FW: House Sparrows.

My apologies to all … the email I sent a few moments ago should have used the word ROOST … not ROOT, although either word could be used in the context of the discussion!

 

Stephen Ambrose

Ryde NSW

 

From: Stephen Ambrose <stephen@ambecol.com.au&gt;
Sent: 7 February 2019 2:45 PM
To: ‘Carl Clifford’ <carlsclifford@gmail.com&gt;; ‘Michael Hunter’ <drmhunter@westnet.com.au&gt;
Cc: ‘<birding-aus@birding-aus.org&gt;’ <birding-aus@birding-aus.org&gt;
Subject: RE: [Birding-Aus] House Sparrows.

 

Hi All,

 

I agree with Carl’s observation about the lack of suitable nooks and crannies for sparrows to roost in modern buildings.  A significant proportion of my professional work involves advising architects, councils and town planners on how to design, locate or regulate for bird-friendly buildings (i.e. reducing window-bird strike rates, especially buildings that are in major bird flight paths, at the urban/important bird habitat interface, or within those habitats), but not too friendly that they attract bird pest species to root or nest on them.  Architects and councils in Australia are becoming much better at designing city buildings (especially large buildings) that reduce the likelihood of pest birds (e.g. pigeons, starlings, sparrows, gulls, ibises) using them for nesting, roosting, shelter or as vantage points.  Some of the larger councils are also beginning to regulate this requirement with respect to new building applications, on environmental health grounds.  Sometimes, it is a bit of a challenge to convince architects to tweak their building designs but, on the whole, most are quite receptive to the advice.  Contrast this to native bird-unfriendly designs (bird strike risks), which seem to be on the increase.

 

Stephen Ambrose

Ryde NSW

 

 

Leave a Reply