Talk:Feral parakeets in Great Britain

Not just in Southwest London

These are definitely not just in Kingston/South West London. I first saw them in Hampstead Heath 8 years ago, but have since seen them in Crouch End, and then in the Elthorne Park (right by my house). I was going to try to stalk around the park and get a good photo of one in the trees, but... no need! More recently on visit to Hyde park, we found a bush near the Peter Pan statue (here) which was absolutely infested with very tame green parakeets, enjoying being fed by tourists. See my photos here

I notice this RSBP site has a "distribution map" showing a very wide area of Southeast England

-- Harry Wood (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Wonky Numbers

RSPB apparently got their 2007 numbers from Chris Butler's 2003 paper, which stated that the SW London population had grown by 25% annually from 1996 to 2002, and by 30% from 2001 to 2002. Assuming that the 1983 estimate was correct, the annual population growth between 1983 to 1996 would be around 6%. Note the Isle of Thanet population in the same study increased by 15% from 2001 to 2002.

Extrapolating from Butler the estimate of 30,000 by 2007 could indeed have been achieved, assuming that: 1. the total UK population in 2002 included a few hundred birds outside London, 2. the population growth for this one population in a specific time period (2001 to 2002) would continue to hold, and 3. would also apply to all British populations. Also, the RSPB was apparently ignoring the London Bird Report 2006, which would indicate that the three largest roosts had only grown some 0.9% annually since 2002. For there to be 30,000 birds one year after, the population would need to increase by 500%, which is well beyond how many eggs an adult pair can physically lay in a year.

If the 2017 Guardian article citing a counted British population of 32,000 in 2012 can be trusted, that would indicate an increase of around 18% annually from 2002 to 2012 (actually less, because Butler only counts London populations).

Also looking at population increases in the Netherlands (approx. 14% between 2004 to 2010, and approximately 20% to 2001 according to Keijl), Belgium (approx. 18% between 1974 to 2009) and Japan (extinction of numerous populations since the 1980's), would indicate the 2001 to 2002 increase in the London population is an extreme outlier (or simply untrustworthy). Furthermore, these calculated population increase percentages are likely higher than in reality, because they presuppose that no additional escaped birds were added to the founder populations.

Lastly, these alarmist press releases and newspaper articles ignore ecological concepts such as carrying capacity (the population growth can be expected to decrease as food or nesting areas are used up) and ecological niches (these birds appear to strongly favour artificial urban settings, and can't be accused of impacting natural environments).

Bad science and alarmist screeching from the RSPB isn't helping serious biologists, policy makers, or taxpayers.

Considering that is species appears to have naturally spread northwards along the Nile into Egypt, the Middle East and Greece, and considering climate change, this bird (and others), like the turtle dove, rabbit, oak tree, walnut and hundreds of other species in the last few millennia, will probably expand its range across Europe eventually, with or without human help. Sure, European farmers may face new challenges, but to spend millions yearly to cull a bird which will probably belong here, give or take a few centuries, in order to maintain an artificial snapshot of the fauna from the Victorian era, is slightly nonsensical.

Leo86.83.56.115 (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Feral parakeets in Great Britain TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Kingston parakeets → Feral Parakeets in Great Britain – Usage of the specific term "Kingston parakeets" seems very limited. The British diaspora of ring-necked parakeets has evidently moved beyond the confines of West London, so the article deserves a more general title that would make sense to the average reader searching for parakeets living in GB. I'm open to suggestions for alternatives, but "Feral Parakeets in Great Britain" seems like a sensible choice. We can still retain the term "Kingston parakeets" within the article body. Cnbrb (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support or move to Feral Parakeets in England (since they seem to be confined to Southern England as yet and haven't spread to Scotland or Wales). The current title is too specific and does not seem to be that common. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Telegraph article referenced in the article mentions sightings in Edinburgh. Don't know how reliable this is, but once they start breeding up north, we'd have to rename the article once again! 13:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support (as proposed, not with "England"). The present title was perhaps once WP:PRECISE but is now false precision that doesn't match the facts. It also fails WP:RECOGNIZABLE, since only locals already familiar with the topic will be able to distinguish "Kingston parakeets" from a species or breed name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Indeed, bird articles tend to follow geographical lines rather than national/political boundaries, as bird populations are shaped by coastlines and climate rather than nationality. So my feeling is that a British (rather than English) scope makes more sense and is more consistent with nature.Cnbrb (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose For one thing, these birds are found all over the place, not just Kingston, SE, England, GB, &c. And for another, we would not capitalise the P in the title. As we're talking about a particular species, the page should be merged into Rose-ringed_parakeet#Feral_birds, which has similar content and explains more about their distribution across Europe. Andrew D. (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I take the point about European distribution. From what I have read, there are similar diasporas in Belgium/Netherlands and elsewhere, and these seem to be distinct, separate populations. There could be merit in an article about European diasporas of parakeets if there is enough interesting material, or as you suggest, merge the Kingston parakeets into the main Rose-ringed parakeet article. Personally, I think there's enough material to retain a separate article from a British perspective, but would prefer to change the title. Agree re. the capital 'P'. Cnbrb (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Feral parrot which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Naturalised, not feral.

The vast majority of the current population are the distant offspring of birds which escaped into the wild decades ago, so they are less feral (escaped) and more naturalised (established non-native species). The Wildlife Trusts refer to them as naturalised, mentioning their adaptions to the UK climate.

The opening sentence is somewhat clumsy, essentially repeating itself. 2A02:C7E:2059:B400:195B:27CE:4AC7:6CF (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)