|
|
|
Red Kite Report 1952
HONORARY WARDEN’S REPORT
It is satisfactory to be able to preface this 1952
season report by stating that one of the four districts referred to in
paragraph 12 of the 1951 report did in fact contain a pair that bred
successfully and brought two young birds to flying stage.
2. The 1952 season has been disappointing as regards definite results.
Sickness and other causes prevented us from keeping sufficiently closely
in touch with certain of the known nesting pairs and some of them have
not even been found this year.
3. A bird took up quarters in a new district in October, 1951, and has
remained thereabouts ever since. Unverified reports of a second bird
have been received but no nest has been seen.
4. The only other incident worthy of record during the winter occurred
in connection with the nest referred to as Number 8 in the 1951 report.
These birds, old and young, left the vicinity of the nest very soon
after the young were able to fly and were not seen thereabouts again
until 27th December, when the old birds, without the young, returned to
the nest tree in the late afternoon. After making a careful examination
they roosted in the tree and continued to do so until, in due course,
they re-occupied the old nest. Their 1951 young birds were not seen.
This should be compared with what we believe to be the normal behaviour
(for example numbers 3 and 6 of 1951), where old and young remain
together more or less in the nesting district until mid-winter when the
young leave.
5. A number of egg collectors were active in March after Ravens. There
is always the likelihood that such are looking for Ravens with one eye
and using the other to spy for Kites.
6. Nest number 1 this year is the re-occupation of a site not used for a
great many years. The pair were first seen in the district in December
and stayed in the vicinity for the remainder of the winter. The
foundation of their nest was an old Carrion Crow’s nest in a wood facing
N.E. at an altitude of about 900 feet: in an oak about 16 feet out on a
branch and about 20 feet from the ground. The birds were very wild and
shy. Special precautions were taken against any form of disturbance.
Certain people in the district known to be egg
collectors’ agents were warned. It was a late nest and the bird was
still sitting on 27th May. On 29th May and the two following days the
behaviour of the birds showed that a disaster of some sort had occurred.
The tree was climbed and broken eggshells were found in the nest.
Careful search of the ground below showed nothing. The cause of the
trouble is not known. The birds have not left the district.
Nest number 2 is the same as number 8 of 1951. The birds behaved in what
may be called a normal manner and two young successfully came to flying
stage.
Nest number 3 is the same as number 2 of 1951. Behaviour was normal.
Only one bird is known to have reached flying stage. No evidence
whatever is available concerning the second. There was a Carrion Crow’s
nest about 25 yards from the Kite tree. We therefore waited till the
crows had hatched and then destroyed their nest.
Nest number 4 is the same as number 3 of 1951 and was again successful, but only one young bird flew.
Nest number 5 is the same as number 1 of 1951 and was again successful,
but only one young
bird flew.
Nest number 6 was at a site used at infrequent
intervals in the past: in an oak wood at a height of about 650 feet
facing S.E. We are inclined to think that this is the pair we referred
to as number 7 in the 1951 report. This nest was robbed. Putting the
stories together we now believe that two egg-stealers were after it. The
fanner warded off one but the nest, in a singularly vulnerable position,
was raided by the other party unknown to the farmer until too late.
Nest number 7 is, we think, the same as number 5 of
1950. A little higher up in the same wood and in a spruce, but it was
not possible to see into the nest. We are not certain of the results but
consider it should be classed as probably successful as regards one
young
bird.
Nest number 8 is the same pair as number 6 of 1951. This year
unfortunately no nest has been found nor have any young birds been seen.
Long continued sickness in the farmer’s family prevented any observation
of the wood which is at a considerable distance from the
farmhouse. He did see the birds at the old nest early in the nesting
season, but when we saw the nest early in July it showed no signs of
having been occupied for several weeks and the old cock roosting branch
looked equally derelict; nor could any pellets be found though
usually they are abundant at this site. The birds however have remained
in the district.
Nest number 9 is the pair referred to in the opening paragraph of this report. The site has actually been used spasmodically over a number of years. The nest is about 20 feet up in a birch tree and is remarkable for the great number of dead young rooks or crows found adjacent to it. This season there were two eggs but only one young bird is known to have reached the flying stage.
Nest number 10 is probably, but not certainly, the same pair as number
10 of 1951. Eggs were laid and incubated for some weeks, then the nest
was abandoned. The cause of the desertion is not known nor do we know
whether the eggs hatched or not. There is no evidence that any harm
befell the parent birds.
7. In addition to these ten pairs known to have nested or •en in a known
area throughout the material part of the nesting season, a pair were
seen at Site 4/1950 at a date in the season which niade it certain that
they could not be confused with any other known pair. They were seen in
the nesting tree but did not stay long. Since the end of the season a
rather uncertain report has been received of an obvious young bird of
this season having been seen in this piece of woodland in July.
8. One of this year’s nests is, we believe, an actual increase in the
known breeding population and we have no reason to suppose that any harm
has come to such of last year’s breeding birds as have not been found
this year.
