provide seeds for some birds. And larger weeds, such as Cotoneaster, provide fruit for birds. However, the danger with these introduced plants is that many of them have invaded or are likely to invade our natural bushland thereby changing its nature, reducing its quality & degrading its habitat value. So the spreading of millet & other introduced seeds has had & can have a huge impact on our bushland & its inhabitants.
The argument that I see for retention of weeds is where they are providing food for birds, particularly threatened species, in the absence of native grasses & other native plants. Until the native plants can be established the wholesale removal of weeds can deprive native birds of habitat & further threaten their existence. E.g., blackberries provide wonderful habitat for superb fairy-wrens & red-browed firetails. Gradually removing the blackberries while simultaneously establishing natural habitat where the blackberries have been removed is helpful for both birds & vegetation. (But not for blackberry jam).
Improving the soil & watering through dry times sounds too much like hard work & wasteful of resources to me, especially in an environment where plants that attract small birds are generally adapted to low nutrients & drought. As you say, Greg, new growth will attract leaf-eating critters but that comes with rain.
Alison
~~~~~~
"the earth is not only for humans, but for all animals and living things."
With the current heatwave there was some footage on ABC news of birds sheltering in a western Queensland garden. The sprinklers and shade gave the birds respite from the heat. We live in a disturbed environment, I think anything that helps the birds survive is good.
I spend a lot of time killing weeds, but I would rather do positive things like plant, water and fertilise.
I don't agree that "anything that helps birds survive" is a good thing. The current "disturbed environment" can only support a certain population of any creature and helping only one type only is mostly to the detriment of another. Those that can adjust throught their own means, including taking advantage of human behaviour, will be the ones to survive in numbers to ensure viability. Those animals that reap the benefits of your intervention become stronger and in effect over populate your land meaning the loss and sometimes death of other more shy and non-consumers of what you provide who are then unable to compete. Likewise when you are not there to replenish the larder (holidays, sale of property, plant loss, water restrictions etc) many of those that have bred up their population to reap that bounty you provide will also perish. Your property is home to more creatures than you see and their lives are interwoven and unnatural intervention interferes with that relationship.
Alison
~~~~~~
"the earth is not only for humans, but for all animals and living things."
How can you say that intervention or no intervention is better? As you say, human intervention will favour some species over others. At present my orchard is full of crimson rosellas and silver eyes. But I grow fruit because I want to be more self sufficient, is that wrong? Or is it better to buy my fruit and cider from the shop, and have a native garden? There are no easy answers. I manage my garden to favour insect eaters, but my wife keeps cats which scare them away. If you are the selfish sort of person who just wants to encourage more birds, without having a birdseed table, it is better to encourage more growth with water and fertiliser, that way you get more birds. If you are afraid that anything you do will make things worse, just grow natives and have a dry garden. Though the birds will avoid your garden for your neighbours', you will be happy that you are growing native plants in a more natural environment.
Hi Alison & Greg. What you say, Alison, demonstrates to me how careful we have to be when we decide to intervene. I'm aware that we have to survive & often being self sufficient puts less stress on other parts of the environment to the benefit of all living things, I imagine. Greg, clearly, because we're here there are some compromises which are inevitable. However, I believe that in the same way we humans can increase our self sufficiency we can also enable wildlife to be self sufficient by replicating as far as possible their natural habitats. I have an orchard too & so far the birds get 99.9% of the fruit because I don't protect the trees from the birds. However, this year I plan to cover the trees with netting so that not only will there be more fruit for Ms Woko & me but also the birds will be forced to rely more on their natural environment. This may well be more healthy for the birds (perhaps there'll be less sugar in their diets) but also may mean more regeneration of indigenous plants because many of them depend on birds for their seed dispersal. Often we're unaware of the detrimental effects of our impact on the environment until a species has become extinct or has suffered in some way. E.g., we didn't know of the impact of DDT on the shells of peregrine falcons until the near-extinction of the species due to breeding failure caused scientists to take a good, hard look. So for me it's a matter of looking carefully at the environment & working out how both of us can survive optimally. As a general principle minimum disturbance appeals to me.
I don't understand why you get so defensive and personal whenever indigenous native gardens, regeneration and supplementary feeding is discussed. You are entitled to do what you want as it is still a relatively free country in that respect but I am still going to say that there are consequences each time a human chooses to feed wild animals via a non-natural method and I will discourage that each and everytime someone recommends it. In many ways you are very aware and do less harm than others and probably do well is certain respects but I am not concerned about judging your lifestyle or that your wife has cats that are allowed to interact with wildlife - that is your concern but if you influence others by indicating that what you are doing is the only way to live I am not going to let that pass without a comment.
