STARLING UP FOR TRIAL

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 212, 4 June 1929, Page 18

STARLING UP FOR TRIAL

VIEWS OF EXPERTS DANGER TO OTHER BIRDS AND POULTRY Starlings, to whose great increase Mr. Walmeslev White recently drew attention in a letter published in ‘.‘The Times of London, have to-day few friends among scientists, ornithologists, and birddovers (states that journal). In gardens in the country and the suburbs, and even in large towns where there are open spaces with trees, great flocks of starlings congregate .to roost every night and fill the air with a vibrant chattering. In private gardens where birds are fed by householders in the cold weather the starting outnumbers all birds of other species and ravenously devours what is intended for more attractive and less grasping visitors. By its amusing antics and great powers ot imitation —the starling’s song is made up for the most part of notes filched from other birds —the starling had made itself justly popular until a few years ago, when this remarkable increase in numbers first became apparent. - It is not only, however, on account of its great numbers and destructive habits that the starling has drawn down condemnation upon itself. It has become suspect, and is rated by science as a definite danger, largely as a result of researches by Professor It. T. Leiper and Dr. E.'A. Lewis. In a paper which was published in the proceedings of,the Zoological Society in 1926 Professor . Leiper stated, with regard to the gape-worm, which causes Jieavy mortality every spring. in young ' chickens, while those which survive (having been infected) are dwarfed and of poor physique, that important light had been thrown on the matter by Dr.? Lewis, who, in the course of an examination of wild birds, found that no less than 35 per cent, of 482 starlings killed during the months November to February, 1925-26. were infected with gape-worm, and he has maintained that the migration of starlings plays a very important part in the spread of gapes. His figures were based on starlings shot around Aberystwyth. Near St. Albans, about Easter-time, 18 starlings were examined, of which four, that is 22 per cent., were infected. Professor Lieper further explains that scientific tests have shown that chickens are undoubtedly liable to infection from starlings; and States that there seems no doubt that the starling is probably, an important factor in the distribution of gapes, though not. the only bird that may be 'so classified.... Dr. Lewis himself, in a paper from which Professor Lieper quoted, published in the ■ “Journal of Helminthology” in 1925, on‘.“Starlings as Distributors of Gapes,’’ recalled that in 1837 Nathusius recorded “S. Trachealis” (the presence.of which in the windpipe is. the cause of gapes) from a starling in Germany. He traces the presence of the parasite in other wild birds, and especially in the starling. He states further that if starlings are invaded by “S. Trachealis” to a high percentage, then, bearing in mind the migrations of this bird, and the fact that gapes is not uncommon in Britain, and that the pheasantries. of France (now much reduced by the War) were hotbeds of gapes, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the starling is, and has been, an important factor in keeping up the ravages of gapes, and in distributing the disease to very wide areas. Further investigations which ' Dr, Lewis carried put confirmed these .opinions,, and he stated later in the same journal:— “It may be stated . . . that the adult starlings, turkeys, and pheasants infected with S. Trachealis act as a bridge between the j>eriod of possible infection of chickens from one year to another, and thus keep up a connected period for the propagation of S. Trachealis.” He also cited cases of a sudden outbreak of gapes among chickens kept in an area where no turkeys had been kept and of heavy’losses among pheasants on an estate which starlings had previously freV»ented in very large flocks.

Starling Pie. The farmer who is not a poultry farmer has no great quarrel with the starling, and generally regards it mildly as rather a nuisance; while from elsewhere comes the suggestion that if there could be cultivated a more general taste for starling pie, which is stated to be excellent eating, the problem of keeping down, the starling would at once be solved. The secretary of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds stated that no mention of starlings was made in the Statutory Schedule under the Wild Birds Protection Acts, and so these birds were only protected during “close time.” During the nesting season they were protected from all persons except owners and occupier of land and anyone authorised by them. They were not protected at all during the rest of the year, unless under a special order of a county council. In the absence of such an order owners and tenants might destroy them at any time of the year. The only counties in which the starling was protected by a special order were in London and in . the county boroughs of Bristol, Cardiff, Croydon, Hull, MiddlebroUgh, Newport, South Shields, and Tynemouth. ' The society did not advocate any further protection to be given to starlings, nor any limitation of the present partial protection. At this time of the year large flocks of starlings visited many parts of England, many of them coming from foreign countries, to which they fiater retured. In 1922 there had been an outcry against the starling. 0n that occasion the society had issued a questionnaire to ornithologists and prac-. tical agriculturists. The replies received indicated that the general feeling was in favour of the continuance of the partial protection now in force, as this permitted farmers and other landowners nnd occupiers to destroy the birds when they thought fit. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries last dealt with the matter of starlings in 1920, when 'they issued a leaflet in which it was ' stated that starlings had increased very markedly of late years, and that this was partly due to the protection they enjoyed,.and partly to their power of rapidly moving from place to place according to the abundance or scarcity of food. They wpre strong and bold, and were not driven away from their nesting places, by other birds.

The leaflet stated that the starling exhibits both grain-eating and fruit-eating propensities, and that its habit of collecting in enormous flocks is one that presents a great element of danger, for these assemblies may, in a remarkably short space of time, completely ruin a crop. The leaflet stated : “There can no longer be any doubt as to the economic position which this species occupies. Originally a beneficial in-, sect-eating bird, it has increased in numbers to such.an extent that it has been forced to change its feeding habits. This is undoubtedly a case which calls for carefully considered repressive measures. Farmers and fruitgrowers have long been alive to the serious nature of the depredations inflicted by this bird, and have repeatedly called for some action. If it were considerably reduced in numbers this species would economically prove a most useful and valuable bird, whereas at present it must be classed as an injurious one.” Unwise Protection. Mr. E. C< Stuart-Baker, secretary of the British Ornithological Union, said that he agreed entirely with, the criticisms of the starling made by Mr. White. The starling was becoming an actual pest, and was undoubtedly doing a great deal to destroy the chances of life of other and rarer birds. The woodpecker especially was a great sufferer. The starling usurped its nesting places, and that bird found a great difficulty in rearing its young. There were also many other instances where the starling was equally objectionable. As to the good it did, in rhe past, when the starling was less numerous, it was one of our best defences against the wireworm, and in that respect was of the utmost use; but to-day the species had increased so enormously that it had resorted to other kinds of

food, and though for the most part its food was of no value to human beings, it was of great value to other birds. What Mr. White said about there being only a certain amount of room in Nature for birds of all kinds was absolutely true; but in these circumstances, if the starling were in such a majority there could not be much room for the rarer birds.