9. We have information, varying from possible or probable to certainty,
concerning birds in eight other districts, but in none of them have we
information as to nests. We hope, some day, to come to terms with them
all. A new colleague joined us this year and put in many
days on foot in an area regarded as one of possibility. His days of
foot-slogging gave excellent and positive results.
10. Our good friends in the Devon Birdwatching Society continue to help
us and have sent us a number of reports of birds seen in the southwest
of England. One is of particular interest: a pair, seen at the beginning
of April, at a point in Cornwall where Montagu’s
Harriers and other hawks have actually been seen arriving from a Channel
crossing. There is, we are advised, just an element of doubt in this
case (and in one report from Devon) as to whether the birds seen
may not have been Black Kites.
11. One report received had perhaps best be given in the words of our
colleague who sent it in “X, whose farm is the one in the district
chiefly frequented by the Kite, had a strange tale. He is a cautious man
who has watched the Kite about almost daily since it first visited his
land last October, and had only seen a single bird until Wednesday, 9th
April. On that day in the afternoon, he swears, there were five or six
Kites flying low over the field behind his house. He could not give the
exact figure because—’they were all mixed up and moving and chasing
crows.’ He crept up behind a hedge to within 50 yards of them. They were
whistling, he said, and it was the first time he had heard a Kite
cry—always before the solitary bird had been silent. This sounds
incredible, but he is, as I say, a very cautious man who does not
identify without reason. He is also of sober habits.”
12. This story was related, for comment, to an elderly farmer’ living
several miles away and with many years of Kite experience. He said he
had seen three Kites behave in a similar manner and also said that as
soon as the first egg has been laid Kites become aggressive and will
chase crows. In some old records that have been searched during this
past year a reference has been found to five Kites being seen together
early in the nesting season.
Taking this 1952 story at its face value, the question arises, where did
the five birds come from? Only one pair was believed to exist within
eight miles.
13. From the same farmer, who until October, 1951, had never seen a Kite
on his land, came also the following :— “He said he wished the Kite
would come to his land every Spring. He had watched it chasing off crows
and he said this was the first year he could remember when he had lost
no lambs to the crows. All the credit for this he gave to the Kite for
chasing the crows away.” It should be added that no Kites’ nest was
found on this farm or in its vicinity.
14. We received one complaint of a Kite taking young chicks. The
complaint was accompanied by a demand for money compensation. This we
refused as we were far from satisfied with the evidence. We offered to
provide fencing wire to protect the chicken run. This offer was refused.
The complainant withdrew and we heard no more of the matter.
15. We have no comments to make concerning the weather during the
nesting season.
16. Blackheaded Gulls (Larus ridibundus) have been found in quantity
among the debris at a Kite’s nest this year. This appears to be the
first record of this item occurring in the Kite’s diet. The site was
about five miles from a Gullery and a Gulls’ line of flight passed not
far from the nest. There is no evidence as to how the gulls were
obtained nor is there for the frequently found relics of rooks. One must
not exclude the possibility that the Kite may be able to take its prey
on the wing. Any first hand information on the point will be most
welcome.
17. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries stated in the House of
Commons on 31st January, 1952, that he had decided not to make the
Compulsory Purchase Order in respect of the Upper Towy Afforestation
Scheme. We gratefully record the withdrawal of the threat of large-scale
disturbance of the Kite breeding ground. The Proposals submitted to the
Nature Conservancy for a Scientific Area under Section 23 of The
National Parks Act have been amended by extending the Northern and
Eastward boundaries.
18. We are frequently asked to make estithates and give figures for Kite
population. It is not possible to do anything of the sort with the least
pretension to accuracy, but for what it may be worth, a table has been
compiled and is included in this report as Appendix II. There is, we
believe, no justification for assuming that the apparent considerable
increase in the most recent years reflects a considerable actual
increase, or that it is due to the work of the Kite Committee. The more
probable explanation is that the field workers of the
Committee have learned of the whereabouts of pairs that have probably
been breeding unknown to us for several years. The Handbook of British
Birds (vol. III, page 86), refers to a nest in Devon in 1913 and one in
Cornwall in 1920. We have no particulars of these nests and if anyone
can supply us with the information we shall be greatly obliged.
H. R. H. VAUGHAN, Honorary Kite Warden.7
KITE REPORT, 1952 - KITE NESTING POPULATION
The figures given in this Appendix have been obtained from a number of
sources, mostly manuscript. Some use has also been made of a table
compiled a few years ago by Mr. James Fisher. The various figures have
frequently been found to be in conflict and I have had to
select those which seemed to me to be the more likely to be
correct. I
have erred throughout on the low rather than on the high side. To enable
subscribers to get perhaps a clearer picture of the Kite population
through this half century I have included below a number of
notes and comments taken from the same sources.
I am quite satisfied that the figure hitherto generally accepted, of two
pairs and one odd bird for 1905 is far from correct and I consider that
a truer estimate is that given by Dr. Salter i 1903. Equally of course I
am convinced that Jourdain’s statement that “every pair
is regularly robbed twice a year” is rubbish. But the interesting point
in that statement is the indication that second clutches were a regular
feature of the breeding biology of the species. It is strange that we
have not come across any evidence of this today.