I am involved in wildlife rescue because our wildlife (I definitely include birds in this category) are in trouble and almost all of that trouble is a direct consequence of human activity, in fact the act of rescuing the animal can also have dire consequences. The purpose is to return the animal in a healthy state to live in the wild with no need of human intervention as successful animals do not need humans - they lived on this continent well before we arrived and interfered with their water/food sources plus their travel paths and amazingly they are still able to do so. But their habitat is diminishing rapidly so the more people who are willing to put even a little of that habitat back into their gardens the better. There are people like Woko who are willing to make large portions of their property available for wildlife yet he gets continually scorned and ridiculed on this forum for doing so and for encouraging others to allocate even a small piece of their land for the same purpose. I also find this very hard to understand.
Alison
~~~~~~
"the earth is not only for humans, but for all animals and living things."
The reason I responded to this thread was because the author of the article mentioned was criticised for suggesting scattering some millet seed amongst the leaf litter of a native garden. Now, scattering a little seed is a very minor thing, likely most of the seed will be taken by mice, invertebrates and fungus, but no, the eco-warriors declare that this is too much intervention. In a recent similar thread I suggested manure to enrich the soil and encourage birds but once again no - too much intervention. Now it seems even watering is bad.
Now I have no trouble with people wanting to protect the natural environment, but I don't think this forum is the place for this sort of thing. People want positive advice on steps they can take to attract more native birds, especially small birds, but instead I see a torrent of negativity. The only thing that is encouraged is planting dense local native shrubs (presumably only if they are tolerant of drought and poor soil). I think there are lots of positive things people can do to attract more birds, starting with improving the soil. Scattering seed around is a good thing, in moderation, personally i prefer to allow plants to scatter their own seed around.
I think this zero intervention strategy is against the spirit of this forum, and just bad advice, and I don'tlike to see people discouraged from doing positive things to improve their gardens.
Hey gang
Just a reminder to please respect each other's opinions on the site. A healthy debate is a good thing, as long as it remains that way.
The urban environment is a really challenging one - it is one that we have modified enormously and, effectively - it is a new environment in itself (and a very heterogenous one - there are very different issues in the outer Western suburbs of Sydney than there are in Surrey Hills in the CBD). Working out levels of intervention is very very difficult - couple that with the millions of people who all more or less control what happens on their own patch and it is a heck of a messy situation!
Whats the answer? There isn't one answer. BIBY promotes a range of activities that people can do to encourage birds into their gardens - sure locally native is fantastic and if people can and want to do that, that is brilliant - but not everyone can access locally native plants or might like the look of them - and gardens that are a mix of different plant types can be just as successful. Similarly, some people take great pleasure from feeding birds - it is their connection with nature. I would much rather people didn't feed birds - but people always will. We advise people of the negative issues with feeding birds, suggest alternatives but then also give them options if they are feeding - how to do it a little better (and wean themselves off it).
I think we have to encourage flexibility, to be friendly and open up a dialogue - to show people that there are a range of options out there. One hard fast rule just puts people off and no one wins. BIBY's catch phrase is 'sharing spaces - connecting birds with people' I think it sums up my view - its all a balancing act. Of course each of you are entitled to your own opinions and I don't want you to not post them - but just remember everyone else is also entitled to theirs as well.
Not even sure that all this makes sense, I haven't had my coffee yet this morning!
I love the melting pot of ideas here!
Well, Holly, this selfish old eco-warrior (very humourous Greg
) is now withdrawing from commenting in this thread (no promises on any others) despite my belief that these discussions are very suitable for this forum but because once again all focus is back on the what some see as the negatives of native gardens and honestly I have better things to do than go around in circles about the same issues when a simple truce along the "agree to disagree" lines is not possible. I will refrain from the parting comment I have in mind as I do not want to further stir the pot (or another analogy I will also refrain from stating)!
Alison
~~~~~~
"the earth is not only for humans, but for all animals and living things."
These discussions are absolutely suitable Alison - and I definitely want you to contribute in further ones
Think it is time to close this one as it has gone off track. Remember everyone, respect other opinions - remember your manners as there is a person behind the computer screen. This forum is designed for people to share their knowledge and to help others.
If anyone does feel personally attacked in any thread, send me a message so I can investigate and take action if necessary.