These records show several cases of three eggs. I knew of one of the 1912 instances before I had seen any of these figures because I happen to know the man who was employed as a watcher. He told me that three hatched (and flew) and that while the young were in the nest important people were brought from London to see them as it was considered so extraordinary. The sources from which the figures have been taken also, in most years, yielded the names of the nest sites : between forty and fifty of them. Almost all of them have been identified.
Some are still in use but in several the woodlands have been felled and
they can no longer harbour a Kite.
Writing in the Transactions of the Cardiff Naturalists’ Society in. 1928
(vol. LXI, page 83), Dr. Salter stated that in 1920 it was believed that
at least twelve pairs of adult Kites existed. He also wrote that that
year one Aberystwyth taxidermist received four Kites.
Another source refers to 1920 as “a year of disaster.” But looking at
the figures which I have been able to provide in this appendix, there is
no sign of the existence of 12 pairs in 1919 or 1920, nor any very great
indication of disaster in 1920. None the less, I am
inclined to believe Dr. Salter rather than the figures in the appendix.
The study of such records as are available has not been completed and I
hope that more research may be carried out during the coming winter.
From 1931 to 1948 the sources are very
few and meagre and I would ask anyone who has, or knows of, any letters
or diaries containing references to Kites, particularly during that
period of eighteen years, to be good enough to communicate with me or
the Secretary of the West Wales Field Society.
Notes and Comments Concerning the Kite Population Figures
1901. (Writing in 1909.) To our certain knowledge two young birds were
shot in the Wye Valley about eight years ago and probably the old birds
also.
1903. It is difficult to speak with certainty as to the exact number
which remain, but there are certainly three and probably five or six
pairs—eight would be the outside limit. Its numbers do not appear to
have decreased much during the past ten years. It is however most
exceptional for any of these pairs to bring off young owing to the greed
of egg collectors. Nothing remains but to employ watchers. This plan
will be tried during the coming breeding season tentatively in one or
two cases (Salter). Every pair is regularly robbed twice a year
(Jour- dam).
1904. Reduced to a miserable remnant of three or four pairs. 1905. In
1905 only two pairs of old birds and possibly one odd male remained. In
the spring of 1905 there were three pairs and one or two odd birds.
Two pairs succeeded this year for the first time in ten years it is
believed. Pair seen over Dovey Estuary.
1907. A second pair in quite a different locality with two young. 1909.
Thus there are 15 birds and may well have been more. A seventh pair
observed in another part of Wales. 1910. Birds remarkably fertile.
Population now about 20. A pair seen nearly 30 miles away. We hope other
pairs equally fortunate. Total number at the present time has increased
to about 15.
1912. A pair in a new locality. It is remarkable that none laid a second
clutch though frequently seen carrying nesting materials. (Yet another
source gives certainly one and possibly two second clutches.)
1913. There has sometimes been a nest near (mentioning a locality for
the first time) but
not this year.
1918 A steady but until recently a very slow increase.
1919. I am fully persuaded that several pairs of Kites eluded our
vigilance this season and hatched out and reared their young unseen and
undisturbed.
1920. A year of disaster.
1923. Mentioning two sites for the first time adds, in each case, “has
also been successful here for some years.”
1924. Population estimated at 14. “Kites in all other usual haunts.”
1927, 1928. A claim has been made that in these two years large numbers
of Kites’ eggs were imported from Spain and placed in Buzzards’ nests.
1929. A note is made that “last year” five flew whereas from other
sources it seems that
only three flew.
1930. I think there are as many Kites as there were but they have spread
over more country. Three new sites are mentioned of which two have been
used, unrecorded, before.
1932. Five nests have been “crowed” since 1920. I am sorry to tell you
of the last three disastrous years: we believe stock not reduced but
only one young got off each year. I cannot make out what has become of
all the young Kites reared during the last 25 years. We have not heard
of any killed nor of any new sites. Watching is much more difficult now,
good roads everywhere, good bridges over the rivers and brooks. Young
ornithologists go from Oxford and Cambridge in the day and see the
Kites.
1937. A nest protected by watchers is reported as crowed, but other
evidence is known today (1952) suggesting malpractice by the watcher;
nor is this the only case in which this may have occurred.
1938. “One of last year’s young still about.” (This statement, if true,
is remarkable, for it indicates quite abnormal behaviour by a young
bird.) Population 15. (But actually the figures, including known single
birds, add up to 20 and
there is the added remark: “Further birds seen elsewhere.”)
Study of the information now available provides convincing evidence that
many of the sites claimed as “new” at various dates (even today) were in
fact already known to, and from time to time robbed by, egg collectors,
one of whom has very courteously furnished me with some names of sites
known to him many years ago and which are not mentioned in any of the
Kite Protection sources. It was surprising to learn, on the other hand,
that this collector did not know of a pair which nested for fifteen
years or more in a district very close to the scene of some of his
raids: perhaps the protection there, conducted by an independent
gentleman, was too efficient for the collector’s local guide to face.
H. R. H. VAUGHAN.
Nantymwyn,
Rhandirmwyn,
Carmarthenshire.